Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2003, A3-1 - ANALYSIS OF CORRESPONDENCE POLICY ISSUES Attachment 3 ANALYSIS OF CORRESPONDENCE POLICY ISSUES Initial comments from several members of the public claimed that the proposed Conservation& Open Space Element eliminates many important policies in the General Plan. In most cases the policies have not been eliminated. Several policies have been changed. The following summary numbers many of the policy concerns presented in some of the correspondence received. How the draft update addresses each concern is noted in italics. Following this list are excerpts from the proposed update that show how the policies in question are actually addressed by the proposed update. Numbers in the margin of the excerpts correspond to the numbers of the summary of concerns. 1. The new draft eliminates the city's preserving ag land in the city and urban reserve, and says the city will only protect such land outside of the urban reserve. How? (Schmidt 6/17/02,Marg 2/26/03, Pinard 6/2/03) Goal OS 2 of the new Conservation and Open Space Element specifically identifies prime agricultural soils within the urban area as a `valuable resource" and Policy OS 2.1 says that the City will preserve such resources within the urban area. Other existing agricultural protection policies from the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element are found in Policies OS 2.2 and OS 6. 2. LUE 1.10 protects our air quality by saying if mitigations and other actions to control pollution are ineffective,the city will amend the LUE to reduce development capacity in order to reign in air pollution growth. It is eliminated in the current draft. Why? (Pinard 6/2/03) LUE Policy 1.10 is included, word for word, in the draft Conservation and Open Space Element. (See Air Quality: Program Outline, F,page 17.) 3. LUE 6.0.1 establishes the city's policy to protect its natural resources and systems by giving their planning a priority "co-equal" with other community needs. This is a very strong land use policy that the Council adopted in 1994 at the recommendation of the Environmental Quality Task Force. The current draft deletes it entirely. Why? (Schmidt 6/17/02, Marx 2./26/03,Pinard 6/2/03) References to natural resources having "co-equal"status with other community needs is proposed to be made more detailed and specific and, in staffs'opinion, stronger. All general plan policies are equal by State law, so the statement that they should be "co-equal"seems to state the obvious. However, this may not have been considered obvious in 1994, and thus it is a symbolic statement that can certainly stay in the plan, if desired by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Including the Land Use Element in the update was never the intended purpose, and therefore lacks legitimacy. (Schmidt 6/17/02) Reviewing all related general plan elements was in fact part of the approved scope of work. Attachment I to the staff report documents this. Attachment 3 5. LUE Program 6.0.2 establishes that the city develop and use overlay maps in its land use decisions. Program LU 6.0.3 states that the overlay maps shall be used to refine the existing land use map. This program has not been fully implemented and should not be deleted. (Schmidt 6/17/02) The maps called for by program 6.0.2. are essentially complete. The habitat mapping that has been done as apart of the update was based in large part on this program. It would be appropriate to delete completed programs. An option to deleting the program is to create another program to further the intent of the underlying policy, which is to use the mapped information for making land use decisions that give as much consideration to natural resources and constraints as they do to other community needs. The update excerpts identify several new and on-going mapping needs to replace L UE 6.0.2. 6. Policy LU 6.4.6 is the policy basis for the creek setback ordinance. The ordinance relies on this policy for its underlying rationale. The underlying rationale will be eliminated by the update. (Schmidt 6/17/02) Update Policy OS 2.2 continues to require setbacks for creek protection. The policy notes that the buffers will be in the form of setbacks, and goes on to explain what shall generally be excluded within the buffer area and where the buffers should be located. Other creek corridor and riparian habitat protection policies will continue to guide the City's application of its Creek Setback Ordinance. 7. The substance of the Energy Conservation Element is being deleted, especially Programs 26 and 45. The programs that replace them provide only diluted versions of the originals. (Schmidt 6/17/02) Program 26 has been implemented in a number of ways over the years, and the revised program includes a subtle shift of focus in response to how the program has been implemented. In the current development environment, project designers must make conscious choices regarding energy efficient design because the State energy code has very specific, quantifiable standards that every new building must achieve. As a result, the focus of the program is changed to the education of staff, decision makers and designers on ways to exceed State requirements. Another major way that Program 26 has been implemented is through the City's Community Design Guidelines, which include very specific direction on acceptable practices for energy efficient design. The Guidelines also encourage all proposed development to comply with the standards for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), developed by the. Green Building Council. Program 45 has been implemented to a similar degree. One of the mandatory features listed in Chapter 17.62.045 of the City's recently revised PD ordinance allows for PD zoning to be established where the project will achieve a minimum of 30 percent greater energy efficiency that minimum required by the California Code. This is one of four mandatoryfeatures, of which two must be provided to receive a PD zone entitlement. The PD process is the only method by which design flexibility and incentives can be allowed, so implementation of the policy through the PD ordinance is the most effective way to encourage energy efficient design. Staff does not necessarily equate "energy self-sufficiency" with living off the energy grid, since new technologies in solar power are designed to allow individual collectors of solar energy to convert that energy into current to augment the grid, benefiting the community as a whole. R9 —eq Attachment 3 S. Removing the scenic roadways policies from the Circulation Element and putting them in a Conservation and Open Space Element will result in those policies being lost. (Schmidt 6/17/02) The update will combine scenic roadway policies and designations into one element. Currently they are addressed in the Conservation, Open Space and the Circulation Elements. The conventional wisdom in the planning profession is that consolidating similar policy topics makes them easier to use. See Attachment 4 to the agenda report. 9. Environmental values and the role of the public in energy conservation is being watered down by changing the existing policy: (Marx 2/26/03) "San Luis Obispo will achieve broad public awareness of citizen's roles in causing-and solving energy problems. Overall energy consumption will be reduced by eliminating frivolous uses and making more efficient use of energy in essential activities, with the goal of reducing conventional energy use per person in 1995 to about 60%of the 1980 consumption.n to "For San Luis Obispo urban areas, no overall increase in use of non-sustainable energy, and the eventual replacement of non-sustainable energy sources with sustainable sources." The goal of reducing conventional energy use to 60% of the 1980 consumption by 1995 is eliminated because the timeframe of the 1973 Energy Element has expired. The new energy policies proposed in the Draft are far more specific, listing best available practices in energy conservation and production. The statement, "San Luis Obispo will achieve broad public awareness of citizen's roles in causing and solving energy problems," is implemented on a daily basis through the City's Utilities Conservation program. The program outline for implementing energy policies is also detailed and includes the specific steps the City will take in support of out on-going energy conservation efforts. 10. The existing Open Space Element states that within the City limits creeks will be protected as open space and [with noted exceptions] maintained in essentially a natural state to protect water quality, wildlife diversity and aesthetic value. The proposed Goal OS 2 does no longer makes protection mandatory. (Marx 2/26/03) OS 2 is not the only location in the update that addresses the subject of protecting natural resources. OS 2 is a goal, so it is intentionally more general than a policy or a program. The policies in the update provide essentially the same protection as the existing policies. Update Policy 2.1, in particular, states that creek corridors will be preserved as open space. Update policies 2.2 and 5 collectively say buffers in which only limited uses supporting enhancement and restoration will be allowed will make continued protection mandatory. Policy OS 6 requires creek modifications to restore affected creek areas to be restored to a natural condition. -3 Attachment 3 11. All of the Community Goals of the Open Space Element are being eliminated. (Marx 2/26/03) The existing Open Space Goals are not being eliminated. The Policy Comparison document explains where they have been incorporated in the update. Two out of the five goals are made more speck, the other three existing goals are incorporated into policies or programs. 12. The current Open Space Element provides protection for endangered, threatened, candidate for listing,plants classified by the California Native Plant Society,species meeting the CEQA criteria of Section 15380 as well as the habitat required to support these species. The"valuable resources" listed in the proposed update's Goal OS 2 does not provide as extensive protection as the current Open Space Elements list of"unique resources" and"sensitive habitat." (Marx 2/26/03) Policy NC 1.1. of the proposed update lists the species to be protected. This list is actually more extensive than the list in the existing Open Space Element. In addition to including the species addressed in the existing Open Space Element, Policy NC 1.1. adds a new category of protected species, "Species Of Local Concern". In light of the concern, it may be desirable to include in Goal OS 2 a reference to ("Listed Species as defined in this element'). 