Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2006, PH1 - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL council D . 2-28-06 AC,60a Rep= CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Directorof ff mmunity Developme t Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Senior Plan>�ff l_ ? SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. (GPA/ER 149-98) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution that: 1) approves a negative declaration of environmental impact, 2) adopts a Conservation and Open Space Element and 3) amends the General Plan to maintain consistency with the new element. REPORT-IN-BRIEF At its February 8, 2006 meeting, after 23 public hearings, three public workshops and substantial public participation, one joint Council-Planning Commission meeting and years of staff work, the Planning Commission completed its preparation of.a proposed Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). On a 5-0 vote (Commr. Osbome absent; one seat vacant), the Commission forwarded the Draft and related documents to Council for review and action (Attachment 1). Since the update process "restarted" in September 2004, the Commission has made numerous revisions through two draft versions_ The result.of-that work is the combination of three General_ Plan elements ---Conservation, ... ... . ,:'anservation-and Open`Space=into o►ie comprewsivkw- . resource conservation document, with corresponding amendments to the Circulation, Housing, Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Safety, Water and Wastewater Elements. This report provides an overview of the proposed COSE and discusses the purpose and process behind the new element. The City Council will determine if the proposed COSE accomplishes its intended purpose and make any changes necessary to better accomplish that purpose prior to adoption. The COSE update has involved extensive public outreach and public hearings. Before September 2004, at least nine public meetings were held on the COSE update involving the City Council, Planning Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, Tree Committee and other City advisory bodies. After restarting the update process in September 2004, the Commission held three public workshops and 11 televised public hearings. These workshops involved newspaper ads, mailed notices to ECOSLO, individuals involved in the natural resource inventory mapping, members of the former Environmental Quality Task Force, and other stakeholders. Letters and emails from community stakeholders were received and forwarded to the Commission. Project goals, workshop results, staff reports, revised drafts and other information have been posted on the. City's website to help reach a wider audience. During the update process, staff met with various individual and group stakeholders, including ECOSLO, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, SLO Chamber of Commerce, SLO Land Conservancy and SLO Green Build. Community l council agcnba CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Tuesday, February 28, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ADDENDUM ADDED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNED REGULAR Council Chamber MEETING 990 Palm Street 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD- COMMERCIAL (C-N) TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (C-C-S) FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3210 THROUGH 3240 BROAD STREET (GP/R/ER 78-05). (MANDEVILLE/DUNSMORE — . 5 MINUTES) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution to approve amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and approve a Negative Declaration (ER 78-05). 2. Introduce an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map from Neighborhood Commercial Special Considerations (C-N-S) to Community Commercial Special Considerations (C-C-S). 3. Adopt a resolution to approve a master use permit to allow a specific set of land uses for the Village Marketplace. ® City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs,and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda information,call 781-7100. council AgcnbA CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Tuesday, February 28, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ADDENDUM ADDED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNED REGULAR Council Chamber MEETING 990 Palm Street 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD- COMMERCIAL(C-N) TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (C-C-S) FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3210 THROUGH 3240 BROAD STREET (GP/R/ER 78-05). (MANDEVILLE/DUNSMORE— 5 MINUTES) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution to approve amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and approve a Negative Declaration (ER 78-05). 2. Introduce an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map from Neighborhood Commercial Special Considerations (C-N-S) to Community Commercial Special Considerations (C-C-S). 3. Adopt a resolution to approve a master use permit to allow a specific set of land uses for the Village Marketplace. ® City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs,and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda information,call 781.7100. council °° 2-28-06 j aGEnba izEpoizt �N i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Director of mmunity Developme t Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Senior Planxo SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. (GPA/ER 149-98) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution that: 1) approves a negative declaration of environmental impact, 2) adopts a Conservation and Open Space Element and 3) amends the General Plan to maintain consistency with the new element. REPORT-IN-BRIEF At its February 8, 2006 meeting, after 23 public hearings, three public workshops and substantial public participation, one joint Council-Planning Commission meeting and years of staff work, the Planning Commission completed its preparation of a proposed Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). On a 5-0 vote (Commr. Osborne absent; one seat vacant), the Commission forwarded the Draft and related documents to Council for review and action (Attachment 1). Since the update process "restarted" in September 2004, the Commission has made numerous revisions through two draft versions. The result.of-that work is the combination of three General r._,_ Plan elements — Conservation, ,ergy Conservation and Open Space — into one comprehensive _ resource conservation document, with corresponding amendments to the Circulation, Housing, Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Safety, Water and Wastewater Elements. This report provides an overview of the proposed COSE and discusses the purpose and process behind the new element. The City Council will determine if the proposed COSE accomplishes its intended purpose and make any changes necessary to better accomplish that purpose prior to adoption. The COSE update has involved extensive public outreach and public hearings. Before September 2004, at least nine public meetings were held on the COSE update involving the City Council, Planning Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, Tree Committee and other City advisory bodies. After restarting the update process in September 2004, the Commission held three public workshops and 11 televised public hearings. These workshops involved newspaper ads, inailed notices to ECOSLO, individuals involved in the natural resource inventory mapping, members of the former Environmental Quality Task Force, and other stakeholders. Letters and emails from community stakeholders were received and forwarded to the Commission. Project goals, workshop results, staff reports, revised drafts and other information have been posted on the. City's website to help reach a wider audience. During the update process, staff met with various individual and group stakeholders, including ECOSLO, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, SLO Chamber of Commerce, SLO Land Conservancy and SLO Green Build. Community I Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 2 Development Department staff has worked closely with the Natural Resources Manager, Dr. Neil Havlik, in preparing the COSE and in meeting and working with stakeholders. DISCUSSION Council Review Process The primary purposes of the February 28th meeting are to (re)-familiarize council members with the COSE process, present the Planning Commission's recommendation, and provide the Council with an opportunity to ask questions, make modifications and take action, if Council is ready to do so. The Council has been provided with the proposed COSE (Attachment 5), and with summaries of proposed General Plan changes in relation to the proposed COSE. These