Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2003, BUS2 - PRESENTATION OF SAVING SPECIAL PLACES II REPORT BY LAND CONSERVANCY STAFF; AND DIRECTION TO CITY ST COUnat -03 acEnaa aEpmt C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: Wendy George,Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared By: Neil HavW Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF SAVING SPECIAL PLACES II REPORT BY LAND CONSERVANCY STAFF; AND DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF REGARDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO GREENBELT CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive the presentation referred to as "Saving Special Places 11", from staff at the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County; and provide direction to staff regarding the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt. DISCUSSION In July 1995, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approved a document known as "Saving Special Places", which had been produced by the City's land trust partner, the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. That document evaluated a variety of natural and cultural influences in the area surrounding the City of San Luis Obispo and recommended certain priorities in pursuit of the goal of establishing a permanent greenbelt around the City. Around the same time, the City Council established the Natural Resources Protection Program, to actively pursue greenbelt preservation among other goals and objectives. The Natural Resources Protection Program has now been a functional part of the City of San Luis Obispo's smart growth strategies for seven years. To review the performance of the program, and if appropriate recommend changes, the City contracted with the Land Conservancy to review the recommendations of the original Saving Special Places document, the City's on- the-ground implementation efforts related to that program, and identify ways to improve that performance. The result is a series of informational graphic displays, referred to as "Saving Special Places II". Findings of"Saving Special Places H". The study found that: 1. Many of the sites identified in the 1995 report as priorities have been preserved; 2. Other protected lands occupy a significant portion of the Greenbelt area; 3. A weighted model that can evaluate priorities under a system of different assumptions could be used to assess future direction; 4. The model.showed that important areas deserving of protection and often lacking it now lie along the major gateways into the community. �1 Council Agenda Report—Presentation of"Saving Special Places II" Page 2 - Recommendations. To address the identified issues, the study makes two important recommendations: I. Without ignoring other areas, the City should focus its attention for conservation programs on the gateways into the community; and 2. Adjustments should be made to the Greenbelt boundary to utilize watershed or other topographic boundaries instead of existing artificial ones along hillsides, etc. The use of the weighted model was innovative, and provided the means to consider alternate approaches to land conservation.. For example, one weighting might favor protection of rare species or habitats. Another might favor protection of farmlands or prime soils. A third might combine these in some fashion. The model allowed City and Land Conservancy staff to look at these potentials, and to compare them against existing protections (both temporary and permanent) to identify areas where conservation efforts would be the most valuable. The findings and recommendations of the study have been presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and to the Planning Commission. Input from the Commissions was supportive of the two major recommendations. Staff is therefore seeking direction from the City Council whether to undertake the formal General Plan amendment process for the greenbelt boundaries. FISCAL IMPACT There will be certain costs of staff time in the General Plan amendment process. These are expected to be minor, and absorbed within Natural Resources and Community Development staff budgets. The process would be dealt with as a City-generated amendment and would not cavy any particular priority. Upon completion, the revised boundaries would offer the City a slightly increased area in which City and grant funds could be expended for conservation transactions. CONCURRENCES As noted above, the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission have received the presentation,and were supportive of the recommendations of the study. ALTERNATIVE The Council could direct that staff retain the status quo. This would mean that the current emphasis and direction provided by the original Saving Special Places document would be retained. This is not recommended as many of the objectives of the original report have been achieved and the current study has identified a more promising and beneficial approach to achieving the objectives of the greenbelt program. Attachment 1. Presentation overview from Land Conservancy g/Havlik/councilagenda/Saving Special Places l! a -a Saving Special Places II: Revisiting Open Space Priorities And the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt in 2003 Executive Summary T Q Prepared for: The City of San Luis Obispo By: The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County July 2003 a �� • The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County is under contract with the City of San Luis Obispo to prepare a report that outlines new priorities for the continued acquisition of land in order to secure a greenbelt on the City's periphery. The purpose of the report is to serve as an update and continuation of Saving Special Places: A Study of