Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-1992 Minutes - Workshop 4, Open Space Advisory Committeer FINAL MINUTES • OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING PUBLIC WORKSHOP n WORKSHOP IV C• (2PUMV4, April ill 1992 (Saturday) FIA -6 F City/County Library (995 -Palm) The workshop was called to order at 9:30 am. This entire meeting was taped. For more information regarding agenda items please review the meeting tapes. Sign -in sheets from this meeting recorded the persons attending beyond the OSEAC members indicated below. Persons Facilitating the Meeting: Pete Dangermond (Dangermond and Associates) and Jan Di Leo (City of SLO, Long Range Planner). Committee Members Present: Stephen Barasch Dave Chipping John King Dana Lilley Tom Martin Jim McGregor Paul Ready Carla Sanders Dave Smith Eva Vigil R. Don Warden Dodie Williams Committee Members Absent: I. Changes to the Agenda & Public Comments No changes were proposed to the agenda. Gil Hoffman David Garth David Periera Bruce Seivertson Richard Zweifel A member of the public spoke regarding two sites he thought should be considered as open space. One site was located near Highland Drive/Highway 1 (owned by Cal Poly), the second was the vacant property behind Thrifty on Foothill Boulevard. II. Summary of March 28th Workshop Dangermond provided a status report of the March 28th workshop. Dangermond then talked about the team sessions for April 11th. He provided options to the OSEAC, including the OSEAC forming three independent discussion groups with the public forming their own group, or the OSEAC and the public forming groups. Paul Ready made a motion to have the OSEAC break into their own groups, the motion was seconded by Dodie Williams. After some discussion and clarification that the public could sit in on the OSEAC groups, the motion carried unanimously. - 1 - R Final OSEAC Minutes -- April 11, 1992 Di Leo then discussed handouts that had been provided to the OSEAC. She briefly explained data represented on the maps provided and explained the format for OSEAC motions (based on a discussion that had occurred at the March 28th workshop). Members of the OSEAC indicated that the proposed motion format was acceptable. There were various questions and comments regarding the draft maps. One question was regarding the agricultural map, a clarification was requested whether the prime soils indicated had water available. Di Leo responded she believed if they had the potential to receive water they were considered prime, but would provide verification at the next meeting. It was also noted that the marshes near Tank Farm Road, the geologic problems adjacent to Bishop Peak, and the serpentine endemics were not represented on the maps. III. OSEAC & Public - Team Workshops Dangermond indicated the location for the four discussion groups. Person were instructed to go to one of the four locations. Each group was instructed to discuss: (1) open space goals, (2) open space issues, (3) open space definition, and (4) open space sites and implementation. _The Committee and public then convened to the four corners of == the room. IV. OSEAC E Public - Presentations Presentation Group I [Eva Vigil, Carla Sanders, Jim McGregor, Richard Schmidt, David Grey] Carla Sanders presented the material for Group 1. She explained that the green printing represented the groups goals, the purple writing represented a subset of the goals (presented in the same order). She explained the group supported the donut concept, i.e., a greenbelt around the urban edge of the City. That open space was important to protect quality of life and habitat values. [See Group I's notes attached]. Presentation Group II - [Dave Smith, David Chipping, Paul Ready, R. Don Warden, Jim Wright, Phil Ashley, Tom Martin] David Smith presented for Group II. This group adopted the State definition of open space. Noted that there were two kinds of open space, i.e., space used and spaced not used by the public. On agricultural lands an open space designation should not include public access. .The group thought that the. following should be designated open space: creeks, mountains (above a certain elevation), flood zones, park and recreation 2 - 1'1*) Final OSEAC Minutes-- April 11, 1992 • areas, and the Morros. It was also noted that an open space designation should not preclude any use. Some discussion followed regarding whether uses on open space should be limited. Smith commented that Group II did not want to take the land, that some flexibility should be left so a property owner could use their land. He used an example of a 40 acre parcel, development on 10 acres of that parcel might be reasonable. Ready noted that Group II also had the concept of a greenbelt; however, all lands would not be acquired by the City, some would be developed. Chipping noted it would be green with spots of development. [See Group II's notes attached and an attached letter dated April 13, 1992]. Presentation Group III - [Dana Lilley, John King, Dodie Williams, RRM representative, Steve Barasch, Dennis Johnston] Dana Lilley presented for Group III. This group covered goals, issues, sites/system. Dana noted that consensus had not necessarily been achieved; however, the group provided notes on the various topics. This group listed numerous items under each category. [See Group III's notes attached]. Presentation Group IV - [Public Group] Kevin Baugh presented the material for Group IV. He noted that a botanical garden should be included in the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission definition of open space. That the large track of land near Highway 1 and Highland Drive should be open. space, potentially used as a botanical garden. That financing for a botanical garden may be possible from the Nature Conservancy or Native Plant Society. He also noted that his group listed local creek protection as one area of open space. [See Group IV's notes attached]. Eve Vigil noted that there are plans for a botanical garden out at Chorro Park. She suggested Kevin get in touch with the botanical group that is organizing it. After the presentations, Dangermond directed the OSEAC to consider the definitions of open space. Paul Ready made a motion to adopt the State definition as open space. John King seconded the motion. Some discussion occurred regarding the relevancy of the Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) and Planning Commission (PC) definition. Richard Schmidt and Eva Vigil explained that the definition provided by the PRC and PC was intended to provide some direction and a definition that would protect the greenbelt. It was then explained by Di Leo that both definitions could be adopted, that the PC and - 3 - PA Final OSEAC Minutes -- April 11, 1992 PRC definition simply clarified the State's definition as to what this community wanted. The motion remained as provided. A vote was taken. The motion passed.