HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1996, 2 - CREEK SETBACK ORDINANCE IcounaL
acEnba izEpont h=Nm.6w
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Directo ,�,
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner CPM
SUBJECT: Creek Setback Ordinance
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance to approve the negative declaration of environmental impact, to add creek
setback provisions to the Zoning Regulations, and to authorize printing the ordinance in summary
form for public notice.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Council has received and considered a draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission
(April 16, 1996, agenda report). In response to Council direction on April 16 and May 14, staff
has prepared a revised draft ordinance which differs from the Planning Commission
recommendation as summarized below under "Revised Ordinance."
DISCUSSION
Background Summary
The creek setback ordinance, which has been under preparation for several years, would
implement adopted City policies. Resolving all the details has been difficult, due to competing
interests and the absence of a single correct approach. The recommended ordinance is largely
based on the"administrative policy" set in 1988, which in turn follows from earlier flood control
and creek protection efforts. It also reflects environmental mitigation approved when the Land
Use Element was updated. The recommended ordinance also reflects some of the findings and
requirements for information for exception requests which were contained in the "Streamlined
Ordinance" recently proposed by citizens.
Revised Ordinance
The ordinance now before the Council is much shorter and simpler than the previous version. For
areas in the current city limits, it would restrict fewer features in setbacks, and therefore offer
somewhat less protection within whatever setback areas result. However, the more focused range
of exceptions probably will result in somewhat larger creekside areas being protected. On
balance, the provisions of the new version will meet the stated objectives about as well as the
previous version.
-R.
Council Agenda Report - Creek Setback Ordinance
Page 2
In comparing this draft ordinance with the previous draft:
• Within the current city limits (including the Central Commercial Zone), the basic setback
would be 20 feet for all creeks, rather than 10 to 20 feet for "encroached" creeks and 50
feet for "nonencroached" creeks (with no setback in the C-C Zone). [Part 17.16.025.E.1]
• In annexation areas, basic setbacks would be 50 feet for "major" creeks, 35 feet for
"intermediate" creeks, and 20 feet for"minor" creeks, rather than 20 feet for "encroached"
creeks and 50 feet for "nonencroached" creeks. The ordinance would more explicitly
recognize the potential for deciding creek protection corridors in the specific plans or
development plans required for annexations. [Part 17.16.025.E.2] (See also "Maps" item
below.) The creek categories would be defined in the ordinance. In summary, major
creeks would be those that drain a large part of the planning area, minor creeks would
drain small watersheds, and intermediate creeks would be in between. [Part 17.04.093]
• There would be no automatic averaging of existing setbacks, though prevailing setbacks
in an area could be considered when deciding discretionary exception requests. [Parts
17.16.025.E and 17.16.025.G.2.a]
• Structures(including decks and stairs over 30 inches tall, and all buildings), parking lots,
and outdoor commercial and industrial work and storage areas would not be allowed in
setbacks, though individual parking spaces (as for houses), fencing, patios, and walkways
would be allowed without limitation. In the previous version, things like patios and
walkways had an area limit. There would be no distinction between pervious and
impervious features. [Part 17.16.025.F]
• Setbacks would be measured from top of bank, or from the edge of the predominant
pattern of"significant riparian vegetation" —rather than from "native riparian vegetation."
[Parts 17.04.272, 17.16.025.C, and 17.16.025.E.3]
• A provision has been added: On a lot across the street from a creek, if significant riparian
vegetation extends over the street (such as a big overhanging tree), there would be no
creek setback in addition to any required street setback. [Part 17.16.025.C]
• The exception procedures will be just as accessible to applicants and to the public, while
the statement of intent and the required findings will assure that every application for a
creekside project is not a procedural route to an exception. [Part 17.16.025.G.2]
• Building "footprint" replacements would continue to be allowed, and the minor incentive
for providing more than the required setback would remain. [Parts 17.16.020.E.I and
17.16.025.G.1]
• Exception requests for minor projects would continue to be processed in the least costly,
most timely manner. Application burdens for small "homeowner" projects would be less.