are in the Council Reading File and on the City's website. At the hearing, staff will make a presentation on the major components of the COSE, including the major and expanded programs, and respond to Council questions. Following public testimony, staff recommends that the Council 1) review the COSE, chapter by chapter and 2) review the General Plan amendments, element by element, polling Council members on which items of the Planning Commission's recommendation, if any, they would like to discuss and/or modify, and 3) review the environmental determination. If the amount.of discussion on individual policy or language changes is manageable, the Council may be able to resolve each Council member's concern in turn. If the amount of discussion on individual items or proposed policy changes is extensive, then the Council may wish to review the document from front to back, reviewing each page in tum for proposed modifications. Overview of the March 2006 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element The COSE combines conservation-related policies — now dispersed through nine general plan elements — into one element. The proposed COSE updates and consolidates policies from the Conservation, Open Space and Energy Conservation Elements, and also from the Circulation, Housing, Land use, Parks and Recreation, Safety and Water and Wastewater Elements. The Conservation, Open Space, and Energy Conservation Elements will be entirely replaced. The remaining elements are proposed to be amended to eliminate redundancy and group related conservation policies together(Attachment 4). The proposed COSE reorganizes conservation policies into a more concise, easier to use format. The draft element maintains, and in some cases strengthens, policies and programs dealing with energy and materials conservation, cultural resource preservation, open space protection and uses, habitat protection and protection of City viewsheds and visual quality. The proposed COSE carries forward existing conservation and open space policies and includes many new or expanded conservation policies and programs that staff will "walk-through" during the presentation. For example, the proposed COSE adds Native American and traditional landscapes, scenic rock outcroppings and other significant geological features to the list of open spaces to be preserved in the urban area(Goal 8.22, page 42)—these features are not addressed in the existing Open Space Element. Other new or expanded policies or programs are addressed below, along with a text reference to the proposed COSE: i Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 3 1. New "natural community" and natural resource maps, based on more detailed, accurate and current information with corresponding preservation policies. (Figures 1-3, 5-7, 9-11) 2. Expanded Greenbelt Area boundary to include all the area within the City's viewshed (to the ridge tops of surrounding hills) and to better reflect the City's natural watershed. (Figure 5) 3. Added provision requiring conservation plans for all open space areas under City ownership or easement. (8.30.2.J, page 52) 4. New monitoring programs for air, water, and visual quality and natural populations. (2.30.2, p.8; 10.30.2H,I, page 64) 5. Expanded requirement for including wildlife corridors with major road building. (7.21.3, p. 35) 6. Increased nightime sky protection from light pollution. (9.21.6, p. 57) 7. New "Green Building" standards to promote energy and materials conservation. (4.21.6, p. 19) 8. Increased protection of archaeological sites, historically and architecturally significant buildings and other cultural features that contribute to "sense of place." (3.30.10,p. 14) 9. Increased emphasis on planting native California trees and beautification of City streetscapes. (9.21.4, p. 57) 10. Implementation of Ahwahnee Planning and Water Principles. (1.70, p. 5; 10.22.2, p. 62) Attempting to summarize and detail each of the programs above in this staff report would make for a very long report, indeed. However, by reviewing the above sections in the document, Council members will cover the main additions to existing policy. In terms of existing policies, as detailed later on in this report, the Planning Commission review has been extraordinarily detailed — policy by policy, in fact — in order to assure that policies have been appropriately carried over without policy omissions or weaknesses. ApplvinP the Ahwahnee Principles In 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9689, committing the City to include the Ahwahnee Principles and the Ahwahnee Water Principles as a resource to help guide future general plan changes. The City believes these principles are the foundation of a safe, environmentally healthy and life=sustaining community and are provided as references in the draft element. Policies in the COSE that help implement several of the Ahwahnee Principles include the following: 1. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open spaces in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. 2. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors,permanently protected from development. 3. Streets,pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and � ' Q Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 4 bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high-speed traffic. 4. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. 5. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. 6. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling. 7. The street orientation,placement of buildings and use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community Puraose of the Uadate The purpose of the update is to bring the City's resource conservation policies up-to-date and to improve public access to those policies. The Conservation Element is 33 years old and the Energy Conservation Element is 25 years old. Technology, society, and the physical landscape of the City have changed since these elements were adopted. They are clearly in need of updating. Since 1994, the City has adopted updates to the Open Space, Land Use, Circulation, Housing and Water and Wastewater Management Elements. These newer elements address many of the same topics the State requires to be addressed in a Conservation Element. The result is resource conservation related policies being dispersed throughout nine different general plan elements. In turn, this dispersion creates potential for redundancy, internal inconsistency, and a longer, less user friendly general plan. Adopting separate updates to the Conservation Element and the Energy Element would only exacerbate this situation. In a broad sense, the Conservation and Open Space Element is a tool to protect and preserve San Luis Obispo's natural resources (such as air and water, wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, watershed and historic features), with a secondary goal of accommodating passive recreation where such activities will not harm the environment or interfere with agricultural operations. The Combinine of General Plan Elements Preparing the COSE has been a lengthy, complex and at times difficult process for the Planning Commission, staff and the public. Since the 1970s, the City has adopted a wide range of conservation and open space policies and programs that are now dispersed throughout nine different elements of the General Plan. These policies reflect the community's environmental preferences and values at the time they were adopted. Because of the communities' strong commitment to environmental quality and resource conservation, proposing changes to these policies and programs — particularly when these changes involve the City's first effort at consolidating and combining General Plan elements — can be alarming. Several questions regarding some of the basic precepts for the update were raised during the update process. i Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 5 The Planning Commission noted that two fundamental public misconceptions about general plans may have also contributed to the questions about the update: 1) the belief that the more times.a policy is repeated in the general plan, the greater its legitimacy or likelihood of implementation, and 2) the Land Use Element is the primary or pre-eminent policy document in the general plan and takes precedence over other elements. These perceptions, although incorrect, may appear to justify redundant or lengthy policies. Why combine general plan elements? For several reasons: eliminate redundancy, help maintain internal General Plan consistency, group functionally-related goals, policies and programs for easier reference, help hold the general plan to a reasonable length, and to address related community issues more comprehensively in one element. Combined elements improve public access to the