Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1996, 1 - CREEK SETBACK ORDINANCE AND RELATED OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CREEKS MAP AMENDMENT ll 1I�����II� r P MEETING i (P l9 1�� cityo san tins OBISPO ITEM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Directo. 0• BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Creek Setback Ordinance and related Open Space Element Creeks Map amendment CAO RECOMMENDATION: (1) Approve the negative declaration of environmental impact [action included in documents for parts (1) and (2) of recommendation]. (2) Direct staff to modify ordinance sections 17.16.025.E.2.e. regarding findings for exceptions, and sections 17.16.025.B.1 and B.2; 17.16.025.D.2.c and D.3.c regarding riparian associated vegetation, as recommended by the Natural Resources Manager. (3) Introduce the attached ordinance, as amended, to add creek setback provisions to the Zoning Regulations, and to authorize printing the ordinance in summary form for public notice. (4) Adopt the attached resolution to amend the General Plan Open Space Element Creeks Map and to add a definition of "encroached." PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Add creek setback provisions to the Zoning Regulations and amend the Open Space Element Creeks Map, and add a definition of "encroached," essentially as shown in the attached draft ordinance and draft resolution. The attached ordinance reflects two changes from the draft recommended by the Commission, concerning a prohibition on parking and commercial work areas within setbacks, and walls and fences not impeding floods, as explained below under "Staff Revisions for Latest Draft." REPORT IN BRIEF The City Council has called for adoption of a creek setback ordinance to implement adopted policies. The ordinance would replace a Community Development Department administrative policy set in 1988. Over the last year, staff, Planning Commissioners, and interested citizens have been working out setback dimensions and measuring points, and what can be allowed within setbacks. The initial draft ordinance was relatively simple. Later drafts evolved in response to extensive public testimony, mainly concerning fairness for property owners in areas where past development patterns differ from the initially recommended setbacks. Several property owners have opposed having any creek setbacks set by code. On the other hand, creek protection 1 °1"��►�II�I��P°��"��III city Of San JIS OBISPO Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT advocates have questioned the effectiveness of the proposed regulations. They have been concerned about the items that would still be allowed in setbacks, and the small setback dimensions that would be allowed in several situations. Since the first public review draft, the provisions have become substantially more complex, in an attempt to address particular situations in a way that represents both of these very different points of view. The draft regulations contain four basic setback categories. The recommended setback dimensions of 20 feet for most previously developed areas and 50 feet for most areas yet to be developed follow from the environmental impact mitigation which Council approved when it adopted the Land Use Element update. Setbacks of 10 to 20 feet, based on average existing setbacks in the vicinity, would apply to many properties in developed areas, though the precise number is not known because not all existing setbacks are known. No specific dimension would be required in the Central Commercial zone, though creekside green space would be consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center ("the downtown plan"). A consensus emerged to relate required setbacks to the degree of encroachment by existing structures. In working through the details, it became apparent that the concept of creek encroachment by human-controlled activities as mapped by the Open Space Element did not match the idea of encroachment by structures proposed for the setback standards. Therefore, the designation of creeks as encroached or not is recommended to be revised. Field research for the ordinance also found some needed corrections for creek locations and for some designations as creeks or non-creek drainage features, which are reflected in the attached map. i The proposed ordinance does not regulate each item referred to in the Open Space Element program which calls for a creek setback ordinance. Several of those items are already addressed in other sections of the City's code, or in other agencies' regulations, and some are not subject to City regulation. DISCUSSION Background Recent direction The Planning Commission and the City Council have given high priority to adopting a creek setback ordinance in their current work programs. A brief hi_ i Citizens and City government have been concerned with protection of San Luis Obispo's creeks for many years. Policies and requirements for keeping creek channels open, and preferably in almost natural conditions, have been evolving since at least the early 1970's. Creek protection has been addressed by the City's first Open Space Element, architectural review procedures, Flood Management Policy, and other Council-adopted policies. An ad hoc committee to advise staff on a waterway ordinance, convened in 1991, discussed many aspects of changes in and along creeks, including building major and minor structures, grading, adding and removing vegetation, removing water, and directing and filtering contaminated runoff. 2 -Z ��u�i�NI�IIIII�IIP°��I �U city of San 1...,s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT This advisory group did not make any formal recommendations. The General Plan Open Space Element and Land Use Element revisions which were adopted in 1994 recognize the benefits of maintaining setbacks from the channels themselves, for both flood damage prevention and habitat values. Both elements call for a creek setback ordinance. Adoption of the revised Open Space Element and Land Use Element resolved some of the discussion items, such as "what is a creek?" and how to treat existing, nonconforming structures. While the General Plan elements provide direction on what creek setbacks should accomplish, they do not prescribe setback dimensions or the specific features which would be subject to setbacks. Situation The City currently reviews proposed creekside development so it will fit with the type of environment the community wants. This review would continue whether or not a setback ordinance is adopted. The creek setback ordinance was intended to make the review process more certain for both property owners and creek protection advocates. The ordinance would replace the Community Development Department's administrative policy, which has been in effect since 1988. That policy said new structures and parking lots should be set back 20 feet from the top of bank or from significant riparian vegetation. It said larger or smaller setbacks could be appropriate,.considering conditions such as proposed channel widening, width of the flood plain, and the pattern of development in the area. The administrative policy was a guide for staff recommendations, for projects needing discretionary approvals such as architectural review or use permits. The basic approach of the recommended ordinance is nearly the same, so its effect will be very similar. However, the ordinance would cover projects that do not need discretionary approvals, such as residence additions and accessory structures. PurWse of setbacks An adequate creek setback creates buffer space outside creek banks, which is part of high quality habitat for both people and wildlife. The adequacy of a buffer depends on its size and the activities that can occur within in. Setbacks help our city's form avoid the hardness that characterizes some other cities. A recent California study shows that restored creeks add substantially to the dollar value of neighboring houses (Streiner and Loomis, 1994). Setbacks also provide a margin of safety from erosion for structures and paving. In addition, setbacks help create along the creek corridor a refuge for wildlife species that are sensitive to human disturbance (including declining populations of migratory songbirds) by limiting human activity near the channel. Setbacks provide a place where some plants and animals can