Open Space Values and the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt, which was completed in July 1995 for the benefit of the City's Greenbelt Protection Program. In the period since that report was written, many of the properties delineated as priorities have either been purchased in fee or have had conservation easements placed over them. However, development pressure is now greater than ever due to the State's housing mandate and the overall desirability and quality of living found in San Luis Obispo. The conundrum of accommodating this growth, while at the same time not compromising the magnificent natural resources that make San Luis Obispo such a special place to live, is now facing local planners, policy makers, and citizens. To that end, there is an urgent need to engage in an update of priorities for greenbelt property acquisition. As before, the City is looking for guidance in formulating their priorities via a comprehensive analysis report from the Land Conservancy. To complete this task, the Land Conservancy began by creating what is called the Special Places Model. The platform for this model is Geographic Information Systems (GIS) computer software created by the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (SSRI). The model was developed for the purpose of determining where important natural resources are located that should be protected under the City's Greenbelt Protection Program. The Special Places Model is based on the notion of dividing the land into units of similar characteristics or areas which can be separated by natural breaks in the landscape. Landscape units are useful for organizing and aggregating landscape- based attributes. Size, vegetation cover, topography, soils, scenic view qualities, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat, and other natural features, such as wetlands or riparian corridors, are among the landscape-based attributes listed for contemplating greenbelt acquisition priorities in the draft Resource Conservation Element of the City's General Plan'. While these attributes are germane to the land itself, landscape units allow us to think of these lands as a particular place with a particular variety of features. A point scale was assigned for each of the above natural resource attributes based on the extent of their presence within each of the established landscape units. This allowed for each landscape unit to be individually evaluated in terms of the resources located within them. Then, the points awarded in each landscape unit were added up to show which places in the greenbelt offer the highest concentration of natural resources, and therefore are of the highest priority for acquisition(see map 1, attached). Using the arithmetic method described above, however, assumes that each natural resource attribute holds the same value for conservation purposes. In order to overcome this limitation, the next step taken was to utilize the ModelBuildefrm, which is a software extension available for use with GIS. The advantage of using the ModelBuildefm is that it allowed us to easily create a weighted overlay for the point structure associated with the landscape units. Four different scenarios were run in which the weight given for ' These criteria have not changed from the existing Open Space element which will be replaced with the Resource Conservation Element Page I i consideration of each attribute was varied in order to model different acquisition priority criteria. For example, in one scenario, habitat for rare and endangered plants and wildlife was given the most weight. In another scenario, the presence of prime soils was given the greatest consideration (see figure 1 and map 2, attached). By using the weighted overlay method, the model can be .easily adjusted to accommodate any given criteria weighting scenario. With a clear idea of where different natural resource attributes are found within the greenbelt, the next step taken was to consider this knowledge relative to what areas are already protected, and what areas still remain that are in need of protection. To do this, all of the existing greenbelt properties that the City either owns, or has conservation easements over, were selected from a digitized map of parcels in the greenbelt area. Parcels that are encumbered with open space easements or other development prohibitive deed restrictions were also located. Finally, parcels that are under Williamson Act contract or that are in public ownership were selected and mapped. The resulting map shows that much of the greenbelt is already under some sort of protection from development. An important pattern that emerged is that areas that are still unprotected and that also scored highly in the Special Places Model tend to be located around major city gateways. This resulted in the establishment of six focus areas, each emphasizing the concept of the city gateway and the particular needs for protection that exist in these areas. City gateways are important because, to a large extent, they define the character and perception of the City for both residents and visitors. Establishing firm boundaries at city gateways also helps to curb urban sprawl and maintain a distinct city edge. The focus areas can be described as the corridors located at highway 1 west, highway 101 north, Orcutt Road, highway 227 east, highway 101 south, and Los Osos Valley Road (see map 3, attached). The primary recommendation resulting from the analysis described above is for the City's Greenbelt Protection Program, as well as other City staff and elected and appointed officials, to pursue conservation opportunities that either exist now, or in the future, that will further the permanent protection of lands within the focus areas. It was felt that inappropriate