City's development policies because more people are likely to use and understand a more concise, user friendly document. Combining and integrating related general plan policies in this manner is encouraged by State law. The State Office of Planning and Research notes: "In fact, where a decade ago many general plans were comprised of several stand alone elements under separate covers, nearly all new plans are written as a single document. The various elements are found in separate chapters or sections of that document." Redundant (but not identical) policies can create policy ambiguities that result in weaknesses or "loop holes." Also, according to the State law and our own rules and practices, all General Plan elements apply with equal force, with no one element "dominant" over the others, and thus moving policies from one element to another does not weaken them. Slow, Rough Start, But Lonc.Hard, Detailed Work by the Plannine Commission Since 2003 The City Council approved a work program for updating the Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements in late 1998 with the approval of the 1997-99 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan included a work program to consolidate and update conservation-related policies in the General Plan. The work program included 'a more detailed identification of natural resources. The 1998 Significant Operating Program Change Council report explained that the proposed update program would: "...evaluate combining an update of the Conservation Element and the Energy Conservation Element with the adopted Open Space Element, creating one resources element and thus reducing redundancy among elements and making for a better integrated General Plan." The Council approved a funding request and scope-of-work for the update, and work began on a natural resources inventory and a comparison of all of the natural resource and conservation-related policies. A Natural Resources Inventory Group, composed of local experts in various resource conservation issues and staffed by the City's Natural Resources Manager, was convened and provided input which was incorporated into a working Draft element. A public workshop was held in February 1999 to solicit public comments on conservation issues and the initial consultant findings. In public workshop notices, the project was described as an "update focusing on the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 6 Conservation Element of the General Plan, but which will also aims to consolidate all policies dealing with conservation of natural resources, including those now located in the Open Space Element, the Energy Element, the Land Use Element and other elements." Initial work in preparing the COSE got off to a slow start and was delayed by nearly one year by responding to a public desire for a legislative draft of proposed changes. In early 2002, after nearly four years of consultant and staff work, mapping and public forms, a draft update was completed and public hearings began. The Planning Commission held a "town hall meeting" and several public hearings in late 2002. At a public hearing in February 2003, the Planning Commission expressed concerned that the Draft's sections on energy and materials conservation did not reflect emerging technologies, and felt that these and other sections needed further study. While supporting consolidation, Commissioners agreed with citizens' suggestions that an ad hoc committee be formed to provide additional community input, and the Commission voted 5-2 to continue consideration of the draft to a date uncertain. Given the number of other pending long- range planning projects and the retirement of the project planner; the COSE update process was put on hold. In September 2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting to discuss how to proceed with the COSE. At the joint meeting, Council members directed the Commission and staff to proceed with the update, using a policy-by-policy review strategy similar to that used successfully for the Housing Element update. Council took no action on the Planning Commission's recommendation to form a task force to assist with the COSE. By motion, Council voted 5-0 to direct the Planning Commission and staff to: 1. Update the policy comparison chart to simplify review of the draft; 2. Schedule a series of public workshops in a discussion format to allow page-by-page review of the draft; 3. Proceed to formal public hearings only after the Commission completes its review of the Housing Element update; and 4. Discuss how to "break down the work"before proceeding. Staff and the Commission implemented the Council direction by "restarting" the update process. Updating and consolidation remained the primary purposes of the draft update. In restarting the update process in September 2004, the Planning Commission approved a new work program leading to a series of public workshops and revised goals for the COSE (Attachment 2). As directed, the Planning Commission formatted the workshops as informal,interactive hearings that encouraged public participation and discussion. Speakers were provided with multiple opportunities to provide comment on proposed policies at individual workshops. Time limits were significantly relaxed. Following Council's direction, the Commission encouraged a broad range of individuals, agencies and groups to participate in the workshops and subsequent hearings. The workshops brought together several community specialists in various conservation fields, including air quality, visual quality and assessment, open space preservation, biological and cultural resources, energy conservation and sustainability. In essence, the Commission decided to function as its own "task force" by soliciting public and expert opinions and generating ideas for Draft.Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 7 the update. ' Although lightly attended, the workshops generated significant discussion and direction from the audience regarding topics to address in a revised proposed COSE. Staff sought the input of the SLO Green Build to address the Planning Commission's desire to improve how the topics of energy conservation and sustainability were addressed in the original draft. SLO Green Build contributed their time generously, agendizing the COSE on their own meeting agendas and providing recommendations to the Planning Commission. Through SLO Green Build's involvement, the California Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and a committee of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce also got involved, providing additional input on the subjects of green building and sustainable design. Throughout the process, the Commission emphasized the importance of maintaining a positive and productive meeting atmosphere. The Commission translated the comments and recommendation received at the workshops into goals which were compared with goals in the "old" Draft COSE and which helped shape the goals for the proposed COSE. These new goals became the backbone of the new draft. At the subsequent hearings, the Commission reviewed policies and programs to implement the goals. Why Include the Open Space Element? The Open Space Element (OSE) was adopted in 1994 and is not considered outdated to the same degree as are the Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements. It was developed with extensive input by an ad hoc Environmental Quality Task Force which provided detailed, technical input, and much of the technical and policy background is still valid and reflected in the COSE policies and programs. The purpose of including the OSE in the update was to consolidate related conservation policies into one document to make them easier to find, understand and use. The OSE's organization is based on habitat types, including detailed narrations on the characteristics, importance of and policies that apply to each. The result is a very detailed, comprehensive document providing in-depth information on open space/conservation issues, but redundant and difficult to follow in its policy and program framework. The proposed COSE is condensed and shorter in length because goals, policies and programs are organized around conservation topics rather than individual habitat types,and background narrative text was significantly reduced- Does educedDoes the COSE Reduce Environmental Safezuards in the Open Space and Land Use Elements? No, the Planning Commission worked diligently, with the assistance of several individuals and environmental groups, to ensure the proposed COSE carried forward all important conservation and open space policies now found in the General Plan. It did this by reviewing each element in detail to "track" policy and program changes or deletions. To help the Commission and public with that task, staff prepared annotated drafts of