avoid major flood scouring, and thereby re-establish themselves after floods. Setbacks leave room for channel modifications (for erosion and flood protection) that are more like natural conditions. Tcpi s addressed The Open Space Element's "Creeks" section, program LB on page 27, says: "Adopt an ordinance that establishes standardized creek setbacks, as well as allowed and prohibited uses within creeks. Prohibited uses should include both motorized and nonmotorized off-road vehicles. This ordinance should establish that the creek corridor should not be utilized in determining site density and should address, to the extent feasible, 3 /.3 11104111 leu city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT riparian rights as they relate to creek protection. Exceptions for existing structures made nonconforming by the adoption of this ordinance shall be included in the ordinance and other City regulations regarding nonconforming structures, consistent with policy [1.E on page 22 of the element]." Creek setback standards fit logically in the Zoning Regulations, where other setback (yard) standards are found. Other creek-related topics are addressed in other major divisions of the City's code, and in other agencies' regulations. The proposed ordinance does not regulate each item referred to in the Open Space Element program which calls for a creek setback ordinance. Several of those items are already addressed in other sections of the City's code, or in other agencies' regulations, as explained in detail in the March 8, 1995, Planning Commission staff report. Following is a summary of how the topics are addressed. Structures in creeks The proposed ordinance would not change City regulation of structures in and over creeks, which are subject to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 17.84), and Architectural Review (Municipal Code part 2.48:170.C). Grading- filling, removing plants The proposed ordinance would not change City regulation of grading, filling, and vegetation removal. Grading and filling that would change stream channels and banks are regulated by the City's Building Code (grading provisions), as well as by State law (California Department of Fish and Game), and in many cases by Federal law (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The City reviews any vegetation removal which is part of a discretionary approval (such as architectural review, use permit, or subdivision). Fish and Game approval is required for vegetation removal within the channel, whether or not it is part of a development project. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has permit authority for vegetation removal of five acres or more, through a stormwater runoff provision. The draft ordinance has been criticized for not prohibiting all removal of native vegetation outside the channel but within setbacks. To date, the Commission majority has agreed with the initial staff recommendation that vegetation removal in general would be more appropriately addressed in another, perhaps new, part of the code separate from zoning setbacks. Land uses In the City, uses are largely carried out in structures, and structures within creeks are generally prohibited. The proposed ordinance would keep some non-structural uses (parking, extensive commercial outdoor work areas) outside of required setbacks. The ordinance would not regulate some activities not involving structures, such as cattle grazing and gravel extraction. While these uses can have significant impacts on creeks, they typically do not occur in creeks where the City has jurisdiction. Sand and gravel mining would be subject to the City's grading regulations, and to State and possibly Federal regulations. Grazing occurs in some creek areas which will become dedicated open space within the City's expansion areas upon annexation, as provided in the specific 4 Qllgjwllp city of San AS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT plans to be adopted for those areas. Vehicles The ordinance does not refer to vehicle use, though it does address parking and drives. Off-road vehicle use has not been a substantial problem for creeks in the city, although it has been a problem on hillsides. Vehicle usage appears to be adequately covered by landowner action and enforcement of trespassing laws. Residential density The proposed ordinance would not change density determinations. This will be accomplished with an upcoming batch of Zoning Regulations amendments for consistency with the Land Use Element. Water withdrawals The proposed ordinance would not affect withdrawal of water directly from creeks or from nearby wells which may affect stream flow. Withdrawal of water from creeks is subject to State law, administered by the Water Resources Control Board and, in some cases, investigated and enforced by the Department of Fish and Game. Groundwater withdrawals also are generally not subject to City regulation. State laws and agencies preempt City regulation. Flood plain development The proposed ordinance does not address the overall issue of development in flood plains. Through land-use zone designations, the Zoning Regulations can regulate the type and extent of uses within flood plains. While the Open Space Element says a community goal is to preserve flood hazard areas as open space or parkland, several developed and undeveloped areas within the 100-year flood plain are designated by the Land Use Element and are zoned for uses other than open space. The pattern of existing development and the potential to mitigate flood hazards have been seen as reasons to designate undeveloped flood plains for development. For some creek segments, the 100-year flood plain extends several hundred feet beyond creek banks, and encompasses parcels which do not border or contain creeks. While development in flood plains remains an important issue, it is best resolved through basic land use designations. rather than setback standards of the type under consideration (see Open Space Element page 27, program LQ. The form of floodplain development is regulated by the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. Key Issues The Open Space Element says creek corridors should provide beauty and high quality wildlife habitat. A setback ordinance will respond to this direction by saying specifically how wide creek setbacks are to be and what is allowed in the setback area. Much of the difficulty in deciding appropriate setback regulations has been choosing the proper balance between sometimes competing objectives, such as simplicity and standardization on one hand, and fairness and flexibility on the other hand. The Planning Commission's discussions focused on: 5 S� u �►►�Np� ►i� � city of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT • Effectiveness: Will the regulations do what the General Plan intended? • Fairness: Will the regulations apply fairly to the wide range of creekside conditions? • Compliance Effort: Will the public and private efforts needed to follow the regulations be warranted by the results? The key issues in deciding creek setback requirements, and the recommended ordinance responses, are summarized below. Setback dimensions Very small setbacks would not be effective, because they would not achieve the General Plan objective of healthy, attractive riparian corridors, with space for nearly natural treatments for flood and erosion control. Very large setbacks would be most effective in protecting habitat and avoiding flood damage. However, very large setbacks would be unfair if they made all but the largest parcels in an urban area undevelopable, where smaller neighboring parcels have been extensively developed. Also, a wide setback for a small infill parcel is not likely to be effective if the creek corridor upstream and downstream has little or no existing setbacks. Compliance effort could be excessive for a wide range of setback dimensions related to many variables, even though such an approach might be effective and fair. The General Plan calls for adequate setbacks, but does not identify specific dimensions. Some scientific studies of setbacks have been done, mainly focusing on eastern streams and the effects of contaminated runoff. Available studies indicate that the setbacks under consideration are at the low end of the range which can provide significant water quality and other habitat