13. Protection of creeks and wetlands is no longer mandatory. Proposed Goal OS 2 does not provide the same level of protection as existing policies. (Marx 2/26/03) As is the situation with concern 410, OS 2 is not the only location in the update that addresses the subject of protecting natural resources. OS 2 is a goal, so it is intentionally more general than a policy or a program. The policies in the update provide essentially the same protection as the existingpolicies. Update Policy 2.1, in particular, states that the resource values described in OS 2 (including wetlands and vernal pools) will be preserved as open space. Update policies 2.2 and 5 say'collectively; that the resource values in Goal OS 2 (including wetlands and vernal pools) will be protected by buffers in which only limited uses supporting enhancement and restoration will be allowed 14. Joint Powers Agreement No Longer a Program. The current Open Space Element calls for the City to work with the County, State, and special districts to create a joint powers agreement to preserve open space and rural and agricultural uses. This program is not being carried over in the proposed update. (Marx 2/26/03) This program is recommended for deletion. In the 9 years it has been in the Open Space Element no opportunities for such a program have arisen. The program could be carried over to the new element, however staff recommends that General Plan programs be based in part on a reasonable expectation that they can be implemented. This is a recommendation at this point in the process. The process still allows for joint powers options to be discussed. It is proposed that the program be replaced with the policy direction in the update that the City encourage other agencies to follow the City's policies and that the City work with other agencies on specific cooperative efforts. The Planning Commission can recommend that the program be retained or modified and the Council will make a final determination. Attachment 3 Introduction " The City's General Plan guides the use and y protection of various resources to meet community purposes. It reflects consensus and compromise among a wide diversity of citizens' preferences, within a framework set by State law. The General Plan consists of - sections, called elements, which focus on Hikers enjoy part of the city's open space setting. certain topics. In the early 1970's, the California Legislature made open space elements and conservation elements mandatory parts of city and county general plans. San Luis Obispo adopted its first Conservation Element and its first Open Space Element separately in 1973. The Open Space Element was extensively revised and expanded in 1994, mainly to address protection of creeks, plants, and wildlife. The City adopted its optional Energy Conservation Element in 1981 and its optional Water and Wastewater Management Element in 1987. The 1994 Housing Element update also contained policies on saving energy and water. The 1994 update of the Land Use Element contained detailed policies on protection of archaeological and historical resources. The 1994 update of the Circulation Element established many policies on alternatives to trips in single- occupant vehicles, which affect air quality and energy use. The Circulation Element also contained a section relating roads to scenic resources. This Conservation and Open Space Element combines and revises material from previous conservation, open space, and energy conservation elements, as well as parts of the land use and housing elements, and the scenic roadways section of the Circulation Element. It focuses on protecting assets associated with land that is not developed with urban uses: open space for farming, wildlife habitat, scenery, water supply, and separation between cities. It also addressesJairand water quality, energy sources and conservation, materials recycling, minerals, and culturesources. The Land Use Element of the General Plan focuses on the types and intensitiesdevelopment on land designated for urban uses. The Safety Element is concerned mainly wavoiding hazards from fire, flood, unstable land, and aircraft flights, where agriculture and natulandscape are often the most appropriate uses. The Parks and Recreation Element focuses open land, as well as facilities, which are intended for active recreational use. In the General Plan, a goal is a desired end state or condition that the community wants to achieve. A policy describes an approach to achieving a goal. A program is a specific action the City intends to take to implement policy. Numbering of goals, policies, and programs is for ease of reference, and does not imply relative importance unless so stated. - Attachment 3 f � San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space Element Goal OS 2: Within the urban area, a network of open land encompassing particularly valuable natural and agricultural resources, connected with the landscape around the urban area. Particularly valuable resources are: 'O © A. Creek corridors, including open channels with natural banks and vegetation B. Laguna Lake and its undeveloped margins C. Wetlands and vernal pools D. Undeveloped hills and mountains E. Grassland communities and woodlands F. Corridors that facilitate wildlife movement, for the health of individuals and of species G. The habitat of species listed as threatened or endangered by the State or Federal governments OH. Prime agricultural soils in large, undeveloped parcels (Appendix D) I. Groundwater recharge areas J. Historically open-space settings for cultural resources Policy OS 2.1 Open space in the urban area The City will preserve as Open Space or as Agriculture the areas listed in Goal OS91C 2and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do so. (Seemap, Figure 2.) Policy OS 2.2: Open-space buffers When activities close to open space resources within or outside the urban area could harm them, the City will assure adequate buffers between the activities and the resources. The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to follow this policy. Buffers associated with new development shall be on the site of the development, rather than on neighboring land containing the open space resource. I I Buffers provide distance in the form of setbacks, within which certain features or r activities are nota owed. Buffers�o use techniques such as planting and fencing. Buffers should be adequate for the most sensitive species in the protected area and should complement the protected area's habitat values. Buffers will be provided in the following situations: A. Between urban development, including parks and public facilities, and natural habitats such as creeks, wetlands, and grassland communities, to address noise, lighting, storm runoff, spread of invasive, non-native species, and access by people and pets (see also the Safety Element for "defensible space" next to wildland fire areas); I( B. Between urban development and agricultural operations, to address dust, noise'49 odors, chemical use, and access by people and pets; v C. Between agricultural operations and natural habitat, to address noise, chemical use, sediment transport, and livestock access; D. Between new development and cultural resources, to address visual compatibility and access by people; E. Between new development and scenic resources or the greenbelt, to address view blockage, lighting and noise, and visual transition from urban character to rural character. Hearing Draft 7 August 2002 R3 , T Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element Goal OS 3: Open Space where development would be unsafe. Generally, the following locations are considered to be unsafe: . A. Airport clear zones, and other airport land use zones with an unacceptable risk of aircraft crashes B. Land astride active or potentially active earthquake faults C. Land where risks of ground shaking, slope instability, settlement, or liquefaction cannot be adequately mitigated D. Areas subject to flooding, where the frequency, depth, or velocity of floodwaters poses an unacceptable risk to life, health, or property E. Areas of high or extreme wildland fire hazard Policy OS 3.1: Open space for safety The City will preserve as Open Space, or as Agriculture, the areas listed in Goal OS 3, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do so. (See also the Safety Element.) Open Space Protection: Program Outline The City will do the following in support of open space protection. The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions within their areas of responsibility and jurisdiction. A. Maintain the urban reserve line location, except where a relatively small enlargement of the urban area is tied to permanent protection of substantial open land that did not previously have assured protection. [See also part OS 6.0(3).] _ B. Apply land-use designations and zoning consistent with General Plan goals and policies. C. Set conditions of subdivision and development approvals consistent with General Plan goals and policies. D. Acquire land or interests in land. (S ee also Appendix B, "Acquisition of Open Space.") 1) Obtain dedications of fee ownership or easements as gifts or in exchange for development approvals. 2) Seek and use grants, donations, other revenue sources, and long-term financing mechanisms to purchase fee ownership or easements. E. Manage its open-space holdings and enforce its open-space easements consistent with General Plan goals and policies. (See also Appendix C, "Management of Open Space.") F. Encourage transfer of development credit from open lands to lands designated for development, or retirement of development credit. G. Locate and design facilities consistent with General Plan goals and policies. H. Encourage sustainable agricultural practices to protect the health of human and natural communities, and to minimize conflicts between agriculture and urban neighbors. I. Provide information for citizens, in particular landowners affected by resource-conservation policies, and be open to conservation information provided by ci tizens. J. Coordinate with agencies and organizations having interest or expertise in resource protection. K. Avoid imposing taxes or-fees that discourage retention of open space or agr icultural uses. IL. Establish mutually respectful, long-term relationships with landowners and conservation II I I organizations such as land trusts. Hearing Draft 8 August 2002 P-3- Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element Goal OS 4: Public access to open space that fosters knowledge and appreciation of open- space resources without harming them, and without exposing the public to unacceptable risk. Policy OS 4.1: Public access Public access to open space resources, with interpretive information, should be provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the resources, and with the security and privacy of affected landowners and occupants. Access will generally be limited to non-vehicular movement, and may be only visual or limited to certain spots. Public access to or through production agricultural land, or through developed residential lots, will be considered only if the owner agrees. (Land for active recreation is typically designated "Park." See the Parks and Recreation Element.) Policy OS 5: Oaen-soave enhancement and ' °•'�I Ip restoration ( The City will enhance and restore gO open space resources identified in goals OS 1, OS 2 and OS 3, and will I?j' encourage individuals, organizations, O and other agencies to do so. Open Space Enhancement and Restoration: Program Outline Volunteers help restore vegetation. The City will do the following in support of open-space enhancement and restoration, in coordination with .other agencies and organizations. The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions w ithin their areas of responsibility. O lI A. Inventory natural areas that have been degraded, beginning with City-owned property, and prepare a list of sites and activities, in priority order, for restoration efforts. B. Establish self-sustaining populations of native species that were historically found in natural habitat areas. 1) Re-vegetate disturbed and over-grazed upland areas, including grassland communities, using site-specific or region-specific plants so far as practical 11 2) Re-establish native riparian (creekside)vegetation 11 O 3) Eliminate sources of water pollutants and improper water diversions C. Remove invasive, non-native species in natural habitat areas, and prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native species and pathogens. D. Where allowed by City ownership, easements, or other agreements, remove man-made elements such as buildings, paving, concrete lining of waterways, signs, and utilities, when they are contrary to the purpose for the open space and they are not needed for public health or safety, or for implementation of City plans. E. Provide passage through previously established, man-made obstacles to wildlife movement (such as suitably sized culverts under roads). F. Remove trash, debris, and contaminants, using methods that minimally disrupt the open- space resources. G. Provide information for citizens, affected landowners in particular. H. Enlist the help of volunteers and academic programs in restoring and monitoring habitat health. I. Set conditions of subdivision and development approvals consistent with General Plan goals and policies. (See also OS 6.) Hearing Draft 9 August 2002 A3 -9 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space'Element Policy OS 6: Avoiding and mitigating lossof open space resources A. The City will permit loss of an open space resource encompassed by Goal OS 1 or Goal OS 2 only when: ' 1) Preserving the resource would deprive the landowner of all reasonable use, and acquisition by the Ci or a conservation organiz ation is not feasible; or =tlere emonstrated need, based on public health, safety, or welfare, and ractical alternative to loss of the resource; or O L� 3) The resource is prime agricultural soil on a small parcel essentially surrounded 1 by urban development. B. The extent of loss or degree of harm to the resource shall be minimized, consistent with the justifications for any loss provided in part A above. Where creeks must be J modified for flood protection or bank stability, the modification shall be patterned)` after natural conditions to the maximum extent feasible. C. Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation must at least comply with Federal and State requirements. Mitigation shall be implemented and monitored in compliance with State and Federal requirements, by qualified professionals, and shall be funded by the project applicant. 1) For natural habitat that is relatively limited in extent (such as riparian or wetland habitat) mitigation shall consist of creating twice the area of habitat, of equal quality, in the following order of preference: a) The same kind on the same site b) The same kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo planning area) c) A similar kind (such as seasonal wetland in place of freshwater marsh) on the same site d) A similar kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo planning area) Habitat created as mitigation should be located and designed to minimize the need for long-term artificial support (such as supplying wetlands from a well requiring energy and maintenance). 2) For a widespread habitat type or for farmland, mitigation shall consist of permanently protecting an equal area of equal quality, which does not already have permanent protection, within the San Luis Obispo planning area. 3) For projects involving enlargement of the urban reserve, mitigation shall consist of permanently protecting an area not previously protected, that is located and that has sufficient size (generally four times the area to be developed)to secure a permanent edge to the city. 4) Individual small projects, each with an incremental impact on an extensive resource, may provide mitigation through payment of a fee, to be used for protecting that resource within the San Luis Obispo planning area. 5) The City may establish or participate in a "mitigation bank," through which resources are protected in a consolidated location ahead of the need to mitigate impacts of individual, small projects. The City will work with other agencies to assure successful operation of any mitigation bank that is established. Hearing Draft 10 August 2002 f�3 -q Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space Element D. Any development that is allowed on a site designated as Open Space or Agriculture, or containing open-space resources, shall be designed to minimize its impacts on open space values on the site and on neighboring land. 1) Hillgide development shall comply with the standards of the Land Use Element, including minimization of grading for structures and access, and use of building forms; colors, and landscaping that are not visually intrusive. (See also Policy V 2) Creek corridors, wetlands, grassland communities, other valuable habitat areas, archaeological resources, agricultural land, and necessary buffers should be within their own parcel, rather than divided among newly created parcels (Figure 3). Where creation of a separate parcel is not practical, the , ... . resources shall be within an easement. The easement must clearly establish allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities in furtherance of resource' protection. E. The City will encourage other agencies to follow this policy. Figure 3 Open Space Resources in a Subdivision Parcel before subdivision: Preferred subdivision: Acceptable subdivision: Example of resources and Open space resources are Open space resources are parcel boundaries in a separate parcel within easements �.-----------------.-.------ ------- - - .............. creek corridor& ' wetland i_ i i i road-------------------------- . -._._._.v.-•road ._ -._._._._.-•road Hearing Draft 11 August 2002 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element Natural COMMUnitieS ?j Introduction ,^ "Natural Communities" refers to the web of organisms, other than people, that live in the area. Many of the physical 3 requirements for natural communities are -. provided by open space. Natural Comm give open space much of its value for human enjoyment. Natural communities also have value in their own -� - right, independent of their role as �---------- sustainers of the human community or as a pleasant background for it. The health of a young steelhead trout is checked. Goal NC 1: Within the San Luis Obispo planning area, self-sustaining populations of the plants and wildlife that made up the natural communities in the area when urbanization began. Policy NC 1.1: Listed species A. The City will identify the location, and habitat and buffer needs, of species listed for protection. This information will be developed by qualified people early in the O planning and development-re view process. Fj B. The City will establish and maintain records on the location of listed species. The City will maintain, for public use, generalized maps showing known locations of listed species. Specific site information may be kept confidential to protect the resources. C. The City will comply with State and Federal requirements for listed species. D. The City will protect listed species through its actions on: land-use designations; development standards; development applications; location, design, construction, and maintenance of City facilities; land that the City owns or manages. E. City actions that could impact listed species shall be consistent with Policy OS 6. Subject to the approval of agencies with jurisdiction, the City may approve a project where mitigation requires relocation of listed species, but only if there is no practical alternative and relocation is limited to individuals or small parts of a larger population, not the entire remaining population of a species. (If an agency with jurisdiction determines that relocation of an entire population is needed for its survival regardless of a project's development, the City may help with the relocation.) Hearing Draft 12 August 2002 Jq3 - II L Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space Element Feeedooe ­are 1) Classified by the U.S: ish and Wildlife Service as: a) "Endangered" - In danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range b) "Threatened" - Likely to become endangered without protection and management c) "Proposed Endangered" or "Proposed Threatened" - Presently being considered for endangered status d) "Candidate, category 1" - U.S..Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient data to support listing as endangered e) "Candidate, category 2" - needs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service further data on threats 2) Classified by the California Department of Fish and Game as: a) "Endangered" - Prospects for survival are in immediate jeopardy b) "Threatened" - Likely to become endangered without protection and management c) "Rare" - May become endangered if present environment worsens (only refers to plants) I d) "Species of Special Concern" -Are not rare on a State scale, but are found in limited locations 3) Classified by the California Native Plant Society as: a) "List 1A, Plants of Highest Priority"- Presumed extinct in Cal ifomia 2 b) "List 1B, Plants of Highest Priority" - Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere c) "List 2" - Plants rare and endangered in California, but common elsewhere d) "List 3"- Plants about which more information is needed e) "List 4 Plants of limited distribution (a watch l ist) 4) Not listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, or the California Native Plant Society, but which can be shown to meet the criteria of the. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15380, "Endangered, Rare or Threatened Species." Policy NC 1.2: Species oflocalconcern A. The City is concerned with maintaining healthy populations of native species in I the long term, even though they are not listed for protection under State or Federal laws. These "species of local concern" are at the limit of their range in San Luis Obispo, or threats to their habitat are inc reasing. B. The City will identify the location, and habitat and buffer needs, of species of local concern. This information will be developed by qualified people early in the planning and development-review process. (These species are listed in Appendix A, which may be revised by the City's Natural Resources Manager without amending this element. Anyone may nominate species for the list.) C. The City will protect species of local concern throu h: its actions on land-use designations, development standards, development applications; the location, design, construction, and maintenance of City facilities; land that the City owns or manages. Hearing Draft 13 August 2002 A3 - �a Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element 12 D. The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to protect species of local concern within their areas of responsibil ity and jurisdiction. Policv NO 1.3: Trees and other plants A. Significant trees are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements of Policy OS 6. B. Urban landscaping should incorporate native plant species, with selection appropriate for location. C. The City will continue a program to designate and help protect "her itage trees." D. Grassland communities in the greenbelt and in designated Open Space areas shall be retained. Policy NC IA: Poisons The City will avoid the use of poisons (pesticides and herbicides) unless there is no practical alternative. When the use of a poison cannot be avoided, the type of poison 3 shall be selective (effect limited to the target species so far as possible) and it shall be applied selectively. Natural Communities: Program Outline In addition to activities to protect and restore open space resources, the City will do the following in support of natural communities. The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions within their areas of responsibility and jurisdiction. A. Implement the Natural Commun ities policies above. (I B. Participate in any areawide planning efforts such as Habitat Conservation Plans under the`I U.S. Endangered Species Act. C. Participate in environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Quality Act, for projects that could affect natural communities in the San Luis Obispo planning area. II D. Maintain current information on habitat types and conditions, and the known and likelyl� to JJ tions of listed species, for use in planning and environmental review. Figure 4: Creek Corridor edges of riparian vegetation--i - -- - creek setback creek corridor K. setback x r '• top of bank `top of bank Hearing Draft 14 August 2002 (�3-I3 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space Element Air Introduction We live at the bottom of a relatively a5 shallow "ocean of air" that sustains and w ; •F protects us. While progress has been = made I in reducing toxic emissions from lit individual sources, growth in the number of sources and the accumulation of gasses that produce climate change are growing concerns. An "inversion layer" is formed by stable air masses with different temperatures, trapping pollutants. San Luis Obispo has one of the lowest inversion layers in the state. Goal A 1: Air quality that supports survival, health, and enjoyment. PolicvA 1.1: Atmospheric change City actions shall help avoid undesirable climate change and deterioration of the atmosphere's protective function, which result from the release of carbon dioxide and other substances. Policy,A 1.2: Health standards Air quality should meet State and Federal standards, whichever are more protective, for human health. PolicvA 1.3: No decline Air quality should not decline from levels