these elements, showing possible changes to policies and programs, and where and how these changes were addressed in the proposed COSE. Particular emphasis was given to possible changes to the Open Space and Land Use Elements, since these are where the majority of current conservation and open space policies reside. Staff also prepared Explanatory Comments on Proposed Land Use Element Changes in Connection with the October 2005 Draft COSE and Possible Changes to the Open Space Element in I - 1) Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 8 Connection with October 2005 Draft COSE to help with this task. These summaries are available in the Council reading file and on the City's web site under www.slocity.or,u/communitydevelopment/long-rangei)lanning. The Commission reviewed possible General Plan changes, line-by-line; to ensure that: 1) the changes were appropriate and a policy or program was being moved to the Proposed COSE or(in a very few cases, to another General Plan element),, 2) a policy or program was outdated or redundant and should be deleted, and 3) no change was warranted; a policy or program should remain as is. The Commission reviewed and revised two successive drafts, finally directing staff to prepare a "clean" draft for final review and action. The March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft—the draft accompanying this report -- is the result of that detailed review. Environmental Determination On April 15, 2002 the Community Development Director determined that the proposed element and General Plan amendments would not have a significant effect on the environment and approved publication of a negative declaration. . The determination was published and no comments were received. Staff has updated the initial study to reflect changes in the Draft. The changes expand conservation policies and programs in the areas of cultural resources, energy and materials, natural communities, open space and views. The Deputy Community Development Director granted a negative declaration for the revised Draft on October 28, 2005, and the Planning Commission determined that policies in March 2006 Draft COSE are substantially consistent with or stronger than those in the previous draft and that no further environmental review was warranted. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration in included as Attachment 2 CONCURRENCES The draft COSE was routed to other affected City departments, and comments received were addressed in the version before the Council. FISCAL IMPACT There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with adopting the proposed COSE and proposed General Plan amendments. The proposed COSE includes policies and programs that will require the commitment of City resources to implement. The cost to implement will depend upon subsequent staffing and budgetary decisions and is undetermined at this time. ALTERNATIVES 1. Review the proposed COSE and provide direction to staff on changes to return for final Council action. This would postpone final action on the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow,additional changes to the proposed COSE or related documents. While this is a viable option, protracted review or revisions will mean that conservation policies will continue to be outdated and "in limbo" during a time when many major new i Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan Page 9 developments are coming forward. It will also delay the City's beginning work on the state- funded Broad Street Village Plan. 2. Provide direction to staff on a different approach in reviewing and completing the Conservation and Open Space than as outlined in the staff report. Under this alternative, depending on the nature of the changes, completion of the proposed COSE may be need to be undertaken in a longer time and require additional resources in terns of staff resources and consultant assistance. ATTACHMENTS: I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5446-06 2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ER 33-02) 3. Draft Council Resolution 4. Proposed General Plan Amendments 5. March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element Council Reading File: Planning Commission minutes, Planning Commission staff reports, Summaries of Possible Changes to Land Use Element and Open Space Element in Connection with the March 2006 Draft COSE, Planning Commission Workshop Goals for the Draft COSE, Office of Planning and Research Guidelines on Element Consolidation, and public correspondence. UJHlconservationandopenspace/staffrepor WCAR20-28-06finalA -- _ Atta.hment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5446-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION;THE MARCH 2006 DRAFT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT WITH CHANGES AS NOTED, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION,HOUSING, LAND USE, PARKS AND RECREATION, SAFETY, WATER AND WASTEWATER ELEMENTS APPLICATION ER/GPA # 149-98 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 8, 2006, for the purpose of considering application ER/GPA 149-98, a project to update and combine the General Plan Conservation, Energy Conservation and Open Space Elements into one element and to amend the General Plan Circulation, Housing, Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Safety, Water and Wastewater Elements to maintain consistency; and WHEREAS, the City initiated said project to update the Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements, last revised in 1973 and 1981 respectively, and to consolidate conservation-related General Plan policies; and WHEREAS, State general plan guidelines encourage element consolidation to minimize redundancy, group functionally related goals, objectives and policies, help maintain internal consistency and to keep the general plan to a reasonable size, making the plan both easier to understand and implement; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, this was a continued public hearing and public notices were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the Initial Environmental Study (ER 149-98) on which it was based, and determined that Negative Declaration granted on October 28,2005 adequately addresses the proposed General Plan Element and amendments and determined that policies in March 2006 Draft COSE are substantially consistent with or stronger than those in the October 2005 draft evaluated in the Initial Study. Consequently, the Commission determined that no further environmental review was warranted and recommended the City Council approve the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the public comments provided verbally at three public workshops and seventeen public hearings, in written communications provided to the Commission and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings; and Resolution No. 5446-06 Atta—.hment 1 ER/GPA 149-98 Page 2 WHEREAS, over the course of said hearings the Planning Commission conducted a detailed review of possible General Plan amendments in comparison to the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element to maintain policy continuity and encouraged, considered and responded to public questions, comments and suggested text changes on both the amendments and the Draft Element; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission acknowledges the significant contributions of time and expertise provided by community groups in preparing and shaping the Draft Element, including ECOSLO, Residents For Quality Neighborhoods, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, SLO Green Build, California Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce; and by many individuals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all.the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed March 2006 Conservation and Open Space Element will promote the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that policies supporting conservation, energy efficiency, preservation of natural and cultural resources and natural communities, and protection of open space resources guide City values, operations and decision-making; and 2. The proposed March 2006 Conservation and Open Space Element maintains and/or expands the City's important conservation environmental policies and programs, and in combination with the Open Space Ordinance, Creek Setback Regulations and Conservation Plans, upholds the City's role as an environmental steward and leader by updating and consolidating these into a single, easily used and understood document; and 3. The proposed March 2006 Conservation and Open Space Element reflects the Commission's detailed review of and comparison with possible changes to the Land Use and Open Space Elements, and with the proposed amendments, is consistent with the General Plan. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the project. Section 3. Recommendation% The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 2. Approve the March 2006 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. 3. Amend the General Plan to maintain consistency. Resolution No. 5446-06 p,tid:�ifi�£flt 1 ER/GPA 149-98 Page 3 On motion by Commr. Christianson, seconded by Commr. McCoy, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Carter, Christianson, Loh, McCoy, and Miller NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne VACANCY: One The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of February, 2006. Ronal Whisenand, ecretary Planning Commission J WUcons&Vagonandopenspaceelement/resoluti ons/PC2-8-O6 - Attachment 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ER 149- 98 1. Project Title: October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hook (805 781-7176) 4. Project Location: Within City Limits, annexation and greenbelt areas. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: The project would apply within all land-use designations. 7. Zoning: The project would apply in all zones. 8. Description of the Project: The project objectives are to: • Clarify, consolidate and expand goals and policies for conservation of open land (including soil for agriculture), natural communities (including wildlife species of concern), air, water, energy, materials, scenery and views, and historical and archaeological resources. • Update policies and programs, mainly to reflect changes in State requirements and what the City has already implemented. • Expand conservation efforts, particularly in the fields of energy and materials conservation and "Green Building" technology. These objectives would be met by: • Restating several existing policies in more direct and .more encompassing terms. • Adding new policies and programs to enhance conservation of Energy and Materials, Natural Communities, Open Space, Cultural Resources and Views. • Deleting some obsolete or ambiguous statements. • Providing new illustrations, including maps. • Reformatting some material with no change in content. • Combining the present Open Space Element, the Conservation Element, and the Energy Conservation Element, and amending the Land Use, Initial Environmental Study, ER 149-98 Page 1 Alit;i�.i li 11'vl it Housing, Circulation, Safety, Parks and Recreation and Water and Wastewater Elements. To show the proposed changes, the City prepared a "legislative draft" showing anticipated policy and program changes. In addition, the City prepared several matrices summarizing the proposed changes. These documents are on file in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The San Luis Obispo area contains, and shares with neighboring areas, many high-quality natural resources. Several maps in the element summarize the type and location of natural resources in the area. Pressures for development and human use could degrade or deplete the resources. Several resources, such as land and water, are subject to competition among urban, agricultural, and wildlife uses. Some resources, such as stream corridors, have been degraded by past actions, but can be enhanced as projects by the City or conservation organizations, or in conjunction with private development. A key consideration is that the City can directly implement its policies only within the city limits or on property the City owns, and that the City relies on cooperation with County, State, and Federal agencies for many aspects of conservation. 10: Project Entitlements Requested: This is a General Plan amendment, which requires a recommendation by the City's Planning Commission and approval by the San Luis Obispo City Council. 11: Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards& Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation &Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources Initial Environmental Study, ER 149-98 page 2 I I U l;l-it - i�T1L} 7 /' . Cdus CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME FEES DETERMINATION: There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildfrfe depends. Therefore, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 71.1.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. CEQA DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentiallysignificant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 000, oz� Signature Date Michael Draze, Deputy Director Long-range anning for: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Initial Study Checklist, ER 149-98 Page 3. j - IS� p EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if-the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the Califomia Administrative Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Initial Study Checklist, ER 149-98 Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information sources Sources Potcnuady Lcss Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 149 98 Impact with Impact Mitigation Inco orated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1-3 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and 1-3 X historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1-3 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 1-3 X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? There would be no substantial change to policies concerning aesthetics. The new element would reflect the existence of the architectural review process, which did not exist when the Conservation Element was adopted in 1973. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 1-3 X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1-3 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of 1-3 Farmland,to non-agricultural use? There would be no substantial change to policies concerning agricultural resources. The element would, for the first time, map cultivated land separately from open space generally. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 1-3 X to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 1-3 X air quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1-3 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1-3 X of people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 1-3 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors ? There would be no substantial change to policies concerning air quality. The new element would reflect the existence of the County Clean Air Plan and information on climate change, which did not exist when the Conservation Element was adopted in 1973. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: A) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or 1-3 indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Calif omia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Initial Study Checklist Page 5 1 - 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 149-98 Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat 1-3 or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1-3 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance (e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 1-3 resident or migratory fish or Wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat 1-3 Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 1-3 wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes,vernal pools,etc.) X through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There would be no,substantial change to policies concerning natural communities or species of concern. On-site protection of species listed as rare or endangered would continue to be the preferred means of conservation, with relocation or compensatory mitigation allowed only in limited circumstances.The new element would acknowledge the role of State and Federal endangered species regulations, while for the first time identifying species of local concern and strategies for their protection (a beneficial impact) and emphasize protection of natural habitats and wildlife corridors. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1-3 X a historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 1-3 X 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1-3 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1-3 t X outside of formal cemeteries? There would be no substantial change to policies concerning cultural resources. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proj6ct: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1-3 X b) Use non-renewable resources wastefully or inefficiently? 