benefits. Such studies have not identified specific minimum setbacks for all purposes and settings. The studies do support the conclusion that more space is better when trying to protect water quality and natural habitat. For projects subject to environmental review, the City can require setbacks sufficient to avoid significant impacts. Such setbacks required as environmental mitigation may be larger than the dimensions provided by the ordinance. However, the ordinance dimensions will be presumed to be adequate unless site surveys show larger setbacks are needed to avoid certain significant impacts. In the largely undeveloped expansion areas identified by the General Plan, continuous creek corridors wider than the channels can be protected by the proposed setbacks. However, the draft ordinance would do little to achieve continuous corridors through the city wider than the channels themselves, since it averages existing setbacks, has no requirement in the Central Commercial zone, and allows replacement of nonconforming structures. (The exception for existing structures is part of the Open Space Element). Space for riparian corridors in much of the city probably will 6 MY Of San lues OBI SPO .NiiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT continue to decline as minor developments, such as residential additions, occur consistent with the proposed setbacks. The 20-foot distance is consistent with recommendations of local creek-protection advocates. It was first officially recognized in the early 1970's as part of a creekside review process (most recently located in Section 15.04.030.0 of the Municipal Code). It was reflected in the 1982 Edna-Islay Specific Plan, and the Community Development Department's administrative policy set in 1988. It is a typical dimension among agencies having setback requirements for creeks in urban settings (staff survey, 1991). The 50-foot setback was recommended by the Land Use Element Update Environmental Impact Report (Fugro-McClelland, 1992). It is a typical requirement in less urbanized areas. The averaging approach, allowing 10- to 20-foot setbacks, as well as not requiring a setback dimension in the Central Commercial zone, were seen as ways to provide fairness for relatively small infill parcels, without overly reducing effectiveness or increasing compliance effort through discretionary exceptions. Measuring points The points from which a setback is measured work in combination with setback distances to determine effectiveness and fairness. Fairness could be reduced, and compliance effort could be made excessive, if measuring points are vague or inconsistent. The Open Space Element (and the administrative policy) say to use top of bank or the edge of vegetation that is typically associated with creeks, which often extends beyond the top of bank. However, the Open Space Element does not specify the types or locations of such plants. In an urban area, the extent of vegetation can vary substantially, both in time and in distance along a creek, in ways unrelated to the basic form of the channel. Having considered the merits of several approaches concerning precisely which vegetation to measure from, the Planning Commission favored measuring from the dripline of native riparian plants. This approach often would provide less space for habitat, including the habitat values provided by existing nonnative plants, than the administrative policy. However, this approach would sometimes provide more space than measuring only from the outer edge of vegetation rooted in the channel, which was one of the alternatives considered. This approach also would minimize exception requests for the infill sites which often have wide spreading, nonnative trees. Measuring setbacks from vegetation extending beyond the channel poses a dilemma. While intended to protect such vegetation, measuring from vegetation can discourage owners from maintaining or restoring it. Owners often will want to minimize setbacks so there will be more developable area. They may cut back vegetation to maximize the developable area. To some extent, information sources such as aerial photographs can be used to establish setbacks and plant restoration requirements that would deter or compensate for plant removal done to provide more developable area. 7 /- IIIII�J�i�l city of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT While top of bank is often more easily recognized than edge of vegetation, people have also questioned when the top of bank would be determined, since banks change. Because the City does not have surveys of precise bank locations in most areas, the top of bank will continue to be determined when owners propose projects along creeks. Alternative measuring points mentioned during Planning Commission consideration included creek flow line and channel center line. These are not necessarily more constant or more easily defined than the top of bank or the edge of riparian vegetation. Measuring from the top of bank or the outer edge of native riparian plants was seen as the best way to be effective (to follow the General Plan direction), while not overly reducing fairness or increasing compliance effort. Features within setbacks The setbacks would not be effective if they allowed pollution sources or outdoor human activities that are disruptive to wildlife to be close to the creek, even if they provided a buffer from buildings. However, their fairness would be criticized if they did not allow relatively low-impact human activities close to the creek, within a predominantly developed urban area. Unfairness is a concern particularly where infill parcels could not have the same activities as neighboring, similarly situated properties. Compliance effort is a concern for widely used, relatively minor features, many of which may not need building permits. The Land Use Element provides the following guidance on specific features in the setback area (policy 6.4.6.B): "The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or work areas." The General Plan does not provide specific direction on features such as patios, decks, or fences. There has been extensive discussion of the features which could be allowed in the setback area. The recommended ordinance reflects a compromise, mainly by allowing some constructed items in setback areas, subject to a percentage limit. The attached ordinance has been modified from that recommended by the Planning Commission, so that outdoor commercial storage or work areas would not be allowed in creek setbacks. The inclusion of these items in the ordinance paragraph concerning allowed features may have been an unintentional change in one of the many drafts prepared for Commission consideration, though the item was specifically addressed in a public comment at the last hearing. Ex=tions Extensive exceptions could make the ordinance ineffective. However, because standardized 8 city of San tins OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT setbacks could be unfair is some situations, some types of exceptions are justified. Compliance effort, in the form of information and review procedures which are required for exceptions, should be in proportion to the projects and the community creek resources involved. The Open Space Element anticipated discretionary exceptions, as shown by its describing the circumstances that would justify them. It also provided a specific entitled exception for existing structures. Concern has been expressed about the draft ordinance's apparently extensive exceptions that property may be entitled to or eligible for. The desirable extent of "entitled" exceptions (including averaging) is a matter of judgement. Generally, requiring larger setbacks will result in more exception requests. Allowing entitled exceptions in those circumstances where discretionary exceptions are very likely to be approved can reduce the number of exception requests, the resulting procedural burdens on property owners, and staff resources consumed in processing the requests. Planning Commission direction included minimizing the need for owners to obtain discretionary exceptions to pursue development similar to what has occurred in the vicinity. A discretionary exception procedure is needed, in part, to avoid the possibility of a taking requiring compensation. The types of applications which could be used to request a creek