development in these areas would very easily tarnish the sense of place and local identity that residents now enjoy. This is not to say that other opportunities should be ignored; there is still clearly a need to protect resources such as the prime agricultural soils located south and west of town, or the diverse wildlife and oak woodland habitat that lies farther out in the Irish Hills, for example. Further, subjective inputs and particular situations that might arise should also still receive due consideration. A secondary recommendation resulting from this report is for the adoption of a revised greenbelt boundary. There are two reasons for doing this. The first is that the modeling and parcel-based analysis described above revealed that there are some important conservation opportunities that lie slightly outside the existing boundary. This is especially true in focus areas one and two. The second reason is that the existing boundary is based on planning area boundaries and other arbitrary lines. The move Page 2 towards a boundary that is based in part on the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed and in part on the scenic viewshed from town provides a more holistic and landscape-based approach to looking at the greenbelt (see map 4, attached). The recommendations provided in Saving Special Places II: Revisiting Open Space Values and the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt in 2003 confirm existing priorities and opportunities currently being sought, and also outline new priorities for the future. In keeping with a long established public/private partnership, staff from both the City's Natural Resources Department and the Land Conservancy either have been or will be contacting landowners whose parcels encompass priority areas to see if they are interested in having their property become part of the Greenbelt Protection Program 2. Once a relationship is established, all aspects of negotiation, financing, acquisition, and management of property will continue to be handled in accordance with the policies and procedures outlined in the draft Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan. z Both the City of San Luis Obispo and the Land Conservancy have a long-standing policy of only worldng with willing landowners on open space acquisition projects. Page e e 1 f �►1` ri �: � ` 1Land 33 1� t' 29 Landscape Unit 20 Priority Scores 3 �: is $ Map Key: fife 7 r s r-� Score 1-5 36 10 70 Score 6-10 Score 11-15 42 t 28 i r- a 41 40 94 '> Score 16-20 at 69 23 Score 21+ 51 6 45 Landscape Units 5 � ® Major Highways 46 47 Scale: N 0 0.5 1 13 2 Map I Landanpe UMts Vector Natural Features Natural Waroros Fold Cooderslon 25% Lmd¢ape 11,11 11 Tector opography VCoaversloo Topography 25% Field Landscape lh ft Vector Endangered Spades Field Comeraioo Spodes 1096 Weighted eighted O.1.7 Kap of Oreday Spedal Places LendsapeVadm flare Plants 10% Plaotr Cooewslon Landscape Ualls Vector Soft 25% Seib Field Coavanlon Landscape Whs Yectar Size toAcrosS% Size Field Canerdon Figure I— Weighted Overlay Page 4 n a MieLmd 33 29 Weighted Overlay 20 Aof Landscape Units s g 3C, Scenario One 1t3 s ti- s,, 7 Map Key: 9 10 O 1 � Low Priority 70 36 16 Medium Priority 2.5 22 42 High Priority '26` M 39 1 40 9 74 Highest Priority 59 51 60 45 43 44 ` Landscape Units 49 46 �*i ® Major Highways `� 47 Scale: " , ,. . r 0 0.5 1 1.5 7 W E - a� •t��k Xl y .*�� " '1• A Map 2 14 -_ ,s TheLarid A San Luis Obispo a Greenbelt Focus Areas .. 4� a Map Key: Greenbelt Properties -?e fA O Q Public Ownership wiuiamson Act ` 0 ; Ag.Preserves ' Open Space Easements )( SLO City Limits Other Parcels y S: Major Roads&Highways s r Y 0 Fowl Areas jSeale: 91cf90 0.5 1 1.5 2 w+E ®AAilec s Map 3 Page 5 f he Land t ,k -�► Map Key: Revised Greenbelt �, i►'�, Q F)dsting Greenbelt Cerro Romualdo City Limits rr" A ® Major Highways `.•; �J1 Reservoir Canyon �'APeak Dowmown $Cale: " 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 w ®muas '��1P,,1f�•:� ��1 Cerro San Lull p San Luis RJdge ,j- 1 i ls�y Hui trlsh HBA Map 4 Page 6 4 r ` Allen Settle- Re: Greenbelt-July 15,.2003= r_ Page 1 RECEIVED From: Jan Marx <janmarx@fix.net> JUL I To: D. & E. Dollar' <ddollar@pacbell.net> 12 ao: Date: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 10:46 AM SLO CITYLERK Subject: Re: Greenbelt-July 15, 2003 Dear City Council: I agree whole heartedly with everything Don Dollar said in his email to you. Surveys show again and again that city citizens treasure the Greenbelt. The Greenbelt will become even more precious to city residents and important to our economy with every passing year. Yours, Jan Howell Marx D. & E. Dollar wrote: RED FILE MSE, 71 G AGENDA > City Council, DATE/ Ig0ITEM # &1&2� > Please enter my comments for the July 15, 2003 City Council Meeting > Comments on the San Luis Obispo > I attended the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo presentation, > Saving Special Places II, at the Parks and Recreation Commission F- • meeting a while back. I urge you to accept the report and amend city 'COUNCIL -'C > policy accordingly..The city is very fortunate to have a good start ;?CAO - >on a Greenbelt. But, there is still much to do. I do not want to see ACRO Z F >continuous sprawl from Santa Maria to San Miguel. I do not want San ATTORNEY ,Z'p > Luis Obispo to be like so many other places. I know there will always $CLERKVORIG 2rF > be talk about how much it cost, but I think the real way to look at D T HEADS �yUP >the issue is:what will be the cost if we do not have a viable - ❑ > Greenbelt? Future generations deserve some undeveloped areas around ) H >town to make it more livable and help keep San Luis Obispo special. We > have made so much progress in the last few years, we can do more. > Direct staff to pursue the