1-3 X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1-3 resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the State? There would be no reduction in overall support for conserving energy or mineral resources. The new element reflects emerging energy and materials conservation programs and technology and refers to existing City land-use and trans ortation. olicies that reinforce conservation policies. Initial Study Checklist Page 6 \ n Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteaoally Less Than ' ` Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 149 98 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 1-3 adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 1-3 Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, X or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1-3 X III. Seismic related ground-failure, including liquefaction? 1-3 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 1-3 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1'-3 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 1-3 that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B 1-3 of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial X risks to life or property? The new element clarifies policies on watershed protection and avoidance of unstable geological areas, and refers to the existing,General Plan Safety Element. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a.significant hazard to the public or the 1-3 environment though the routine use,transport or disposal X of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1-3 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1-3 hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of 1-3 hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous X materials, substances, or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 1-3 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it X would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport,would the project result 1-3 X in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the adopted emergency response plan or emergency 1-3 X evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where 1-3 X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where Initial Study Checklist Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 149 98 Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated residents are intermixed with wildlands? The new element does not change safety policies or programs and refers to the existing General Plan Safety Element. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1-3 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there 1-3 would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the X local groundwater table level (for example.the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? , c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the 1-3 capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 1-3 X or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 1-3 or area in a manner that would result in substantial X flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 1-3 mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1-3 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality9 1-3 X There would be no substantial change to policies concerning water quality. The new element would reflect the existence of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and its plans and regulations. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: . a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for 1-3 X the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1-3 X C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1-3 X natural community conservationplans? Revised policies would be consistent with other policies of the City s General Plan, and with the limited-purpose tans of other agencies. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of,"unacceptable" 1-3 noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General X Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase 1-3 in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground 1-3 X borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? d Fora project located within an airport land use plan, or 1-3 Initial Study Checklist Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiaily Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 149 98 Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the X project area to excessive noise levels? There would be no change to policies concerning noise. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either 1-3 directly (for example by proposing new homes or X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing dwellings or 1-3 X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There would be no changes to policies directly affecting population and housing. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for anv of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1-3 X b) Police protection? 1-3 X c) Schools? 1-3 X d) Parks? 1-3 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1-3 X f Other public facilities? 1-3 1 X There would be no substantial change to policies concerning management of open space areas, including provision for,public access.. 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks 1-3 or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 1-3 expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? There would be no substantial change to policies concerning recreation and natural resources, though the policy language would be simplified. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to 1-3 X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of 1-3 service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g. 1-3 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses(e.g.farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1-3 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 1-3 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1-3 X transportation (e.g.bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use 1-3 Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, X noise or a chan a in air trafficpatterns? The new element would summarize and refer to the existing General Plan Circulation Element, which aims to reduce the energy-use and air-quality impacts of mobility. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Not meet wastewater treatment standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? initial Study Checklist Page 9 ti - lr.�I Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Flottritinify Less Than Less ThanNo Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 149 98 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new 1-3 water treatment,wastewater treatment, or storm drainage X facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1-3 project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 1-3 provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1-3 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and 1-3 X regulations related to solid waste? The new element would summarize and refer to the existing General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element. It would reflect local and statewide changes in solid waste management and recycling since the 1973 Conservation Element, and expands materials conservation efforts to reflect emerging materials conservation programs and technology. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 1-3, 4 of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history orprehistory? The new element would continue, or make more specific, most City policies intended to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife. One broad policy of the adopted Conservation Element would be eliminated. That policy says: "The long- term protection of the environment should be the guiding criterion in City public policy decisions." Many public policy choices involve environmental trade-offs, such as accommodating certain types of development in the City s designated urban area as opposed to outside it. Other decisions involve choices between convenience or desired levels of consumption on one hand, and environmental quality on the other. Replacing the current overall policy with more specific, focused policies is intended to reflect longstanding City practices and enhance conservation and open sace, while not substantially degrading the quality of the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 1-3, 4 but cumulatively considerable? (°Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) c) Does the project have environmental effects Which will 1-3, 4 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirecU Initial Study Checklist Page 10 I - r�La 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to-the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects. have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following_items: a Earlier anal' is_used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. This initial study does not rely on earlier analysis. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. October 2005 Planning Commission Draft Conservation and Open Space Element 2. March 2005 Planning Commission Review Draft Conservation and Open Space Element 3. General Plan, San Luis Obispo, and included Elements (various adoption dates) 4. 