setback exception are the same as provided by the current Zoning Regulations to reduce other types of setbacks. Listing these several types of applications may make it appear the exceptions would be easy to obtain. However, the required findings will determine when exceptions are appropriate. Whatever the process, any discretionary exception would be subject to the findings listed in the regulations and in the Open Space Element. The staff recommendation and Planning Commission majority supported considering creek setback requests as part of other discretionary review that may be needed for a project, rather than establishing a separate creek setback exception application. The recommended approach is consistent with previous Council direction to streamline development review procedures, while assuring evaluation of compliance with adopted policies and providing opportunities for public participation. Incentives In some cases, incentives can be more effective than restrictions in achieving the General Plan's objectives. This is especially true where it is considered unfair to require setbacks. Considering compliance efforts, incentives are also subject to concerns about efforts or trade-offs of other public objectives being in proportion to the results. The General Plan does not provide specific guidance on incentives. The Planning Commission wanted to achieve compliance through incentives where appropriate. Incentives could result in there being setbacks where none are required, or wider setbacks than required. Staff and the Planning Commission discussed incentives several times at the workshops. Members of the public attending the workshops, staff, and Planning Commissioners were not able to invent a large menu of-incentives for providing setbacks. After discussing several alternatives, it was difficult to 9 /- city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT establish effective zoning incentives that do not interfere with obtaining some other desirable goal. The recommended regulations include two types of incentives. The addition to part 17.16:020.E.1 (first page of the ordinance exhibit) would allow smaller street yards in exchange for wider creek setbacks for replacement structures. The addition to part 17.42.020.E.1 (last page of the ordinance exhibit) would eliminate required parking for outdoor seating along a creek, in limited situations. Talangs A regulation which is found to be a taking would clearly not be effective if it was invalidated by a court or if it imposed financial burdens beyond the City's means. Also, it would be unfair. The issue of "takings" came up often in the Planning Commission workshops and hearing. A regulation is vulnerable to a claim of a taking requiring compensation if the regulation: • Is not based on an identified public purpose; • Imposes burdens that are not in proportion to the public benefit of the regulation, or not in proportion to the impacts of the regulated development; • Deprives an owner of all reasonable use of the property. If the adopted standards for buildings to set back from streets and other property lines resulted in a particular parcel being essentially unusable, and the City did not grant some relief through an exception procedure, the City would be subject to a takings claim. The same is true for required creek setbacks. Adopting creek setback standards does not constitute a taking requiring compensation,just as adopting street setback standards is not a taking. The California Supreme Court recently affirmed that design conditions such as building setbacks have long been held to be valid exercises of a city's traditional police powers, and they do not amount to a taking merely because they might incidentally restrict a use or diminish the value (Ehrlich vs. Culver City [1996] 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2558). The area within a creek setback remains in private ownership, and certain uses of that space are allowed while some are restricted or are not allowed. Exceptions can be approved. Unless the City obtains an easement permitting public access, the property owner can continue to exclude others from using the setback area, which is a key property right. Information and processing demands Effective regulations depend on having accurate information on which to base creek setback decisions. Fairness requires that all concerned parties have access to that information. Compliance efforts should be justified by results. 10 � 1111i�pi► �I city of San suis osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The General Plan directs the City organization to undertake many activities. Excessive demands for one activity, such as determining creek setbacks, would make less effort available for other objectives. Any new regulation will require some additional City effort to implement. Typically, any change to development rules requires additional effort to educate all involved staff, project applicants, and other interested citizens. However, City review of creekside development is not a new procedure. Neither is the application of standardized setbacks, which was the aim of the existing administrative policy. The initial and continuing staff efforts for the creek setback ordinance probably will be about the same as those for the requirement relating building height to setback, adopted in the early 1980's. Demands on the commissions and Council in considering appeals probably will be similar as well. With two exceptions, information requirements for applicants will not increase above what is required now. The exceptions are: • When an applicant is eligible for and wants to use the averaging approach, information on neighboring setbacks will be needed. In some cases this will be difficult to obtain, especially if it requires surveys of neighboring properties. • When an applicant requests a discretionary exception for a project that.is now ministerial or categorically exempt from environmental review, such as a residence addition, a biological survey would be required to document the extent of impacts to riparian habitat. The proposed ordinance would present to interested members of the public a somewhat more complicated set of rules than now exist. However, the application of the rules is intended to be more certain than the current administrative policy. The draft ordinance explicitly directs that public notice for projects involving creek setback exception requests describe the exception, which should enhance public participation. Citizen Participation Public participation has been encouraged through mailings to interested parties and to owners of creekside property, news releases, brochures at "creek day" in Mission Plaza, meetings between staff and individuals, and six advisory body meetings (minutes previously placed in Council reading file). Public concern about infill projects being able to have setbacks similar to neighboring development heavily influenced the current form of the ordinance. There has been no comment on the environmental evaluation. Advisory Body Review The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) considered the ordinance on February 21, 1995, 11 ��� ►�Illll�lp ►��p aty of San Lai S OBISPO .MiZ; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT and suggested the following features which have been incorporated in the draft. • The ARC be empowered to grant exceptions for projects under review by the ARC; • The purpose and findings sections refer to restoration; • The features allowed in setbacks include impervious paving for pedestrian paths which conform with adopted City plans. The Planning Commission discussed background information and alternative ordinance approaches at public workshops on March 8 and July 19, 1995. The Commission received extensive public testimony at these meetings and on April 26, 1995. On July 19, 1995, Commissioners provided direction by consensus on key features of the draft ordinance. On September 27, 1995, the Commission endorsed a revised draft for environmental evaluation. On January 24, 1996, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Affirmed that, based on the initial environmental study and proposed negative declaration, no additional environmental study is required. • Recommended that the City Council adopt the Creek Setback Ordinance, essentially as attached. • Recommended that the City Council