[Parts 17.16.025.G.2.c and 17.16.025.G.2.fl.
Council Agenda Report - Creek Setback Ordinance
Page 3
• The public notice and application requirements would be more explicit. [Parts
17.16.025.G.2.d and 17.16.025.G.2.g]
Maps
The previous draft ordinance would have required changing the creek encroachment classifications
of the Open Space Element Creek Map. It is not necessary to adopt or amend any maps in
conjunction with adopting the recommended ordinance. The recommended creek designations
relating to setbacks are fully described in the draft ordinance text. However, an informational
map would be desirable. A draft informational map has been prepared.* As the map shows, in
practice few creek segments would be subject to 35-foot setbacks, and virtually none would have
50-foot setbacks (unless plans approved with annexation provide otherwise), because few creek
segments needing setbacks larger than 20 feet will be under City jurisdiction.
In checking mapped creek information, staff has found errors in the Open Space Element Creek
Map. Some errors involve simply location with respect to streets, while others involve the basic
creek/noncreek distinction based on the existence of culverts or lined channels. These errors
should be corrected. Staff will prepare a corrected map and have it printed for distribution with
the element.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may introduce the ordinance with different provisions from those recommended.
Substantial changes to the proposed regulations may need additional staff work or environmental
review, so continuation with direction would be appropriate.
Council rejection of any ordinance would result in the need to delete from the General Plan those
policies and programs which call for an ordinance. Such amendments would have to be
considered at a future hearing.
The Council may continue action. There is no action deadline.
Attachments
Draft ordinance
Draft ordinance synopsis
*Enclosed for Council members: Draft informational map on creek setback classifications
(folded 3' x 3' print); a copy of this map is available for viewing in the Community Development
Department and will be displayed at the hearing.
Distributed previously: Initial environmental study
CAR6-18.Cso
.2-3
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. Findings.
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 cavy 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. Adoption. Municipal Code Title 17 is hereby amended by the additions
shown fully in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. Previously approved r�'g,�. 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 Effecive 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.
9 -L/
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:
Allen K. Settle, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
+1 City Attorney
ORDCC618.CSO
�J
EXHIBIT A
Creek Setback Provisions Added to Zoning Regulations
Add to Chapter 17.04, Definitions.-
17.04.093
efinitions.17.04.093 Creek
"Creek"is a waterway or portion of waterway designated as a creek on the Open Space Element .
Creek Map. A drainage ditch, concrete swale, underground culvert, or storm drain (as indicated
on the Creek Map) is not a creek. Creeks located outside the urban reserve line are as designated
by the USGS 7.5 Minute series quadrangle maps or San Luis Obispo County data.
For purposes of creek setbacks, the following classifications are used:
"Major creep' is one which drains a large part of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed and
generally provides a riparian corridor of regional significance.
"Intermediate creek" is one which drains a moderate part of the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed and generally provides a riparian corridor significant to a large part of the city.
"Minor creek" is one which drains a small area and which generally provides a riparian
corridor which is significant to a small part of the city.
17.04.272 Significant riparian vegetation.
"Significant riparian vegetation" means trees or extensive shrubs which are growing in or along
a creek, and which tend to benefit from or associate with creekside conditions.
17.04.440 Top of bank.
"Top of bank" means the line where the naturally eroded ground slope, or the slope resultingfrom
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 the highest step.
Add part d to Section 17.16.020.E.1, Property Development Standards- yards -Exceptions Properly May
Be Entitled To.-
d.
o.d. Reduced Street Yards for Replacement Structures Providing Creek Setback. Where this
title does not require a replacement structure to provide the creek setback that is required
for a new structure, the required street yard shall be reduced one foot for each one foot
Of creek setback provided by the replacement structure in addition to the setback of the
structure being replaced, so long as the street yard is at least one-half that required by
Table 2.