experienced during the early 1990's, when the community's growth capacity was last re-examined. Air Q I ality: Program Outline The City will do the following in support of air quality, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do I ikewise. A. Employ best available practices in City operations. "Best available practices" means behavior and technologies that produce the least air pollutants for a desired outcome, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies. B. Help the Air Pollution Control District update and implement the County Clean A it Plan. C. Consult with the Air Pollution Control District on all significant development. D. Implement programs to reduce the number of single-occupant trips in fossil-fueled vehicles. (See also the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element.) E. Encourage Cal Poly and Cuesta College to restrict, and provide alternatives to, student use of motor vehicles. F. If measures proposed during the 1994 update of the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, mitigation decided during project review, or other programs or incentives intended to offset significant air-quality impacts of growth prove to be ineffective, the City will amend2 its General Plan to reduce its development capacity and will encourage other jurisdictions to reduce theirs, so that air quality will not deteriorate unacceptably because of growth. The City would then consider raising planned capacities to previous levels only if measures effective in protecting air quality are carried out. Hearing Drag 17 August 2002 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element Energy Introduction Our dependence on fossil fuels makes it difficult to avoid air and water pollution and economic turmoil. One of the best things we can do for our environmental and economic well-being is to use energy more efficiently and shift to cleaner, renewable, locally-controlled energy sources. Solar water-heating panels for Sinsheimer swimming pool were disconnected when their maintenance cost became excessive. The site is being evaluated for solar-electric generation,to run pumps. Goal E 1: For the San Luis Obispo urban area, no overall increase in use of non-sustainable energy, and the eventual replacement of non-sustainable energy sources with sustainable sources. Policy E 1.1: Best available practices The City will employ the best available practices in energy conservation, procurem ent, O use, and production, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do likewise. "Best available practices" means behavior and technologies that use the least energy for a desired outcome, considering available equipment, life- cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies. Best available practices include use of sustainable sources. Sustainable sources are naturally renewed in a relatively short time and avoid substantial undesirable side effects. The following are sustainable energy sources. A. Space conditioning through earth or building thermal mass to moderate day-night differences B. Space conditioning through earth mass to moderate seasonal differences C. Space cooling through natural ventilation D. Space cooling through reflectivity and shading E. Indoor illumination by natural light F. Solar space heating (direct at place of use) G. Solar water heating (direct at place of use) H. Solar voltaic (conversion of sunlight directly to electricity; preferred form is structure surfaces at or near the place of use) I. Solar thermal electric (conversion of sunlight to electricity through an intermediate generator using a temperature differential) J. Wind electricity generation, without substantial harm to wildlife K. Geothermal 1) Preferred form: deep-heat sources not dependent on release of brine 2) Secondary form: near-surface sources requiring release of brine L. Biomass: conversion of plant material to fuel, or to electricity through combustion, in a sustained-yield cycle and with emission controls to protect air quality Hearing Dreg 18 August 2002 ff3 - 1 �_ Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element Policy E 1.3: Solar access A. To encourage use of solar energy, reasonable solar access shall be provided and protected. The City will protect reasonable solar exposure for existing collectors and O likely locations of future collectors, both active and passive. Standards for the subdivision and development of property should assure desirable solar access, as described below. Protection beyond that established by the City may be provided by recorded agreement among private parties. Land Uses and Site Conditions Desirable Solar Access Conservation/open space and residential uses All south walls and all roof areas should up to about 6 dwellings per acre, on sites of be unshaded during midday on the one acre or more winter solstice. Conservation/open space and residential uses Nearly all south walls and all roof areas up to about 6 dwellings per acre, on sites of should be unshaded during midday on less than one acre the winter solstice. Residential uses between 6 and 12 dwellings All roof areas, nearly all second-story per acre, office uses,and neighborhood and most first-story south walls should commercial uses,on sites of one acre or more be unshaded during midday on the winter solstice. Residential uses between 6 and 12 dwellings Most roof areas, nearly all second-story per acre, office uses,and neighborhood and most first-story south walls should commercial uses,on sites less than one acre be unshaded during midday on the winter solstice. Residential uses at densities greater than 12 All roof areas and most south walls dwellings per acre,public facilities, and general should be unshaded during midday on commercial and industrial uses on large the winter solstice. parcels or in newly subdivided areas. Residential uses at densities greater than 12 Most roof areas and some south walls dwellings per acre,public facilities,and general on upper floors should be unshaded commercial and industrial uses within during midday on the winter solstice. downtown and other locations previously subdivided into relatively small lots B. In subdivisions, the layout of streets and lots shall provide and protect solar exposure. To assure maximum control over potential shading features, the longest dimension of each lot should be oriented within 30 degrees of south, unless the sub- divider demonstrates that for certain lots any of the foll owing applies: 1) The lots are large enough to allow desirable solar access regardless of lot orientation; 2) Buildings will be constructed as part of the tract development, and the buildings will be properly orientated, with adequate sol ar access. 3) Topography makes variations from the prescribed orientation desirable to reduce grading or tree removal, or to take advantage of a setting that would favor greater reliance on early morn ing or late afternoon solar exposure. 4) Topographical conditions, such as steep northerly-facing slope or shading by the mass of a hill, make solar energy use infeasi ble; 3) The size of the subdivision combined with the existing orientation of surrounding streets and lots preclude desirable lot orientation. Hearing Draft 20 August 2002 A3 -ILP I, Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation tip Open Space Element 07 - C: Solar access easements will be created within all new subdivisions, as provided in the California Solar Rights Act, unless any of the following applies: 1) The subdivision incorporates a building development plan that will assure desirable solar access; 2) Desirable solar exposure will be protected by the C ity's Zoning Regulations; 3) The subdivision establishes yard or height standards designed to assure desirable solar access, supplementary to the zoning regulations, which would make a system of easements for each lot unnecessary. D. When solar collectors are proposed as part of a development, the plan for that development wil I include features to assure adequate solar access. E. Exceptions to the standards for desirable solar access may be made if any of the following applies: 1) Shading would be an insignificant part of the total solar exposure, in terms of area, time, or both;. 2) Structures on protected properties have an insignificant probability of being modified or replaced, and likely collector locations are sufficiently protected in spite of shading that would normally be unacceptable, or such structures already have adequately protected collectors; 3) Shading is between lots in a subdivision for which a customized system of solar access easements will provide an adequate level of protection; 4) Use of solar energy is unfeasible due to topographical conditions . Policy E 1.4: Solar collector appearance A. Solar collectors should be compatible with the appearance of the structures that contain or support them. Features of compatibil ity are: 1) Location within the dominant lines of the building or roof; 2) Rooftop collectors-match the roof plane as closely as practical; ends of mounting racks covered with an architecturally compatible material; 3) Exposed mechanical, plumbing, and structural components minimized; where visible, color same as roof, or a compatible color; 4) Location minimizes need to remove trees; 5) Where glare cannot be avoided by location or orientation, surface has low reflectivity. B. Retrofitting buildings with solar collectors should be subject to the lowest level of discretionary review that will implement all City policies. Within historic districts, such projects may be referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee. Policy E 1.5: Unwanted solar heat gain Sitesand buildings should be designed to avoid unwanted heat gain from solar exposure. Features which provide shading at suitable times of the year and day generally should be "passive' or automatic, avoiding the need for occupants to manipulate them. Hearing Draft 21 August 2002 R3 ,11 Attachment 3 i San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space Element Energy: Program Outline The City will do the following in support of energy sustainability, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate: A. Manage City operations for energy efficiency, including purchase and use of vehicles, equipment, and materials. 1) Outdoor and indoor lighting; 2) Space conditioning and water heating; 3) Vehicles, travel, and traffic fl ow; 4) Office equipment. B. Manage City operations for energy self-reliance and production of sustainable energy, consistent with primary functions such as public safety, water supply, and wastewater treatment. C. Incorporate conservation and sustainable-energy sources in exi sting and new City facilities. D. Minimize unnecessary obstacles to energy conservation and use of sustainable energy sources in its regulation of private activities. 