adopt the Open Space Element amendment, by adding a definition of encroachment and revising the Creeks Map, as attached. Three Planning Commissioners owned property adjacent to a creek, and therefore stepped down from participating on this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Four Planning Commissioners remained to consider and discuss the issues at the workshops and public hearing. (The City Attorney sent City Council a memo regarding the conflict of interest issue on July 5, 1995). The first and third actions were supported by all four Commissioners present. The action on the ordinance itself was supported by three of the Commissioners present; the fourth Commissioner expressed concern that the proposed exceptions and setback averaging would not implement adequate setbacks. Staff Revisions for Latest Draft Following the Planning Commission action, staff revised one part of the draft ordinance to reflect General Plan direction and staffs understanding of the Commission's intent. The revision was to move"outdoor areas in nonresidential zones, regardless of ground surface material, which are used or intended to be used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials" from part 2 of section 17.16.025.D, which would allow such areas in creek setbacks, to part 1 of that section, which would not allow them in setbacks. Also following the Commission action, staff added one item to the ordinance to address a specific 12 �- Z ��► Il� j ��l city of San LUIS OBISp0 mo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT concern of the Public Works Department. Item "d" was added to part 17.16.025.D.3, so that walls or fences in the setback area "shall not reduce any overbank flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, as determined by the City Engineer." CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation. The Natural Resources Manager supports the objectives of the proposed creek setback ordinance. In comments provided to Community Development Department staff, two modifications to the attached draft ordinance were recommended. These items are summarized below: "Showing Compliance Implications for Exception Requests." The exception provisons in the draft ordinance should encourage property owners to try and work within the standard setbacks before using an exception. To accomplish this, the required findings for a discretionary exception could be made more elaborate by specifically calling for a demonstration of the effects of complying with the standard required setback (17.16.025.E.2, especially part e). The Open Space Element already implies that this be considered, in its requirement for finding that there be "no practicable alternative." An option to adding to the ordinance would be for Council to direct staff to have application checklists call for a site plan showing the results of trying to meet the standard required setback. "Native Riparian-associated Vegetation." Where the ordinance refers to "native riparian vegetation," reference to "associated" vegetation could be added (parts 17.16.025.B.I and B.2; 17.16.025.D.2.c and D.3.c). This would have the effect of increasing setback areas in an unknown number of cases (anticipated to be few), and reducing allowed vegetation removal in connection with installing the limited features allowed in setbacks areas. A list of native riparian vegetation has been prepared. A list of associated vegetation would need to be prepared. The Planning Commission discussed, but ultimately did not support, this approach. The Council can direct that this change be made now (the staff recommendation). No additional environmental review would be required because there would be no additional impacts, and the initial evaluation was sufficiently broad. ALTERNATIVES The Council may introduce the ordinance with different provisions from those recommended. Several alternative setback provisions were discussed in the Planning Commission staff reports, which have been placed in the Council reading file. The Council may approve Open Space Element Creeks Map revisions different from those proposed. Substantial changes to the proposed regulations or map revision may need additional staff work or environmental review, so 13 /-/3 lj@ Wjj city of San LaiS OBISPO Hii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT continuation with direction would be appropriate. Council rejection of any ordinance would result in the need to amend the Open Space Element and Land Use Element, which would be considered at future hearings. The Council may continue action. There is no action deadline. RECOMMENDATION (1) Approve the negative declaration of environmental impact [action included in documents for parts (1) and (2) of recommendation]. (2) Direct staff to modify ordinance sections 17.16.025.E.2.e. regarding findings for exceptions, and sections 17.16.025.B.1 and B.2; 17.16.025.D.2.c and D.3.c regarding riparian associated vegetation, as recommended by the Natural Resources Manager. (3) Introduce the attached ordinance, as amended, to add creek setback provisions to the Zoning Regulations, and to authorize printing the ordinance in summary form for public notice. (4) Adopt the attached resolution to amend the General Plan Open Space Element Creeks Map and to add a definition of "encroached." ATTACHMENTS Draft ordinance adding creek setback provisions to the Zoning Regulations Draft ordinance summary for newspaper publication Draft resolution amending the Open Space Element Creeks Map and definitions Initial environmental study Correspondence received after Planning Commission hearing (if any) COUNCIL READING FILE Planning Commission staff reports (including letters received) ARC and Planning Commission minutes CAR¢ie.cso 14 ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL ADDING CREEK SETBACKS PROVISIONS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding . 1. The Council has held a public hearing on the proposed creek setback provisions in accordance with the California Government Code. 2. The Council has considered public testimony, and the report and recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission. 3. The proposed creek setback provisions are consistent with the General Plan. 4. The proposed creek setback provisions carry out mitigation identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates (August 1994). 5. The Council has reviewed and approved the initial environmental study (ER 145-94) and finds that the proposed creek setback provisions will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION 2. Adpption. Municipal Code Title 17 is hereby amended by the additions shown fully in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Previously ap rp oved projects. Where a creek setback smaller than required by the provisions adopted by this ordinance has been explicitly approved by City action on a tract or parcel map (whether or not a vesting map), architectural review application, use permit, or planned development zoning, that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the approval is in effect. SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the votes for and against, shall be published once, at least five days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. Ordinance No. (1996 Series) 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 , 1996, on motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: AO City A orney oencc+-s.cso EXHIBIT A Creek Setback Provisions Added to Zoning Regulations Add to Chapter 17.04, Definitions. 17.04.105 Development site. "Development site" means the parcel or parcels encompassed by any type of application for City approval pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Regulations, or the building and construction regulations of this code. In order to fulfill the purposes of this chapter, where a given area is subject to several applications that have been filed over time, the Community Development Director may determine that the "development site" is the largest area encompassed within any one of these types of applications. 17.04.128 Dripline. "Dripline" means the ground directly below the ends of the outermost branches or leaves of trees or shrubs. 17.04.272 Native riparian vegetation. "Native riparian vegetation" means plants which are native to California and which are characteristic of creeks, their edges, or both. The Community Development Director shall make available a list of native riparian vegetation. 