Exhbit A -�
Page 2
Add to Chapter 17.16, Property Development Standards:
17.16.025 Creek setbacks.
A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to:
1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and natural creekside habitat, including
opportunities for wildlife-habitation, rest, and movement.
2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous
riparian habitat corridor can be established.
3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor.
4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding.
5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans.
B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all creeks as
defined in the Open Space Element and shown on that element's Creek Map, and only to
those creeks.
C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks shall'be measured from the existing top of
bank (or the future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration reflected in a plan approved
by the City), or from the edge of the predominant pattern of significant riparian vegetation,
whichever is farther from the creek flow line (Figure 4.1). The Community Development
Director may determine the predominant pattern of significant riparian vegetation, where the
edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length along the creek, in a way unrelated to
topography. Where significant riparian vegetation extends over a public street, no creek.
setback is required on property which is on the side of the street away from the creek:
Figure 4.1 Creek Setback Measurement
G� SIGNIFICANT RIPARIAN VEGETATION
{ � O,r N
' 9 �
2�
� uNE
rop OF BANK
••••• REQUIREDSETBACK
• • • • • •• • • •• • • • .••• • •• •• •. •••• ••• see
Exhibit A
Page 3
D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of significant riparian vegetation shall be
shown on all project plans subject to City approval. The location of these features is subject
to confirmation by the Community Development Director, based on observation of actual
conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of persons with expertise in hydrology, biology,
or geology.
E. Creek Setback Dimensions. (Informational map is available in the Community
Development Department.)
1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks within the city limits as of July
1, 1996, the setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in part E.3 or part G below.
Where the city limit follows a creek, the setback on the side within the 1996 city limits
shall be 20 feet and the setback on the annexed side shall be as provided in part 2 below.
2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creek in an area annexed to the City
after July 1, 1996, the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a specific plan or
development plan approved by the City Council provides a larger or smaller setback,
consistent with the purpose of these regulations and with General Plan policies.
a. Major Creeks. The setback along the following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo
Creek (all of main branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San Luis
Obispo Creek(main branch) to the confluence with Acacia Creek; Stenner Creek.
b. Intermediate Creeks. The setback along the following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo
Creek; Froom Creek; Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork
tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227);
Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the segment
of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel to and on the
easterly side of Broad Street (Highway 227), from Broad Street to Fuller Road.
c. Minor Creeks. The setback along all creeks except those listed in parts "a" and "b"
immediately above shall be 20 feet.
3. Larger setbacks. In approving any discretionary application, the City may require
setbacks larger than required by parts 1 and 2 above, or further limitations on the items
which may be placed within setbacks, to protect significant riparian vegetation, to
mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts, or to enable implementation of
adopted City plans. (Also, other City regulations may restrict or prevent development
in a floodway or floodplain.)
F. Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall not be placed or constructed within
a creek setback, except as provided in part G below: structures; parking lots; in
nonresidential zones, areas used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials.
Eshihit A
Page 4
G. Exceptions To Creek Setbacks.
1. Entitled 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. (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. Intent. 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. Generally, such exceptions are limited to
small parcels which are essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed
with setbacks smaller than those in part E above.
b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than required by part C above may be
approved by City action on a plan for public facilities approved by the City Council
or on a specific plan, development plan under planned development zoning, land
division, use permit, or architectural review. Where one of these types of
applications is not otherwise required for the proposed feature, an exception request
shall be in the form of an administrative use permit.
c. Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a creek setback exception,
regardless of application type, shall include a clear description of the feature or
features proposed to receive the exception, and the extent of the exception.
d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be subject to each of the following
findings, regardless of the type of project application under which the request is
considered.
i. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize
impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including
opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement;
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;
�2- 9
Exhibit A -�
Page 5
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.
vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property in the area of the.project or downstream.
e. Biological Survey. 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, unless waived by the Community Development
Director upon determining that no purpose would be served by such a survey
because no biological resources could be affected by the exception.