1) Provision of space for outdoor clothes drying, and void private restricti ons on doing so. E. Encourage alternatives to employees commuting as occupants of individual vehicles powered by non-sustainable fuels. F. Administer the State's building energy standards. G. Encourage energy-efficient project design by emphasizing use of daylight and solar exposure, shading, and natural ventilation, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain functionality and comfort. Educate City staff, -07 citizen advisors, developers, and designers on ways to exceed minimum State energy standards. H. Address solar access in all plans needing City discretionary approval, considering both str�ctures and vegetation. Shading by vegetation is also subject to the California Solar Shade Control Act. This act prohibits the placement of vegetation that would shade a solar collector on another's property, if the collector meets certain height and setback criteria. The City will advise those seeking permits for solar collectors to document vegetation existing when the collector is installed or built. I. Participate in programs to retrofit existing buildings with energy-saving features such as insulation, glazing, and fluorescent lighting fixtures. Solar access is a valuable resource. The initial cost of solar- electric systems at the point of use is still relatively high for many installations. However, they can avoid the increasing prices of utility-supplied power and they have virtually no harmful effects. This installation on a San Luis Obispo home is ideally situated on a south-facing roof,which is hard to see from the surroundings. Hearing Drag 22 August 2002 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan C;...servation&Open Space Element Figure 5.i Scenic Roadways Roads I of high scenic valule Roads of moderate scenic value • R oads of high or moderate scenic value outside the city limits 1 Kilometer R I ailroad i I Mile Vista N V Ad er !V 7 p. a 'Bishop I A — , I 111�_ - fll ---Peak & Ue o. x'. Laguna' Lake Shnta Lucia, Footfalls,�j 'Sj L outh 1" 0 Hills 0� T&I 10 4P \7 4_1 Isla � I IrishHW, Hills -4- Buckley Rd 4A z) F- 41, IT Hearing Draft 26 August 2002 19 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element Views ® Introduction San Lis Obispo has been favored with a beautiful natural setting. Also, the community has strived for attractive urban development. Protection of these assets enhances enjoyment and economic vitality. Protection involves both the integrity of the resource being viewed, and lines of sight to the - resource. �" To see the land as it is and could remain... Goal V 1: Attractive landscapes and cityscapes. Policy V_1.1: Natural and agricultural landscapes The City will implement the following policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. A. Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be maintained in their current patterns of use. B. Any development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually subordinate to and compatible with the landscape features. Development includes buildings, roads, and utility lines and structures. (See also the Land Use Element.) Key aspects of compatibility are: 1) Avoidance of visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent; 2) Avoidance of unnecessary grading, vegetati on removal, and lighting; 3) Building forms and materials, and landscaping, that respect the setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts; 4) Preservation of scenic land forms, vegetation, and rock outcroppings. C. The City's non-emergency repair, maintenance„ and small construction projects in highly visible locations, such as hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could be affected, shall be subject to at least "minor or incidental" architectural review. Policy V 1.2; Urban development The City will implement the following principle and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Urban development should reflect its architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, including historical and architectural resources. Plans for sub-areas of the city may require certain architectural styles..(See also the Land Use Element.) Policy V 1.3: Utilities and signs Concerning objects in and near streets, plazas, and parks: unnecessary features that clutter, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary features, such as utility and communication equipment, and traffic signs, should minimize disruption of attractive views, consistent with the primary objective of safety. Hearing Draft 27 August 2002 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation &Open Space Element Goal V 2. Ample opportunities for viewing attractive features. l / Policy V 2.1: Public places, including scenic roadways v The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 5 are designated as scenic roadways. A. Development projects should not wal I off scenic roadways and block views. B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights should not intrude on or Gutter views, consistent with safety needs. C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along st reets, street trees should be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features. Policy V 2.2: Private places Projects should incorporate as amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met. Policy V 2.3: Outdoor lighting Outdoor lighting should avoid: operating at unnecessary locations, levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting illumination, particularly skyward; glare (intense line-of-site contrast);frequencies(colors)that interfere with astronomical viewing. Views: Program Outline The City will do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate. A. Locate and design public facilities and utilities consistent with General Plan goals and policies. B. Update and maintain architectural review guidelines, and design standards in plans for sub- areas of the city. C. Maintain and apply sign regulations consistent with General Plan goals and policies. D. Conduct environmental review and architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies. 1) Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects affecting important scenic resources and views from public places. 2) Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant impact. E. Review County proposed general plan amendments and development proposals for consistency with City General Plan goals and policies. F. Advocate State and County scenic highway designations and protective program s for scenic routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other communities. G. Place underground existing overhead utilities, with highest priority for sceni c roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts. H. Not allow additional billboards. I. Remove existing billboards through amortization, conditions of development approval, and grants for enhancing open-space and transportation corridor s, with highest priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts. J. Maintain and apply zoning and subdivision regulations consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Hearing Draft 28 August 2002 R3, I Attachment 3 RICHARD SC AMIDT, Architect I 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 December 17, 2002 Via FAX Re: Conservation Element Dear Planning Commissioners: As one of our community's leading environmental citizens, I urge you�ect this undated element in its entirety. I realize that this is an extraordinary request, but this is an extraordinary and explosive situation which needs to be halted before great harm is done. This is supposed to be an "environmental" element of the general plan. So, why is it that I know of not a single member of the environmental community who has been active in formulating public environmental policy over the years for this city who supports this new element? This fact speaks volumes about how the supposed constituency of this element regards it. Please accept this document as my testimony before you. Given the Procrustean 3- minute format for comments before the Commission, it is impossible to say anything of substance about a situation as complex and convoluted as this element "revision" has become. My apologies for such a lot of type, but there has been no alternative forum for discussion of the very important issues before the Commission. Why is the environmental community going ballistic on this Conservation Element revision? Consider the following, which sums up some of our concerns:. If this element is adopted, the cause of environmental protection in our city will be set back by decades. • Some of the most important policies will cease to exist. • What had been specific and explicit will become vague and watered down. • What had been put up front and forward in the LUE and Energy and Open Space and Circulation elements, where it had to be dealt with on a day-to-day basis, will become buried from general view in an obscure special-purpose, catch-all element. • Environmental protection will not be part of what we do every day while implementing our LUE and Circulation Elements -- it will become some effete, secondary, exotic and easy-to-ignore thing tucked away in a special element unlikely to be referenced except Conservation Element Comments,Page 1 Attachment 3 on special or ceremonial occasions.' • Furthermore, diluting and dismantling the existing environmental planning policies and their incorporating documents is a slap in the face to the many citizens of this city who have worked so hard for so long to have these policies adopted -- and who have been entirely shut out of this revision process. The remainder of my testimony will be organized under three headings: 1. Legitimacy, 2. Process Concerns, and 3. Substantive Concerns. IT speak briefly, and by specific example, to each of these concerns. Legitimacy I do not believe staff has any legitimate mandate to proceed with dismantling important environmental provisions of the General Plan. This is an important ethical issue that the Commission must address. Staff's work program was to "revise" the Conservation Element, an outdated and rather silly catch-all element that nobody's paid any attention to for at least 20 years. The public has every reason to believe that something advertised as "revising" the Conservation Element is just that. However, under that rubric, staff has done the following: 1. Removed all of the environmentally protective land use policies from the Land Use / Element. H�v1SiolLof the LUE was never the advertised_pUfDQs��Lthi�undeliakiag, and therefore this unadvertised disassembly of the LUE lacks legitimacy. 2. While claiming those environmental protection policies removed from the LUE continue to exist elsewhere in the General Plan, in fact they do not. Some have been ' I am not exaggerating. Two stories will illustrate the point. When I was appointed to the Planning Commission, as a conscientious commissioner I requested copies of all general plan elements. I noted that one, the Conservation Element, was not among those provided. I requested it specifically. I was told: "We'll have to try to find one." Months later I received a photocopy of a tattered original, apparently the only copy anyone on staff could come up with. That is what happens to Conservation Elements -- they go onto back shelves, and ultimately out of print. The other story concerns another special, purpose environmental element, the Scenic Highways Element, which our commision folded into the Circulation Element, but not before discovering that after years of neglecting this element, many of the scenic highways, along which development (according to the element's nice wording) must not be allowed to block views, 'had been walled off from those views while nobody paid any attention. Placing these policies in the Circulation Element, as we did, kept them where people would see them. Moving them off to the new Conservation Element will again bury them. Conservation Element Comments,Page 2 Attachment 3 rewritten and watered down, others have been entirely eliminated. This slight-of-hand elimination of policies lacks legitimacy. 3. Staff had no mandate from the Council-tQ.tumn_th..e Land U-sa- em2nt into the Land Development Element, which is what it becomes once environmental policies are removed. 4. The Open Space Element, one of the newest of the city's elements, has been similarly dismantled and rewritten, again without being up front about what's happening. The public has no way of knowmg1 at "_revisina" the Conservation Element means the Open Space Element is about to dissappex, along with much of its substance. This too lacks legitimacy. 5. The Energy Element has also been sent to the butcher, and will no longer exist. Instead!of "updating" this 20-year-old yet more-important-than-ever element, it has been boiled down to a bit of meaningless happytalk. This slight-of-hand method of eliminating energy progressivism from the General Plan lacks legitimacy. 