17.04.440 Top of bank. "Top of bank" means the line where the naturally eroded ground slope, or the slope resulting from a creek alteration, flattens to conform with the ground which has not been cut by water flow within the creek channel. If the bank is terraced, the top of bank is above the highest step. Add part d to Section I Z 16.020.E.1, Property Development Standards- Yards -Exceptions Property May Be Entitled To: d. Reduced Street Yards for Replacement Structures Providing Creek Setback. Where a replacement structure is not required to provide the full creek setback that otherwise would be required for a new structure, as provided in part 17.16.025.E.La, the required street yard shall be reduced one foot for each one foot of creek setback that is provided beyond the setback of the structure being replaced, so long as the street yard is at least one-half that required by Table 2. 2 Add pan a to Section 1716.020.1"1, Propeny Development Standards- Yards -Exceptions Property May Be Entitled To: e. Reduced Street Yards for Projects Providing Larger Creek Setback Than Required by Averaging. Where a project is not required to provide the full creek setback that otherwise would be required, as provided in part 17.16.025.C.3, the required street yard shall be reduced one foot for each one foot of creek setback that is provided beyond the required setback resulting from averaging, so long as the street yard is at least one-half that required by Table 2. Add to Chapter 17.16, Property Development Standards: 17.16.025 Creek setbacks. A. Purpose and Application. 1. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to: a. Protect water quality and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife migration and other movement. b. Make possible the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where restoration would advance the long-range goal of creating a continuous stretch of habitat along a creek. c. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor. d. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding. The setback may extend beyond the channel needed to accommodate a flow of the frequency provided in the City's Flood Management Policy, to accomplish all of its purposes. e. Enable implementation of adopted City plans. 2. Application. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all "creeks" as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on that element's "Creeks Map." B. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. (See Figure 4.1.) 1. Creek setbacks shall be measured from whichever of the following is farther from the creek flow line: (a) the top of bank, (b) the dripline of native riparian vegetation, or the future top of bank resulting from creek widening proposed in a City-adopted plan. The location of top of bank and of the dripline shall be shown on project plans. The location of these features is subject to confirmation by the Community Development Director, based on observation of actual conditions and, if additionally needed, the conclusions of persons with expertise in hydrology, biology, or geology. 3 Figure 4.1 Creek Setback Measurement •• • • • • , •. . . •e • •. . •• (,� • • NATIVE RIPARIAN PLANTS •.e •• •• . •1111• 0� as P 1 A 0� 9,L. Top OF BAN FLQ���NE K ' .••,••.. ...... ••so REQUIRED SETBACK • • • e 1111• •• •• ••1• ... 1•, •• e e • 1.•• • so Figure 4.2 Creek Setback Averaging Example F11 C A Vacant assume 20' 20'STANDARD SETBACK 100' 20' i CALCULATION OF AVERAGE. 10fl B J�K 10. SOPOf ./ A 10 01. B 20' C 20 GR i D 5 15'Required setback E 20 BRIDGE 5' TOP Of A��— F 30 7 E 90 100 G 4)building in channel is not a negative number) 1 105 N c` F G 100' IwEe� D m � ❑ � mm �m V V N7f 4 2. Where the dripline's distance from the top of bank varies greatly in a short length along the creek, in a way unrelated to topography, the Community Development Director may determine that a setback which substantially follows the predominant pattern of native riparian vegetation in the area is consistent with this ordinance, as shown in Figure 4.1. C. Creek Setback Dimensions. Required setbacks shall correspond with a creek's degree of encroachment as shown by the General Plan Open Space Element "Creeks Map." 1. Along creeks classified as "encroached" the minimum creek setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in parts 3, 4, or 5 below, or in part E. 2. Along creeks not classified as "encroached" the minimum creek setback shall be 50 feet, except as provided in part 5 below, or in part E. 3. Setback averaging. (See Figure 4.2.) a. Along creeks classified as "encroached," and where the average setback of existing structures within 100 feet of a proposed structure is less than 20 feet, the required setback shall be the average setback of those existing structures, but not less than ten feet. b. The 100-foot averaging distance shall be measured upstream and downstream from the parts of the proposed structure which would be adjacent to the creek, and parallel to both creek banks (not as a radius from all parts of the building). The setback shall be measured to the part of a structure closest to the creek. C. The average will be the sum of such distances from structures to the top of bank, divided by the number of structures within 100 feet along the creek. In determining average setbacks, "structures" do not include bridges or retaining walls. d. For purposes of determining the average setback, each vacant parcel within the 100-foot averaging distance shall be considered to have a structure with the required setback. 4. No uniform setback is required in the Central-Commercial zone. 5. Setbacks larger than required by parts 1 through 4 above, or further limitations on types of encroaching features, may be required as mitigation for potentially significant environmental impacts, or to enable implementation of adopted City plans. 5 D. Items Regulated within Setbacks. 1. Impervious Surfaces. No impervious surface and no deck over 30 inches tall shall be placed or constructed within a creek setback, except as provided in part E below. Impervious surface means: ,a roof or a floor, whether supported directly from below or cantilevered; asphalt or concrete slab paving; impervious plastic sheeting; oil-treated soil or gravel; outdoor areas in nonresidential zones, regardless of ground surface material, which are used or intended to be used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials. 2. Pervious Surfaces. Pervious constructed items shall comply with the following, except as provided in part E below. Pervious constructed items include: trellises; decks with spaced surface members; open stairs; steps, landings, or walkways of any material, which are three feet or less in width; storage sheds or play structures, or pads or shelters for components of public utility systems each less than 20 square feet; brick or concrete paving blocks having no concrete or impervious plastic underlayment. Pervious constructed items shall: a. In total, occupy not more than one-half of the setback area on any development site; b. Not extend beyond the top of bank in the direction of the flow line; c. Not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation. 3. Walls or fences shall comply with the following, except as provided in part E below: a. In combination with buildings, enclose not more than one-half of the setback area on any development site; b. Not extend beyond the top of bank in the direction of the flow line; c. Not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation. d. Not reduce any overbank flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, as determined by the City Engineer E. Exceptions To Creek Setbacks. 1. Exception Property Is Entitled To - Replacement Structures. Where a structure lawfully existed upon [the effective date of this chapter] within a creek setback required by this chapter: a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure may occupy the same footprint, within the creek setback, as the previous structure. Such replacement structure shall not /-2f 6 create more floor area within the setback then previously existed (for example, by having morestories). (See also part 17.16.020.E.1.d.) b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (for example, by adding stories). c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due solely to the creek setback encroachment may be remodeled without regard to the limits of parts 17.14.020.B and C of this title. 