2005 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines 20. MITIGATION MEASURES& MONITORING PROGRAM No mitigation measures are proposed. Jh/L/conservationandopenspac&ER 149-98 Initial Study Checklist Page 11 1- 45 Attachment 3 February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 1981 Energy.Conservation Element The Energy Conservation Element, adopted in April 1981, is hereby updated and wholly incorporated into the March 2006 City.Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. JhlUConservationandOpenSpaceElement/ReporLAttachments!proposed CONS amendments2-8-06 ^U t Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPDATING AND CONSOLIDATING THE CONSERVATION, ENERGY CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS INTO A CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, ADOPTING SAID ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE CIRCULATION, HOUSING, LAND USE, PARKS AND RECREATION,SAFETY, AND WATER AND WASTE WATER ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA/ER 149- 98) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 28, 2006, for the purpose of considering a Planning Commission recommendation on City application ER/GPA 149-98, a project to update and combine the General Plan Conservation, Energy Conservation and Open Space Elements into one element, a Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE), and to amend the General Plan Circulation, Housing, Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Safety, Water and Wastewater Elements to maintain consistency; and WHEREAS, the City initiated said project to update the Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements, last revised in 1973 and 1981 respectively, and to update and consolidate conservation-related General Plan policies, reduce redundancy, help maintain internal consistency, maintain or strengthen the environmental safeguards in the General Plan, and make conservation policies and programs easier to find, understand and use; and WHEREAS, State general plan guidelines encourage element consolidation to minimize redundancy, group functionally related goals, objectives and policies, help maintain internal consistency and to keep the general plan to a reasonable size, making the plan both easier to understand and implement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Council have considered the information and comments pertaining to the update, including the public comments provided verbally at three public workshops and 18 public hearings, in written communications provided to the Commission and Council, and the evaluations and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings; and WHEREAS, during the course of said hearings the Planning Commission conducted a detailed review of possible General Plan amendments in comparison to the draft COSE to maintain policy continuity and encouraged, considered and responded to public questions, comments and suggested text changes on both the amendments and the Draft Element; and WHEREAS, the project has been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and pursuant to an initial environmental study (City File Number ER 149-98), and the Community Development Director has granted a negative declaration of environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Council considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the Initial Environmental Study (ER 149-98) on which it was based, and determined that Negative Declaration granted on October 28, 2005 adequately addresses the R Attachment 3 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 2 proposed General Plan Element and amendments and determined that policies in March 2006 Draft COSE are substantially consistent with or stronger than those in the October 2005 draft evaluated in the Initial Study. Consequently, the Council has determined that no further environmental review was warranted; and WHEREAS, the Council acknowledges the significant contributions of time and expertise provided by community groups in preparing and shaping the Draft Element, including ECOSLO, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club; SLO Green Build, California Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, and by many individuals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study and the negative declaration for ER No. 149-98 prepared for the October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. This Council has, as a result of its deliberations, Planning Commission recommendation, the initial environmental study, and the evidence presented at hearings on this matter, determined that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a negative declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element as revised in the March 2006 Draft COSE. On the basis of this review, Council finds that in light of the whole public record, there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the project, including related General Plan amendments, will have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, and hereby certifies and approves the negative declaration of environmental impact for the Conservation and Open Space Element and related General Plan amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission on February 8, 2006. SECTION 2. Record of Proceedings: The City Council has received and considered the Planning Commission recommendation, minutes from public meetings and workshops, record of public correspondence, and the Planning Commission staff reports on the Conservation and Open Space Element and General Plan amendments. Copies of these items or testimony are on file in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission held 17 public hearings and three public workshops to consider the draft Conservation and Open Space Element and related documents. In addition, the City Council conducted three public hearings to discuss the Conservation and Open Space Element and related matters. The minutes of those hearings indicate Commission and Council member comments on the Conservation and Open Space Element and are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. Findings. This Council, after considering the March 2006 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element and draft General Plan amendments, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony and correspondence, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Conservation and Open Space Element (March 2006 Draft) will promote A tachment 3 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 3 the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that policies supporting conservation, energy efficiency, preservation of natural and cultural resources and natural communities, and protection of open space resources guide City values, operations and decision-making; and 2. The proposed Conservation and Open Space Element maintains and/or expands the City's important conservation environmental policies and programs, and in combination with the Open Space Ordinance, Creek Setback Regulations and Conservation Plans, upholds the City's role as an environmental steward and leader by updating and consolidating these into a single, easily used and understood document; and 3. The proposed Conservation and Open Space Element reflects the Commission's detailed review of and comparison with possible changes to the Land Use and Open Space Elements, and with the proposed amendments,is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 4. Approval of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Council hereby approves the Conservatipn and Open Space Element (March 2006 Draft), as shown in Attachment 3 of the February 28, 2006 Council agenda report. SECTION 5. General Plan Amendments. The General Plan is hereby amended to maintain consistency with the Conservation and Open Space Element, as shown in Attachment 4 of the February 28, 2006 Council agenda report. SECTION 6. Publication and Availability.. The Community Development Director shall cause the updated Conservation and Open Space Element and amended General Plan elements to be published and provided to City officials, affected agencies, public libraries, and to the public. SECTION 7. Effective Date. The Conservation and Open Space Element shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 28th day of February, 2006. David F. Romero, Mayor Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 3 Page 4 ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney Jh/Uconservationandopenspaceelement/resolutions/counci Iresolution2-28-06 i Attachment February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 1973 Conservation Element The Conservation Element, adopted July 