1 subm�to you that it is illegitimate to dismantle the LUE, for example, through a back- room, staff-driven process that shuts out the constituencies that worked for years to get the eliminated provisions incorporated into the LUE in the first place. It is furthermore illegitimate to use revising an obscure element as an unadvertised ruse for gutting key elements.. In short there are huge questions about the leaiti�of the difference between what staff has produced, and the advertised purpose of this undertaking.. On legitimacy grounds alone, the Commission should reject the element in its entirety. Process Concerns The process by which the revision has been created is so deeply flawed as to rob the element of leaiti . It has been a deliberately closed and anti-democraticrp ocess. and the outcome thus reflects the desires of staff, not of theup blic. 1. Public Participation in Creating the Provisions Being Eliminated. Many of the environmentally protective elements and also the policies within existing general plan elements have come into being as a result of citizen pressure and citizen action. A. The Energy Element was created by a private citizen committee who persuaded the Council to adopt it as a way of making SLO a progressive city on the energy front. B. The Open Space Element was created more recently as the work of a citizen task force assembled by the city for that purpose. C. Most of the environmental protection policies in the Land Use Element got there because of the Environmental Quality Task Force's recommendations to the Council. The LUE was deemed the proper place for these land use policies because that element is absolutely the backbone of the general plan, and since environmental Conservation Element Comments,Page 3 Attachment 3 protection enjoys such widespread community support, it was felt the key element was where it should be — at least for those provisions that directly concern land use. Literally decades of person-years have been poured into creating these public policy documents by private citizens, who donated their expertise and time and energy to make this city a better place. The sweat of these labors involved fighting long and hard over every idea, every provision, every line of text, indeed over every word. Some citizens' careers were jeopardized in order to accomplish this great work. Now, all this is being tossed into the trash. When it came time to undertake this "update," none of the constit jent groups involved in creating the original documents were consulted let alone given a role. Those with legitimate "ownership" were dispossessed. It is si q*_w Ong to design a "revision" process that excludes the consaLLenci-es- ho created ado^te_d planningpolicies that are being eliminated or watered down. On this ground alone, the Commission should reject this "update." 2. When members of the former Environmental Task Force caught wind of what was afoot, they requested a meeting with staff. The EQTF members were concerned about what they perceived to be a closed process designed to move much of the task force's work from the LUE to the Conservation Element. It was a stormy meeting. The EQTF people, backed by a council person, objected to what was taking place in terms of policy change as well as how things were taking place. One of the key arguments we put forth was that it made no sense to dismantle the Land Use Element by removing environmental land use policies from it. The EQTF argued that if such policies were to be placed verbatim in the new element (which is what we were told at that time would happen -- not that the policies would be rewritten, watered-down or subjected to wholesale deletion), they should also remain in the LUL and be cross-referenced as existing in both elements. Mr. Draze indicated staff would proceed on its way unimpeded, excluding public involvement in shaping the new element. The only change I can see which did occur as a result of that meeting is the so-called "legislative draft." Going into that meeting, staff was unwilling to do such a draft, claiming it would take too much time, and apparently intended to simply dump the "revision" before the public without making clear what was being "consolidated" from existing elements. Jan Marx, who was at the meeting, insisted on a legislative draft, and what is before you is the result. 3. Thatithe revisions are entirely staff driven is clear even from some of the side notes within the draft document. For example, Energy Element policies 12, 13 and 14 were eliminated, a side note tells us, at the request of the Utilities Department which found them inconvenient. Thus, under the revised element the city will exempt itself from the old element's requirements that it use solar equipment to heat pgblic swimming pool wat C that it make use of the methane from its sewage treatment plant. and that it Conservation Element Comments,Page 4 i - Attachment 3 overate a sID.all- P hvdr�oower Ip ant on the water supply pipe that descends precipitously from Cuesta Ridge to SLO. • While it may be convenient for the city to exempt itself from such straightforward and reasonable energy conservation requirements, does it set a good example for the public whose energy use the city still seeks to influence? Does this spell anything other than hypocrisy? Or is this merely an example of the energy laxity the revised policies are intended to institute? • What about the violation of public trust inherent in this staff-driven rollback? How were the constituents who created the Energy Element involved in the "revisions?" In short, they weren't. This was a staff process. The public was shut out. 4. Problems With Draft Distribution Format to Public. Then there's the issue of the city' mode of making this draft available to the public for comment. To "conserve" paper, we are told, it was only made available in e4ormat! This raises many issues. A. F-format bbibits public access. Many members of the public don't have the wherewithal to access a several-hundred-page document that exists only in e-format. They chosen format itself is not universally usable by computer users. Thus the decision to release the document only in e-format represents an infringement upon the public's ability to become involved -- even at the late stage of its release -- after all substantive decisions have already been set in print. If a document is offered in both e-format and paper versions, that is one thing. E-format alone is something entirely different. Why was a decision made not to offer theup blic paper 1P�Q1 thlst huge cmp-Lex, and hard to unravel document? B. How is one supposed to deal with a document of this complexity and length in e- format? There is not even a usable index, so one would have to scroll through hundreds of pages, trying to find things. This would be a nightmare, and near impossible to make any sense of. (It's a disorganized nightmare in paper form as well.) C. One would have to "cope" with e-format by printing the document oneself, since one would have to print the thing and assemble it into book form to make any sense of its. D. The "paper conservation" ruse is thus exposed: Instead of a highly energy and resource-efficient mass printing effort by the city (double-sided, fast multiple-copy xerography), the public is forced into a highly inefficient, costly, energy, ink and paper-intensive one-sided computer printer mode of output. That is, presusming one s computer and printer are capable of printing several hundreds of pages of pdf file. I personally lack the means to do this. My printer would take 42 hours to print this much pdf material — and that's assuming the system didn't become constipated or crash even once! E. Realizing the impossibility of dealing with an a-file version of the draft, an EQTF member went to the city to get a paper copy, and was told there were indeed none. Planning staff did ultimately come up with a public "loaner" copy. However, this thick document contains none of the figures, maps, photos or plates and is missing appendices. Thus, the islative draft document available to the Conservation Element Comments,Page 5 I aj- Attachment 3 Rublic isn't even complete. And from this, the public is expected to "participate" in the public hearings! So, the upshot of the chosen method of "informing" the public means that it's next to impossible being acted upon. This appears to be a deliberate effort to limit public participation. This is no way to do public policy formulation. On grounds of lack of ready public access to the draft, the Commission should take no action to approve this draft document. In summation, the process used in revising this element was quite simple: close out the public, !including the groups that sweated bricks to create these policies and plans, and make the changes behind closed doors. Then release the draft only in an unmanageable format. This process is not only bad government It is an ungracious slap in the face to those groups and individuals who gave so much to create these policies and policy documents. For process reasons alone, this revised element deserves to be rejected. Substantive Concerns any of the new element's provisions water down or dismantle existing oQ yand documents that are the product of years of work by citizens, committees, task forces. commissions and a broad community consensus. The changes overall represent a weakening of environmental protection in the General Plan. This is evident by a careful comparisonn of present and proposed policies: tectSinc��taff�eceivPd no directive from Council to weaken environmental proions one has to question why this has been done under the guise of a "neutral" revision process. These are only a few examples of the policy weakening - and deletion --that's happening in the "revision," not an exhaustive listing. 1. Note first of all, that when you see a notation next to a deleted item in the legislative draft stating "Covered more generally-1 y...," you are being told something is being watered down. Why is there so much proposed transition from the specific, in the existing elements, to the general in the new one? 2. The Land Use Element is being stdpped of its environmentalolp icies. This constitutes a fundamental rewriting of that backbone element -- a rewriting which has been concealed from the public under the ruse of a Conservation Element"revision." There Conservation Element Comments,Page 6 � 3 , i Attachment 3 has been no public buy-in to the notion that the LUE needs or should be undergoing radical revision at this time. The whole point of the EQTF's urging the Council to put environmentally- protective land use policies into the LUE was to have these policies in the document that governs land use, where they belong. Now, staff wants to pull some of those policies out and hide them in a conservation element. Others it just wants to eliminate altogether. Removal of emrironmental protection measures from the LUE is a malor .blunder One expects to find all land use policies in the LUE not to have to look for development- [elated policies there conservation-related land use policies elsewhere This will cause endless confusion at best gradation of the city's environment moreray A few example observations: A. Environmental Priorities Co-Equal with Others. The most outrageous thing staff proposes in this entire "update" is eliminating-whaii-s-drguab y the most important statement of city policy intent to protect the environment in the entire General Plan to wit, LUE 6.0.1, which begins. "It is the policy of the City to protect its unique natural resources and systems by including their considerations and needs within its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning priority co-equal with that accorded other community needs." "Co-equal with" other issues.This is a unique and unflinching statement of the city's strong intent to protect its environment in the broadest and finest sense, by giving the often shunned and sidelined environmental issues co-equal status with other issues. The Environmental Quality Task Force led the charge to get this statement into the general plan. It was a hard-fought victory which should be honored by the city. Instead, STAFF HAS TOTALLY DELETED THIS POLICY FROM THE UPDATE This deletion must not stand. The Commission must not accept it. If nothing else comes out of this discussion thispglicy must be maintained in the LUE. This is so central to everything: frankly, the environmental community will regard this deletion as a declaration of war. B. Prime Ag Soil Protection. Staff also proposes to remove another important policy the EQTF fought hard for. (Before that, it had been endorsed unanimously by the Planning Commission.) This is Policy 1.8.1 concerning preservation of prime ag