2. Discretionary Exceptions. a. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception. Discretionary exceptions are also intended to accommodate items needed for public health or safety, or which provide substantial public benefit in conformance with the City's goals for its creeks. b. Examples of situations which may warrant discretionary exceptions include: L A project would provide a setback larger than the minimum required on part of a site, to compensate for a minor-encroachment on another part of the site; ii. In addition to any restoration required to mitigate loss due to the project, the project would restore a degraded area to healthy riparian habitat; iii. A project would occupy a small parcel which is essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed with setbacks smaller than those in part C above. c. A creek setback smaller than required by part C above may be approved by City action on a specific plan, development plan under planned development zoning, land division, use permit, architectural review, or plan for public facilities approved by the City Council. Where one of these types of applications is not otherwise required for the proposed feature, the exception request shall be in the form of an administrative use permit. Public notice for a project involving a creek setback exception, regardless of application type, shall include a description of the feature or features to receive the exception and the extent of the exception. d. An exception may be granted for one or more specific items which would'normally be excluded from, or limited within, the setback, while not allowing all items to encroach. . e. A discretionary exception shall be subject to each of the following findings: i. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to water quality and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife movement; 7 ii. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. L A biological survey by a qualified, independent person shall be required for each discretionary exception request, to provide the basis for making finding "e.i" above. Add to pan 1 of section 17.42.020.E, Central Commercial Zone, Property Development Standards, parking requirements, so the part reads: 1. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, nightclubs, other food service or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention halls, and churches: one-half that required in Section 17.16.060 provided, however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one space per 350 square feet gross floor area. Also, no parking shall be required for ground-level seating, which is not covered or enclosed by a building, and which is on a pervious surface within 20 feet of the top of bank of a creek, as defined and mapped in the Open Space Element. (See Section 17.16.025.D for description of pervious items.) oxDmEM.cso / - � 3 RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND OPEN SPACE F.i.FNTM CREEKS MAP AND DEFINITIONS (GP 131-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on this amendment in accordance with the California Government Code; and WBEREAS, the amendment comes to the Council upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has considered the initial study of environmental impact (ER 145-94), finds that there will be no significant impacts, and approves a negative declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. This Council, after considering the amendments and staffs analysis, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and public testimony, finds that the proposed changes are consistent with rest of the General Plan. SECTION 3. Adoption. A. The Open Space Element Creeks Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. B. A definition of "encroached" is added to the Open Space Element text, as shown in the attached Exhibit B. C. The Community Development Director shall cause the changes to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. Resolution No. (1996 Series) Page 2 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 , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: iCiAttorney OSE-RES.CSO f -d29� EXHIBIT B OPEN SPACE ELEMENT AMENDMENT - TEXT (GP 131-95) Add to definitions: Encroached means a creek segment where buildings or extensive paving (such as parking lots for businesses or apartments) are located within 50 feet of top of bank on either side, along at least 100 feet of any 200-foot interval. Bridges and public streets are not considered encroaching features. All other creek segments are considered not encroached. ENCR-DEF.CSO EXHIBIT A waa sooD _��� � GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE EELEMENT�F - CREEKS MAP ENCROACHMENT CLASSIFICATIONS 2DWow Ttds Bop Is a perioral depMba of creaks clauffied as%nww~or Sot was ~by mdalbg atruchm It is-bOerWed to be uead'et oo las m t bah apuele 1000 feat(t=oo)or sma� pm orc Lm 1 Ba eom.. .. sm other wa lft bfmaetton eyateia loyare my Bot acmffdw baste week saWmVB b reMon to aam featve%mtch as etreate;pop"Ones,or bddrtpa. This map's d lm of a Beek,and as dosoMoadmt of a creek sapmoin as armaohed or no%ma ubject to vsftedon with apac®c elm kdm=dk q esbtp the daPodtivm al eaeke and anoaeetosd pmtdded by Open Space been TW Thle draft map Ms a 1. bean plepered for etrmWaratlon vlElt the draft Creek BatDatJc Otdhortca The eppoval of reAM creek enoroeohmmit daealBmO wM ort&mhate saw creek daWWa0ane atotaii In the Opn Space Bement maretmlal and b emAlte d and etttard of depadatlot and pmandal for re Malfwa These elasiffi adons i A 619iue to ae ieflested ki the Opmt Space Elentott Creelce Mab MCREEK NOT ENCROACHED J CREEWENCROACNED V i of SA1 tuts oaspoACl 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Creek Setback Ordinance & Open Space Element Creeks Map Amendment (ER 145-94) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner 805 781-7165 4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo (current and future incorporated area) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: See #8 below. 7. Zoning: See #8 below. 8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo has several creeks flowing through it. Additional creek segments will come under City jurisdiction if annexations occur (see General Plan Land Use Element expansion areas). Creeks range from those with large banks and year-round flow to small swales that flow only following substantial rain. Creeks flow through residential and commercial areas, as well as undeveloped land. Some have healthy riparian habitats, while others have been degraded by cultivation, grazing, or urban development (See General Plan Open Space Element Creeks Map). The City proposes to add standards for setbacks from creeks to its Zoning Regulations. The setbacks would implement policies of the General Plan Open Space Element and Land Use Element, which were updated in 1994. At the same time, the City would amend the Open Space Element Creeks Map concerning parts of creeks that are designated as encroached, so the classification of encroachment would be more consistent with the idea of encroachment by structures as used in the setback regulations. The revised Creeks Map would also include corrections discovered during research for the regulations. ©L The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �� O Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Creek setbacks are intended to protect water quality and natural creekside habitat, make possible restoration of damaged habitat, allow for natural changes that may occur within creek corridors, help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding, and enable implementation of adopted City plans. Creek setback requirements would apply to all "creeks" as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on that element's Creeks Map. In several ways, the required setbacks would be similar to existing requirements for yards between buildings and property lines. The following is a summary of the proposed regulations' basic features. The full text of the draft regulations and the draft revised Creeks Map are available in the Community Development Department