greenbelt actively. > Use topographic boundaries for the greenbelt. > Have the Natural Resources Program work with groups and the public > interested in natural resources protection to clarify natural resource > priorities (such.as the examples in the report, landscapes, species, > etc.). > Sincerely, > Don Dollar > SLO > 781-0118 CC: John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Allen Settle <asettle@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz <kschwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero <dromero@slocity.org>, Neil Havlik<nhavlik@slocity.org>, Bob Hill <bob@special-places.org> .2-COUNCIL ycDD DIR - RED FILE RECEIVED CAO ZKFIN DIR �_ i p MEEI'IIyG AGENDA - p-ACAO �FIRE CHIEF � . oL JUL _' 5 200 ATTORNEY f PW DIR DA ITEM # 99 ZCLERKIORIG 2POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK ❑ DEPT HEADS 12REC DIR Meeting Update �y` Ck L'Up DID, LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 2003 Wednesday 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, James Caruso, Michael Boswell, Vice-Chair Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh Commissioner Loh was absent SWEARING IN: Swearing in of reappointed Commissioner Jim Aiken. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as presented PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Beth Schroder provided her views on the war in Iraq and local politics PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Watershed-Greenbelt Area. GPA 10-03; Study Session: Natural Resources and Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County presentation on the City's Greenbelt, to adjust the boundary to the natural watershed boundary; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from March 26, 2003) (Neil Havlik and Mike Draze) After the presentation by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, the Commission thanked them for a very informative presentation and by consensus, asked the Council to support the processing of the boundary adjustment. 'J 2. 1636 Woodland Drive. ER 11-01; Review of an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed development project to include a tentative tract map to create 23 residential lots plus one open space lot and rezone the 40 acre parcel from R-1 to R-1-PD; Bowden Ranch Partners, applicant. (Lynn Azevedo) The Commission received testimony from the public on the draft EIR for the Bowden Ranch development. After several speakers from the neighborhood presented testimony, the Commission provided individual comments on the EIR. Discussion focused on hillside development, drainage, monitoring effectiveness, tree removals, and the desire to see a mitigated project alternative in the form of a revised Tentative Map when the project comes back to the Commission later this spring. Comments from the public and Commissioners will be addressed in the Final EIR. At least one more public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the project and EIR. ,I l ' � Parks and Recreation Commission MINUTES City-County Library Conference Room Wednesday, April 2, 2003 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Peter Dunan called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Pete Dunan, Commissioners Debbie Black, Daniel Buckshi, Jim Neville, Bill Pyper, and Alan Thomas. ABSENT: Gary Clay STAFF: Director Paul LeSage, Larry Tolson,Neil Havlik, and Cindy McDonald. NEW MEMBER SWORN IN: Lee Price, City Clerk swore in Alan Thomas as Commissioner t the Parks and Recreation Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There was no public comment. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the March 5, 2003 meeting a approved with the following changes: Add Commissioners Teresa Larson and Gary Clay the attendee Roll Call list. Correct Item 3.4 Naming the Park: motion failed 3:2 (Buckshi, Dun eville opposed), (Clay abstained). 1. Volunteer of the Month Chair Dunan presented Garth Ko eth as the Volunteer of the Month. 2. Election of Officers Pete Dunan was elected Chair unanimously. Bill Pyper was elected as the Vice Chair unanimously. 3. Biannual Byla eview Paul LeSage scussed with the Commission the annual review of the Parks and Recreation Commissio ylaws. The Commission reviewed and discussed the Bylaws. Reco endation: • Approve the Bylaws with the following amendments: Section 2.16.010:B. - add the words Open space and make park and playground plural for parks and playgrounds. (Pyper/Buckshi,unanimous). 4. Presentation: Green Belt Presentation Land Conservancy,Bob Hill and Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager LeSage introduced Neil Havlik, Natural Resource Manager, and Bob Hill of the Land Conservancy to the Commission. Havlik briefed the Commission regarding the Saving Special Places IT Revisiting Open Space Priorities Greenbelt in 2003. Mr. Hill gave his presentation. Commissioners thanked Mr. Havlik and Mr. Hill for their presentation. Public Comment: Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo citizen thanked the staff and the Land Conservancy C1 WfMDOW517MP104.0203 Mlnv=" Parks and Recreation Comm.._-,on - Minutes for April 2, 2003 Page 2 LCitheir presentation. He also encouraged the Commission to support the presentation as it goes ward to the City Council. He was disappointed that the open space was not on the top 10 for the goals. 5. ?Directors Report Le e distributed handout and briefed the Commission on the following subjects: or City goal—Therapy Pool Prop Operating Cost Reductions Special Accommodations. 6. Staff Reports LeSage distributed the staff ort to the Commission. 7. Committee Reports Commissioners gave reports on Comma es they attended. 8. Communications None. 9. Adjourned The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to the May 7,2003 meetin .