land both inside the cityand inside the urban reserve. This was a unique statement of land use policy-- that world class agricultural soil deserved protection even if it was within the city limits. It appears this unique statement of policy is being scuttled..The replacement policy, OS1, concerns land outside the urban reserve. The related policy OS2 mentions land Conservation Element Comments,Page 7 f}3 Attachment 3 within the "urban area," though it is not clear what that means. I can find no definition of "urban area." "Urban area" could mean city, it could mean urban reserve, it could mean metropolitan statistical urban area. Since the meaning is indeterminate and arguable, this reworded provision probably means nothing at all, and thus indicates a dilution of existing policy. The draft makes reference as well to Appendix D and to OS Protection Program B, neither of which I can find in the d raft made available to the public, so it is impossible for informed public participation to take place on such an important and essential policy discussion. (This points once again to the fundamental flaws in the city's genuine lack of effort to make the revision accessible to the broad public.) Suffice it to say, however, that in their vagueness, the replacement prime land policies are clearly weaker than the original, and, depending upon the contents of the missing explanatory sections cited above, may actually involve a deletion of the important urban prime ag soil preservation policy. C. Ovellay Mapping. Another item the EQTF fought to have included in the LUE was the Program 6.0.2, Overlay Mapping. The EQTF made clear it wanted a set of pro-active planning maps using the overlay system pioneered by Ian McHarg to be prepared for the SLO Planning Area, and to become the basis for land use decisions. The Council agreed enthusiastically with EQTF. Staff asserts this has been done, and therefore the program should be deleted. If mapping at this level of specificity and detail has been done, it is some sort of well- kept secret; not a member of the EQTF has ever seen the results (and every time we've inquired, we've been told the mapping has not been completed!), nor are they presented to decision-makers in the routine of planning business, which was supposed to be the whole point of doing the maps. Whatever, there is no excuse for removing this as city policy. It should be a permanent part of the city 's LUE. It is clear that the mapping process is on-going, and its integration into actual city planning is far from complete. Staff also wants to delete the related Program 6.0.3, which states that the overlay maps shall be used to refine existing land use maps. Again, this is a very strong pro- environment land use policy, which has NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, and therefore needs to be kept in the LUE verbatim as originally adopted by the Council at the encouragement of the EQTF. D. Creek Setbacks. Staff wants to delete 6.4.6creek setbacks, from the LUE because creek setbacks are established by law. Well, believe me, the ONLY REASON THOSE SETBACKS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY LAW IS BECAUSE OF THIS POLICY WORDING IN THE GENERAL PLAN! This policy was the hook on which the regulations ^ were hung. The creek preservation community wrote, and then fought for years to get U those It enacted by the Council, and it was only with this policy in the LUE that they were successful. Now, staff wants to eliminate the city policy basis for those Conservation Element Comments,Page 6 ^ 3 r� Attachment 3 standards! This is unwise. It's also very interesting since staff opposed the very provisions enacted into law by the Council at the request of a citizens group, the provisions whose presence in law staff now cites as reason for no longer needing policies in the general plan. As a public policy matter, good policy is to keepone's policy statements intact so it's clear what the programs and laws rely upon for their underlying rationale. Think of the chaos in our legal system if every policy statement justifying a law were deleted once the law was passed! The creek setback policy statement must remain. Requested Action: Direct staff to leave the LUE alone. The environmental land use policies should remain in the LUE, just as they are written at present. There is no mandate from the Council or the public for rewriting the LUE by alteration or removal of these key policies. 3. The Energy Element is being eliminated -- notes in name. but also in substance. Most of the specific programs in the existing element are being condensed into less than one page (Page 15 of the draft element) of generalities. Take for example, one of the most important provisions of the existing Energy Element, ELQgram 6, a directive to the ARC to make sure that private nroiects are des]gned for energy conservation rather than "to a particular image" which requires mechanical systems to do what natural energy systems could accomplish. This is a substantive statement, it assigns specific responsibility for carrying through on it; it is also a policy that puts our city in the forefront of good energy-conscious design. The 1 side note explaining its destiny says "Covered more generally by Energy Program G." I The new Program G, however, while preserving some of the original wording of Program 26 and adding some other things, is in fact a very diluted version of the original! Program 26 states the ARC will do certain things, that its goal is "projects which make maximum use" of alternative energy. Program G, on the other hand, states that the "city," whatever that vague entity may be, will "encourage energy-efficient design," which is something entirely less both in its level of directive about who is to be doing this, as well as in the sought-after outcome. Mere "encouragement" in the new element is nonsense compared to theexp element's directive to get so_ mething done: it means Rothing will happen because nobody is charged with making anything happen. I submit that if the city desires to "educate" staff, commissioners, developers and designers to exceed minimum state energy standards, as the new Program G says it does, that is fine, but "educatina'_isAery differ_ t fro�ui fictions to be taken throngh project review standards, as the original l Program 26 did. Conservation Element Comments,Page 9 ��r 7U Attachment 3 The same sort of watering down is proposed for the existing Energy Element's P.[Qg[am 45- which speaks to development incentives for exceptional energy self-sufficiency. ___ 7 Energy self-sufficiency-- that is its subject. This is pretty heady stuff: a fully self- sufficient structure would not need a grid-tie, for example. The side note explaining deletion of this measure refers to the PD zone option as being the new embodiment of this program. Really? Has there ever been a PD granted "incentives" for "exceptional energy'; -sufficiency?" Surely this was not the intent of the original Program 45, for the PD ordinance existed when it was written, so why would it not have referenced this as the mechanism for accomplishing its lofty goal? No, the original Program 45 sought something very progressive, and was not simply another appendage of the much- abused�PD ordinance. The energy self-sjc" c provision is completelydeleted from the updated element despite the side note reference to its alleged incorporation in the apparently all-inclusive Program G of the new element. So, a fundamental question arises: Why is the Energy Element being gutted and!watered down to the point that its remnants are meaningless happytalk? Why aren't its best provisions being kept? Why aren't its weaker provisions being revised to make them stronger than the originals? The watering down seems to be by intent. Why? A revised 2002 Eneray Element that kept faith with the spirit and role of the odgimil in its timel would make as its anal dewgD4g into our city's built enWoomen -p—ubficMd private I0DaCgy Standards that exceed the low ones in state law today, just as the iIlal attempted to exceed the minimal state standards of its own day Please direct that energy policies be strengthened and expanded, not weakened. 4. Scenic Roadways Provisions. Removing these from the Circulation Element is a very silly thing to do. Apparently whoever wants this to happen doesn't remember history. Previously, Scenic Highways was a General Plan Element in its own right. Which meant it was a skinny little thing nobody paid any attention to. It languished on a back shelf. Then somebody discovered it. Guess what? While nobody was minding the element, many of the designated "scenic highways" had lost their scenic value. I recall one particulary poignant example: Los Osos Valley Road from Madonna northward was designated, and the view of the Irish Hills was supposed to be protected. By the time the element was referred to once again, that view was gone, blocked by a solid wall of development (which could have been designed to preserve the view) including the aptly named Clearview condos. So the public interest in scenic highways was destroyed by this inattentiveness due to the special-topic element's disuse. In response, the Planning Commission revised the list of scenic roadways (eliminating those no longer scenic), and rolled the element into the Circulation Element, so this issue would remain front and center, and not get lost again. (See related footnote earlier in this letter.) Conservation Element Comments,Page 10 Attachment 3 Now, staff wants to repeat the same mistake -- sticking the scenic roadway policies where they're out of sight, out of mind, in a Conservation Element whose predecessor nobody's paid attention to for 20 years. Please leave the Scenic Roadway policies in the Circulation Element. They are a circulation matter. They belong in Circulation, not Conservation. These are but a few examples of substantive problems with the draft element. There is far too much to go over to even attempt to do it all in a letter. I'm sure the Commission probably feels as overwhelmed as I do. In conclusion, the systematic removal of important environmental land use policy provisions from the LUE(and other key environmental policies elsewhere) by staff fiat, without a bit of public discourse or input let alone consultation with the constituencies which fought to get these provisions adopted, is a stealth attack on the planning process. The Commission needs to just say no. (If you are unwilling to say"no," at least you should say the process has been inadequate, and the element needs a lot of additional work, including full participation by the environmental constituency on whose behalf this is supposedly being done. In the past, the Planning Commission has front-loaded general plan update processes with public workshops and general discussion, then guided the text preparation -- again in seminar-like public workshop/meetings where full give and take with the public was possible. In a sense, your role too has been constricted by the way this update has been conducted. I'd suggest, if you are unwilling to just say no, that you initiate such a process if you have any desire to rescue this element update.) ura�y91$ius� no to this entire revision. The original staff mandate was to revise the conservation element. One could argue there might also be good reason to combine some of the elements, but THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GUTTING KEY PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND THEIR POLICIES under the pretext of doing good environmental planning. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Conservation Element Comments,Page i t �3 -3� Attachment 3 ** Letter taken from 02/26/03 e-mail*'* Dear Planning Commissioners -- Although I will not be able to attend your meeting this evening, I wanted to let you know that I share the concerns expressed by Jan Marx in her letter to you (copied below). Please do everything in your power to STRENGTHEN, not weaken our environmental planning policies. Thanks for all your hard work! Cynthia Boche 972 �Buchon Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Proposed New Conservation and Open Space Element Dear San Luis Obispo Planning Commission: I am writing to comment on the Proposed new Conservation and Open Space Element. While it makes sense to update the 1973 Conservation, and partner it with the Open Space element, this can and should be done without weakening our City's longstanding and effective environmental policies, or making drastic changes in existing elements, as staff proposes.. Council specifically instructed staff not to weaken the city's present level of commitment to environmental protection. In my opinion, staff ignored Council's direction. Council did not direct staff to remove major goals and policies from the General Plan. When the Legislative Draft says that a policy or section to be deleted is "covered more generally" by another section , or that section is "more current", that usually means that our community's goals of environmental protection have been watered down. The subject matter may be the same, but the environmental values have been surgically removed.) Here are only a few examples: From the Energy Conservation Element: PRESENT: "San�Luis Obispo will achieve broad public awareness of citizen's roles in causing and solving energy problems. Overall energy consumption will be reduced by eliminating frivolous uses and making more efficient use of energy in essential activities, with the goal of reducing Attachment 3 conventional energy use per person in 1995 to about 60% of the 1980 consumption" (Leg. Draft p4) PROPOSED: "For San Luis Obispo urban areas, no overall increase in use of non-sustainable energy, and the eventual replacement of non-sustainable energy sources with sustainable sources." E.1 (note: this takes citizens out of the loop and sets no goal of reducing energy use) From the Open Space Element: PRESENT Policy 1.A. Within the city limits, the city b and outside the city limits, the city shall encourage the County and State to: A. Preserve creeks and their corridors as open space, and maintain creek corridors in essentially a natural state to protect the community's I D water quality, wildlife diversity and aesthetic value. (Leg. Draft 10) ll PROPOSED: Goal OS 2 "Within the urban area, a network of open land encoImpassing particularly valuable natural and agricultural resources, connected with the landscape around the urban area. Particularly valuable resources are: A Creek corridors, including open channels with natural banks and vegetation. (p7) (note: The proposed language makes protection no longer mandatory.) From the LUE PRESENT 6.0.1 : It is the policy of the City to protect its unique natural resources and systems by including their considerations and need's within its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning priority co-equal with that accorded other community needs. (p 42 Leg. Draft) (Note: applies to land inside and outside the urban reserve line) PROPOSED: Goal OS 1 A healthy and attractive landscape around the urban area comprised of diverse and connected natural habitats and productive agricultural land. Policy OS 1.1: The City will preserve as Open Space or Agriculture the undeveloped and agricultural land outside the urban reserve line, including the designated greenbelt, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do so. (Note only applies to land outside the urban area) > I urge the Planning Commission to: 1. Uphold the Environmental standards of the Open Space Element: All "Community Goals" have been deleted. They are very important and referred to on the first page of the draft. They should be put back into the text. Most if not all mandatory protection "shall protect" language has been eliminated. The Goals have no verbs, so they are vague. Staff,should be asked to point out to the PC exactly what environmental I ' standards have been changed by the proposed draft. Here are a few 2 Attachment 3 blatant examples that jump out: A. CI PS plants no longer protected. PRESENT: Sensitive habitat also includes proposed endangered or threatened and candidate for listing, (l.c.and d.), plants classified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as highest priority -list lA (3.a.1), species meeting the CEQA criteria of section 15380 and the habitat supporting such species. CNPS listed plants on lists 1B, 2, 3 and 4 are also protected. PROPOSED: Listed as "valuable resources" presumably worthy of protection (OS2 G) is the "Habitat of species listed as threatened or endangered by the State or Federal governments." This is a lower I standard than the present OS Element's protection of "sensitive habitat and unique resources, P 23 leg. draft which are set out in Table I and II. Leg. Draft p. 27. The INCLUDE plants listed by the California Native Plant Society. B. Protection of Creeks and Wetlands No Longer Mandatory. PRESENT Policy 1.A. Within the city limits, the city b and outside the city limits, the city shall encourage the County and State to: A. Preserve creeks and their corridors as open space, and maintain creek corridors in essentially a natural state to protect the community's wateIr quality, wildlife diversity and aesthetic value. (Leg. Draft 10) PROPOSED: Goal OS 2 "Within the urban area, a network of open land encoImpassing particularly valuable natural and agricultural resources-, connected with the landscape around the urban area. Particularly valuable resources are: A Creek corridors, including open channels with natural banks and vegetation. (p7) (note: The proposed language makes protection no longer mandatory.) See also the lowering of protection of wetlands from "shall" protect status (2A & B) in leg. Draft p 17 to general language regarding buffers. There are many instances of this loss of "shall protect" language throughout the proposed draft. C. Joint Powers Agreement No Longer a Goal PRESENT Program 1.A. leg. draft states that the city will work with and support the County, State and special districts to form a joint powers or other type of agreement...to preserve open space, rural and agricultural uses within the City's greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. PROPOSED: deleted because the county and Cal Poly "continue to assert theirlindependence". This is no reason to delete the policy...teaming up with Cal Poly to preserve open space and maximize resources is still an excellent idea whose time may still come. It should be preserved. D. Prime Ag Soil No Longer Protected. The entire Soil conservation section of the current Conservation Element has been deleted. Instead, I Attachment 3 it should be updated. The Prime Agricultural Land Protection (LUE 1.8.1) has been eliminated or watered down. Prime soils within the urban reseirve line still deserve protection. > 2. Make no changes at all in the following Elements at this time: Land Use Element: There is no reason, and none given, to eliminate all reference to Resource Protection, the Greenbelt or Open Space Policies from the LUE. (p 42, 43, 44 Leg. Draft). The language is important, was approved by the City Council after hours of public testimony, and should not be tossed out. Housing Element:. there is no reason to eliminate conservation considerations from the Housing Element before the taskforce has had a chance to address the current element in whole cloth. Let the taskforce consider whether to remove or strengthen this protective language in the context of the element as a whole. It is ill advised to short-circuit their work. Energy Conservation Element: Yes, it needs to be updated, but not eliminated. The City should be forging ahead in this area, not going backwards! A citizen's ad hoc Energy Advisory Committee with technical expertise should be appointed, as was done in 1973, and make informed recommendations regarding technological issues and policies. It should remain ia freestanding element. 3. RECOMMENDATION: Data and maps in the PRESENT Open Space and Conservation Elements should be brought current on a technical level. No Community goals or policies should be eliminated. These two intact but updated elements should be combined without mining the LUE, Housing Element or Energy Conservation Elements. Sincerely, Jan Howell Marx Former Council Member J:\GMATTESO\CONSERVA\Marx COSE letter.doc 4 82-36 Jun 03 03 2: 36p S Hoard of Supervisors er ''781 1350 p• 2 _ Attachment 3 =RECEVEDEBOARD OF SUPERVISOR COUNTY GOVCRNMENT CENTER, Room 370 •SAN LUIS OliISI'0, CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781.5450 I .. 9COUNCIL �Z CDD DlR SUPERVISOR PEG PINARD CAO J21FIN DIR DISTRICT THREE e-ACAO AFIRE CHIEF E21ATTORNEY apw DIR June 2, 2003 CnLERK10FIIQ 7POUCE CHF ADT HEAD Z REO DIR ZJ HR DIR �!'HR DIR City 'San Luis Obispo RED FILE Attention City Council Members MEETING AGENDA�r 990 Palm Street DATE---�_„ ITEM San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Deal Council Members, As a former Mayor and Council member who worked to make the last General Plan update one that involved the public in the most comprehensive manner, it is very disappointing to see the current process for the Conservation Element update. There are several issues that concern me: 1. Why,was the public shut out of helping to shape the draft?This is not the way we've done things in the past. When we last updated our Land Use Element,we began with public workshops held in several neighborhoods throughout the city.The Land Use Element was also n shapcd by the contributions of two citizen(ask forces, In contrast,the current Conservation Element draft was created entircly by staff, who rejected citizen input when it was offered.This is not the way good policies have been formulated in San Luis Obispo. We are a city that respects the public's right to be involved in shaping our plans, and believe our plans are the better for that involvement. � r 2. What is happening to the policies being omitted from the current plan?(Staffsays nothing's being lost,but that simply doesn't make sense. The question is 'what' is being omitted and 'why'? 3. Why are crucial land use policies in the Land Use Element being eliminated from the General Plan? I am unaware that the city has ever said it is doing a major revision to its LUE,and yet that is precis i ly what is happening as part of the Conservation Element update.For instance: 39i Jun 03 03 12: 36p Board of Supervisors f ', 781 1350 p. 3 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2 I I ** j UR 6.0.1 establishes the city's policy to protect its natural resources and systems by giving their planning a priority"co-equal"with other community needs.LThis is a very strong land use policy which the Council adopted in 1994 at the recommendation of the Environmental 3 Quality Task Force. The current draft deletes it entirely. Why! We may never know since the deletion took place out of public oversight and isn't highlighted as a deletion in the legislative repo i ** LUE 1 1 makes it city policy to protect prime agricultural land within the urban reserve and city limits.This is another important provision the community added in 1994. The new draft eliminates the city's preserving ag land in the city and urban reserve,and says the city will only protect such land outside of the urban reserve. How? What jurisdiction does the city have over land outside the urban reserve? n ** LAM 1.10 protects our air quality by saying if mitigations and other actions to control ollution are ineffective,the city will amend the LUE to reduce development capacity in order to Z eign in air pollution growth. This is a very important land use policy. It is eliTinated in the current draft.Why? These are but a few of the LUE deletions or changes that are of great importance to the citizens of Sand Luis Obispo.These are major changes in city policy, yet they do not have their origin in any clear mandate from the public. Furthermore, members of the public are generally unaware that a aajor LUE revision is taking place as a result of revising the Conservation Element. - -0-the Council to leave the LUE alone at this time. The LUE should only undergo a major revision of when it is clearly announced to everyone such an update is in progress, and also when the entire element is being revised, not simply selected parts of it. Sincerely, PEG PINARD Supervisor, District Three I I 1r ATTACHMENT 4