L Application Contents. In addition to any other information required for a project
application, a request for creek setback exception shall include the following:
i. A description of the feature or features proposed for exception and the extent
of the exception.
ii. A description of potential design changes for the project which would
eliminate or reduce the need for the exception.
iii. A statement of reasons why an exception is deemed necessary by the
applicant.
iv. Mitigation proposed to offset any harmful effects of the exception.
osDMCC.Cso
r �-
council ��`Dac 6-18- 9�
j aGEn& REpont RmNumb�
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0B,,ISSPO
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance v�!B -
-
Prepared By: Carolyn Dominguez, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF 1996-97 BUDGET
CAO RECONEWENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving amendments to the 1995-97 Financial Plan and appropriating funds
for fiscal year 1996-97 in the amount of$49,274,800.
DISCUSSION
Preliminary 1996-97 Budget
Consistent with the City's two year approach to the budgetary process, the 1996-97 Budget
presented for formal Council adoption at this time has been prepared using the 1995-97 Financial
Plan as its primary foundation. It also incorporates the analysis presented to Council as part of
the 1995-96 mid-year review on February 27, 1996; the enterprise fund rate reviews held on June
4, 1996; and other budget changes affecting 1996-97 approved by the Council since the adoption
of the 1995-97 Financial Plan such as the community development block grant program.
A comprehensive analysis of the significant budget issues facing the City during 1996-97 along
with recommended supplemental appropriations are included in the Introduction (under Budget
Message and Budget Highlights) of the accompanying Preliminary 1996-97 Budget.
Update on the Status of the Natural Resources Nlanagement Program
One of the major goals set forth in the 1995-97 Financial Plan is developing and implementing
a natural resources management program. Attached for the Council's review is a memorandum
summarizing the status of this new program, which will be presented by the Natural Resources
Manager at the budget hearing.
ATTACHNIE:NTS
■ Resolution amending the 1995-97 Financial Plan and appropriating funds for 1996-97
■ Status report on the natural resources management program
ENCLOSURE
1995-97 Financial Plan Supplement and Preliminary 1996-97 Budget
aaiii�i/%/va%/ii viii
Date: June 6, 1996
To: City Council
Via: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic�
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officerpr�
From: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager 1__�_1
Subject: Update Report on Natural Resources Program
Introduction. The City Council established the Natural Resources Program as an
identified Citywide program in the 1995-97 Financial Plan. The program envisioned the
pursuit of several goals during the budget period, including the following identified "Major
City Goals":
• Begin initial open space acquisition efforts;
• Develop an open space preservation strategy which includes a financing
component;
Assist in the coordination and implementation of natural resource
protection policies and plans; and
• Develop an inventory of natural resources, both within the City andlhe
Greenbelt.
Other identified goals include the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with
San Luis Obispo County for greenbelt protection, promotion of public awareness of the
City's natural resources, provide advice and counsel to City departments regarding
environmental policies and natural resource issues, and develop policies to ensure that
environmentally responsible practices are followed in the conduct of City business.
Current Status of the Program. With the arrival of the Natural Resources Manager in
February 1996, work on many of these programs began in earnest, and programs already
in progress through consulting arrangement with the Land Conservancy picked up pace.
A brief accounting of the various programs follows:
1. Begin initial open space acquisition efforts. As Councilmembers are aware, staff is
actively pursuing three significant acquisition projects at the present time with the
intention of using currently available funds. One of the projects is a fee acquisition, one
is a conservation easement, and one may be a combination of the two.
2. Develop open space preservation strategy. Since February, staff has worked closely
with the Council-appointed Open Space Financing Task Force to prepare a proposed
financing program for Council consideration. This proposal, which will be before the
Council on June 11th, recommends placing an advisory ballot measure on the November
1996 ballot. This measure would allow creation of a Citywide assessment district that
could raise up to $1.5 million annually for open space acquisition and parkland capital
improvements. Finance Department staff have been most helpful in this process.