- by an 8 to 2 vote (Sanders and vigil opposed, Dana Lilley not voting, and David Chipping having left). VII. Next Agendas It was noted that a site visit was planned for this agenda. Di Leo noted that if persons were not interested in attending a site visit today it could be postponed. There was a general consensus that a site visit should be arranged for another date; perhaps after specific sites had been decided by the OSEAC. Di Leo then noted that the tentatively scheduled workshops on May 2 and May 16 were canceled. She noted that three more workshops should be conducted. She then suggested some alternative dates. The OSEAC approved May 7th and May 14th (at 6:30 pm) as acceptable dates for the next two workshops and decided to postpone deciding the date for the last workshop until a future meeting. The meeting was then adjourned. minutes.as The time was roughly 1:30 pm. - 4 - �1 GROUP NOTES • WORKSHOP IV - APRIL 11, 1992 Group I [Carla Sanders, Eva Vigil, Jim McGregor, Richard Schmidt) Goals: 1. Establish permanent greenbelt/buffer around City. 2. Preserve irrigated and non -irrigated prime agricultural land!. 3. No net loss of wetlands. 4. Preserve Morros. 5. Preserve viewshed from City. 6. Establish continuous open space corridors (meaningful wildlife habitat). 7. Recognize the economic and quality of life values of natural open space. Goals Subset: 1. Establish a greenbelt/buffer - Donut concept - Definite City edge - Physical buffer between communities - Provide attractive key entry points Historical/cultural sites within greenbelt 2. Prime Agricultural Land - Within City Planning area - Value for sustainable community 3. No net loss of Wetlands - Create wildlife corridors - Restore degraded creeks - Protect watersheds - Protect existing creeks 4. Preserve Morros as continuous wilderness area - Islay, San Luis, Bishop Peak - Re-evaluate hillside standards to lower development level - Revise general plan to preserve existing open space - Other Morros - Support the County's Natural Areas Plan for designation of the Morros as a wilderness area 5. Preserve Viewshed - Enforce existing hillside standards - Work with County to preserve viewshed - joint standards 6. Continuous Corridors - Wildlife - Human circulation - non -motorized movement along internal greenbelt 7. Economics/Quality Life Values - Viable tourism industry - Retention of existing quality of life - 1 - Group I continued. is - City exist primarily for benefit of existing residents - Preservation of Natural Open Space is a community value Group II - [Dave Smith, David Chipping, Paul Ready, R. Don Warden, Jim Wright, Phil Ashley, Tom Martin] 1. Definition - State Definition 2. Open space must be designated as such. 3. How to handle agricultural land under open space. Zonation rather than agriculture? Can we have any open space use if land is classified as open space? 4. Sites - ridges, creeks, flood zone. Open space is not public access. 5. Encourage cluster as an open space zone with open space easement to property owner. [Also see attached letter dated April 13, 1992] Group III - [Dana Lilley, John King, Dodie Williams, RRM representative, Steve Barasch, Dennis Johnston] Goals: 1. Restore and/or preserve vistas and habitat areas. 2. Preserve existing and potential recreation areas. 3. Promote public health and well-being through daily visual and physical access to open and natural areas. 4. Provide for appropriate physical access to open and natural areas. 5. Coordinate government policies to address hillsides, gateways and scenic corridors (and creeks). 6. Develop a community -wide open space system. 7. Reinforce a 'community -wide open space system in future property developments. Issues• 1. Golf courses. 2. Private use of public lands. 3. Public use of private lands. 4. Restoration of undesirable lands (clean-up). 5. Use of agricultural land. 6. Encroachment into scenic corridors. 7. Use of cultural resources. 8. Acquisition. Group III continued: 9. Funding. -ii- 0 10. open space linkages. 11. Integration of natural and man-made systems. 12. Open space to improve public health and safety. 13. Urban open space (plazas, etc.) 14. Inventory and determine the priority of open space sites. 15. Zoning issues. 16. Establish city-wide volunteer organization to preserve/ restore open space. Sites/Systems: 1. Waterways 2. Aquifer recharge 3. Pathways/Trails 4. Morros 5. Habitat Systems 6. Existing parks and open spaces 7. Agricultural lands 8. Unocal site (Tank Farm Road) 9. Margarita 10. Airport S.P. Area 11. Islay Hill and Terrace Hill 12. South Street Hills 13. Laguna Lake 14. Cal Poly 15. Prefumo Canyon 16. Reservoir Canyon 17. Downtown 18. Linking open space via trails Implementation: Zoning (incentives) Money (bonds, taxes, assessment district, etc.) Land exchanges Development agreements and/or conditions Donations and gifts New acquisition (fee, easement, leases, etc.) User fees Development fees Tax incentives (charitable contributions, Williamson Act, etc.) Co -uses (multi -usage) Group III continued: Foundations and other organizations Government legislation Create special district(s) Eminent domain and judicial actions Transfer of development credits Convert existing public land to open space Group IV - (Kevin Baugh, j 1. Motion: Amend definition of open space to include botanical gardens (seconded, passed by Group IV consensus). 2. Highway 1/Highland Drive: open space - possible botanical - iii - R garden. • Matters to consider: A. Slope B. Soil type (adobe/serpentine) C. Finance, maintenance D. Acquisition/ownership 1. Non-profit organization? - Nature Conservancy? Native Plant Society? E. Highway 1 entrance to SLO 3. Creeks A. Keep them open, not covered B. Is this stated in the City's open space plan? 4. Trails A. South Street Hills B. Morros - iv -