at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Setbacks would be measured from the top of the creek bank, or from the outer edge of native plants which are characteristic of creeks, whichever if farther from the creek flow. Buildings, extensive solid paving, and some other items would not be allowed in the setbacks. Some types of minor structures and porous paving could be located within the setbacks, within area limits. Along creeks with extensive encroachment by structures (most creeks inside the 1994 city limits) the standard required setback would be 20 feet. However, in areas with smaller existing building setbacks the required setback would be the average of the existing building setbacks along a certain distance, but not less than ten feet. No specific setback dimension would be required in the Central Commercial zone, which covers the most intensely developed part of downtown. Along creeks with minimal encroachment by structures (most creeks in areas annexed after 1994) the required setback generally would be 50 feet. With the proposed regulations,.the City could require larger setbacks to mitigate potential environmental impacts or to implement the City's adopted plans. Also, the City could allow smaller setbacks when approving certain kinds of development applications. Whatever the application type, to reduce the setback the City would need to make several findings, including that the project would: minimize impacts to water quality and creekside habitat; be consistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; not limit the City's options for flood control measures; not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans. No existing structures would be made nonconforming by the new setback requirements. Replacement structures could occupy the same "footprint" as existing structures within the required setback. Certain projects would be entitled to smaller street yards when they provide larger creek setbacks than required. The proposed regulations would replace a Community Development Department administrative policy, in effect since 1988, which says: there should be a 20-foot 2 /-.29 setback from top of bank to structures and parking lots; larger setbacks may be required in consideration of significant riparian vegetation or the 100-year flood plain; smaller setbacks may be approved where the normal setback would prevent reasonable development, or for small lots in areas where neighboring creek setbacks are consistently smaller. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: See #8 above. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X and 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE 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 significant effect(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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable.standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 4 /-3/ Signature: Date: John Ma di ville, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. I EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. 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. 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). 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 5 /- 3Z Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X The main environmental issue raised by the proposed regulations is whether they establish adequate standards and procedures to achieve the riparian habitat protection and restoration purposes stated in the Open Space Element. Some concern has been expressed that the proposed allowances for replacement structures, setback averaging, and discretionary exceptions will not fulfill the stated purpose. This is a policy interpretation which will be made initially by the City Council when adopting the regulations, and by various City bodies in applying the regulations to specific projects. Overall, the regulations appear to provide a level of protection no lower than existing policies. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X 6 /- 33 issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X di Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lose Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X exiting or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants T X c) After air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d► Create objectionable odors? X 8 i - 35 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, P- coastal habitat, etc.)? 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially Lose Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X The main environmental issue raised by the proposed regulations is whether they establish adequate standards and procedures to achieve the riparian habitat protection and restoration purposes stated in the Open Space Element. Some concern has been expressed that the proposed allowances for replacement structures, setback averaging, and discretionary exceptions will not fulfill the stated purpose. This is a policy interpretation which will be made initially by the City Council when adopting regulations, and by various City bodies in applying the regulations to specific projects. Overall, the regulations appear to provide a level of protection no lower than existing policies e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? 10 /- 37 ssues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Low Than No Signicmit Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X- 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X o) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X Concern has been expressed that the proposed regulations would add substantially to demands on staff and commissions. While it is difficult to forecast additional time demands, it should be noted that much of the review effort involving creekside development has been occurring and would continue to occur with the. proposed regulations. Overall, the added effort is expected to not exceed the additional demands experienced several years ago when provisions were adding to the Zoning Regulations relating building height to setback, with exceptions involving evaluation of solar exposure. While there was a period of learning and adaptation, those standards did not substantially increase staff or commission workloads. ' 12: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X 11 /-38 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? T X fl Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 2 X Some concern has been expressed regarding the allowance for reduced street setbacks when projects provide larger creek setbacks than required. The street setback exceptions allowed through this provision would not differ substantially from street setback exceptions permissible under the current Zoning Regulations, and would often apply in neighborhoods where smaller street setbacks are not unusual. Therefore, no substantial changes to neighborhood character are expected. c) Create light or glare? X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X 12 /-3S ssues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Lass Than No Signif icant Significant Signficant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? 1S. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 13 /—`r� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lew Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the 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 the potential to achieve short- X term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but 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 future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 14 /_y/ 17. 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. The proposed regulations are to implement the Open Space Element, for which an Initial Environmental Study leading to a Negative Declaration was prepared (City application #3-93; State Clearinghouse #93021001). However, the current determination does not rely on that previous study. 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. Not applicable. 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. Not applicable. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of S.L.O. General Plan Open Space Element, pages 19 - 27. 2 City of S.L.O. Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.020. 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM None required. 15 - yZ