In addition, staff is pursuing a strategy of open space dedication in conjunction with
development approvals for projects. At the present time, there are at least three projects
which have potential for such dedication.
3. Assist in the coordination and implementation of natural resource protectionpolicies
and plans. The Natural Resources Manager has had the privilege and opportunity to
work with the Community Development, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Utilities
Department staffs on a wide variety of natural resource conservation issues and
programs. These have included the creek setback ordinance, mitigation measures for the
proposed Salinas, Nacimiento, and Water Reuse projects, and operational activities and
programs at Laguna Lake Park, South Hills Open Space, Ferrini Ranch Open Space, and
along San Luis Obispo Creek. Departmental staff have been most cordial and welcoming
of suggestions and recommendations.
4. Develop an inventory of natural resources, both within the City and the Greenbelt.
The press of activity on the previous items has delayed full onset of the inventory;
however, funding for consultant assistance has been identified. It is anticipated that
inventory work on the creeks and several other areas of high biodiversity (for example,
the Irish Hills, Bishop Peak, and Bowden Adobe areas) will be underway later this summer
and into next spring. Over the next several weeks, the Natural Resources Manager will
be working with other staff and representatives of the environmental community to further
develop the scope of this undertaking. Once the work scope has been defined, it will be
reported to the Council.
5. Other Program Objectives_ Other projects which are underway include the
development of a nature education program in conjunction with Park and Recreation
Department staff, development of policies which promote environmentally responsible
practices in conduct of City business, and development of a Memorandum of
Understanding for Greenbelt Protection, jointly with San Luis Obispo County. Examples
of work already completed in support of these goals include (1) the beginnings of an
environmental education program, including wildflower walks, creek appreciation
programs, and curriculum-oriented educational programs for school or after-school
groups, (2) institution of a policy of leaving downwood on City open space lands unless
the downwood constitutes a hazard or nuisance (this was recently implemented on a
large downed oak at the Ferrini Ranch Open Space) and (3) a draft Memorandum of
Understanding for Greenbelt Protection is currently being prepared and will be forwarded
to County staff for review in the next few weeks.
Staff believes that early progress of this new program has been good, and it is hoped that
Council members will agree. At the June 18 meeting the Natural Resources Manager will
present a verbal report on the progress of the program and answer any questions that
the Council may have.
DRAFT ORDINANCE SYNOPSIS
ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES)
CREEK SETBACKS
On June 18, 1996, the San Luis Obispo City Council voted [ vote ] to introduce
Ordinance No. which would add creek setback standards to the Zoning Regulations.
Following are the major features of the ordinance:
• Setbacks would be required along all creeks mapped in the General Plan Open Space
Element. Within the current city limits, the basic setback would be 20 feet for all creeks.
In annexation areas, basic setbacks would be 50 feet for major creeks, 35 feet for
intermediate creeks, and 20 feet for minor creeks, all as described in the ordinance. The
ordinance would recognize the potential for deciding creek protection corridors in the
specific plans or development plans required for annexations.
• The following would not be allowed in setbacks: structures, including decks and stairs over
30 inches tall, and all buildings; parking lots; outdoor commercial and industrial work and
storage areas. Individual parking spaces (as for houses), fencing, patios, and walkways
would be allowed.
• Setbacks would be measured from top of bank, or from the edge of the predominant
pattern of trees and shrubs which often grow along creeks, whichever is farther from the
creek.
• Existing buildings within required setbacks could be maintained and replaced, so long as
the area they cover within the setback does not increase.
• The City could approve a reduced setback where there is no option that would allow
reasonable use of a site. The City body considering the exception request (typically along
with other aspects of the project) would need to first hold a public hearing for which public
notice has been given.
The Council must vote again to approve this ordinance before it can take effect. That
action is tentatively scheduled for July 2, 1996, at a Regular City Council meeting to begin at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Copies of the complete ordinance are available in the City Clerk's Office, Room No. 1 of
City Hall. For more information, contact the Community Development Department at 781-7172.
City Clerk
LORDSUM.CSO