1973, is hereby updated and wholly incorporated into the March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. Jh/LConsmauonandOpenSpaceElementIRepoMttachments/proposed CONS amendments2-8-06 1 February 8, 2006 Attachment 'rf Proposed Amendments to the 1994 Circulation Element The Circulation Element, last revised and adopted in Novembei 1994, is hereby updated as shown below. Following are the Circulation Element text items most directly involved with conservation. Only the section on scenic roadways would be changed, mainly by moving it to the new Conservation and Open Space Element. Amend the Circulation Element as shown below: Seenie-Rea s G! 14,1i Seenie Rpsaurpps Covered more specifically by 9.21 ----- G! 14.2i Seenie Roadways Substance moves to 9.22 and Figure, 10 quality of viewer Moves to 9.22.1, 9.22 and 9.30.2 Views program D. N'ie+vs. B) Wee! lights should be lem, seale and feeas light at intemeetiens where i is- fness needed. Tall light 69—sind—Ar-d-s- sheuld- be -eve-id-AW. Sareet lighting seenie eeaeems. - G! 14.4s U01y and GiFeulation Related Equipmen Covered moreThe , . --y --- ----- -D---- -- -- -- - ---- -- - ---- o. -- -- aye-- �- - o - ibroadly by and 9.22.1 i Attachment Proposed General Plan Circulation Element Amendments Page 2 D) T-Faffie sigfWs with long wast aff.ns shoul-d be diseetifaged along seenie Substance moves to 9.22.1 and 9.30.1 —9:30.10 CI- 1-4.6-a G-r-e-efien 8f Seenie Highways The City Will pFeMete- the ereatieft of Seenie Highways within San btfiis Obispe wee}: 222:7 As Repair-Highways. G! 141.8i Hioway444 The Gity will pof0eipate with G&IlFms, the eeanty and ether eities te establish A Guidefines Covered-by The City will revise itf, AfehiteePara-1 -Review Guidelines te ifleefPOFMO eefleem The lnd. : . Covered by 921.4.,. GI 44,11i Ame-ft—iisafien-WfMillbeffirzdl-s Covered bV-9.-Z1 and 9.30:8 and 9.30:9--- -- G! 14,121 RiMbOOF& scenic roadways. 2 Attachment 3 February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 1994 Open Space Element The Open Space Element, last revised and adopted January 1994, is hereby updated and wholly incorporated into the March 2006 Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. Jh/UConservatonandOpenSpaceElement/ReportAttachments/proposed CONS amendments2-8-06 r�3a y February 8, 2006 Attachment Proposed Amendments to the 2004 Housing Element The Housing Element, last revised and adopted in December 2004, is hereby updated as shown below. 9.2 Programs b and building b neludinb the Gity's b housingwith applieants to aehiek,e the goals b This essence of this policy moves to the Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 4.30.6;following programs will be renumbered. .2 Revise the b b f...-both new nd existing d ell;eDc Disseminate 1L�: .,fa ation to the pub :.. • This policy to be deleted, since the Energy Conservation Element is incorporated into the COSE 9.3.3 EN,al ate pfesent ,.I.._ it;..eb and aeeess regulations deteF+niae :f the), prokide- assur ..f llfdld hd fe adj went e e..� to solar e e e remodeled e n� n reg ulations found to be inadequate. This policy is deleted, since solar siting and access standards were evaluated and included in the COSE update. 9.3 Programs This policy moves to the Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 4.30.6;following programs will be renumbered. 9.3.2 Revise the G'..e .., Ga .,,; Element to address_Fesidenti l a g ..b.. ..b.. ...ncvu ' f beth new ndst:ng , ell:nas Disseminate this .,fe .,t: to the .hl:�_ d This policy to be deleted, since the Energy Conservation Element is incorporated into the COSE 9.3.4 Ek'albiatepresent sola "b and - G6-e-- gulati ons te deteFffline 4 the), e:;de Attachment �f Proposed General Plan Housing Element Amendments Page 2 ef b b pFepenies, and revise b inadequate. This policy is deleted, since solar siting and access standards were evaluated and included in the COSE update. Jh[UConservationandOpenSpaceElemenUReportAttachments/proposed HOUS amendments2-8-06 2 c Attachment February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 2001 Parks and Recreation Element The Parks and Recreation Element, last revised and adopted in April 2001, is hereby amended as shown below. 1.335 Recreation policies and programs shall reinforce the objectives and programs in the Conservation and Open Space Element, Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 2.58.1 Open space shall be managed in a manner that provides for appropriate public access and enhances the natural environment, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. Jh/UConservationandOpenSpaceElement/ReportAttachments/proposedPREC amendments12-8-06 1 - �5 Attachment February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 2002 Water and Wastewater Element The Water and Wastewater Management Element, last revised and adopted in June 2004, is hereby updated as shown below. 1.1.3 Groundwater A- The amount of groundwater which the City will rely upon towards safe annual yield is identified in policy 1.1.2. The City will maximize the use of groundwater in conjunction with other available water supplies to maximize the yield and long- term reliability of all water resources and to minimize overall costs for meeting urban water demands. The City shall monitor water levels at the well sites to determine whether reduction or cessation of pumping is appropriate when water levels approach historic low levels. To be deleted and replaced by Conservation and Open Space Element policy 10.21.2. The policy is reworded to require City consideration of the effects of water supply projects and to ensure continued water availability for agriculture, wildlife habitat and stream flow. As currently worded, any water-supply project could be found inconsistent due to "competition" with nominal impact. "Natural" would be deleted as a modifier of stream flows, recognizing the desire to maintain certain treated effluent discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek for habitat benefits. J h/UConservationandOpenSpaceElementtReportAttachments/proposedW AT W ASamendments2-8-06 ( ' -W Attachment February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 1994 Land Use Element The proposed amendments have been revised to show Planning Commission's changes from the 11/30/05, 12/14/05 and 1/18/06 meetings. These changes are explained in text boxes. Underlined text is added; soikeetif text is moved (as explained in text boxes) or deleted. Text without underlining or strikeout remains unchanged. Only those pages with text changes are shown below. References are to the March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. The Land Use Element is hereby amended as shown below: INTRODUCTION TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT The City's General Plan guides the use and 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 is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. The Land Use Element represents a generalized blueprint for the future of the City of San Luis Obispo. Required by State law, it is the core of the General Plan. Starting with conditions at the time of adoption, the Land Use Element sets forth a pattern for the orderly development of land within the City's planning area. This pattern should be based on residents'preference and on protection of natural assets unique to the planning area. The Element also describes the expected level of population growth resulting from construction of the kinds of housing units included in the plan, as well as the kinds of new commercial and industrial development that are responsive to the City's economic needs. The City's planning area coincides with the County's San Luis Obispo planning area (Figure 1), and can be generally described as extending to the ridge of the Santa Lucias (Cuesta Ridge) on the north and east; the southerly end of the Edna Valley (northern Arroyo Grande Creek watershed boundary) on the southeast; the ridge of the Davenport Hills on the southwest; and the ridge of the Irish Hills, Tum Road in the Los Osos Valley,and Cuesta College in the Chorro Valley on the west. Policies in the Land Use Element and the General Plan Land Use Map are consistent with other General Plan elements. The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs reflect the land use policies as they relate to residential development. The Circulation Element recognizes implications of land use policy on traffic and establishes relevant goals, policies, standards, and implementation measures that address both existing and potential circulation deficiencies. The Safety Element identifies hazards that could affect both existing and future development. The Conservation and Open Space Element addresses protection of open space amenities and resources. The Land Use Element recognizes these potential constraints on land use policy. History The City's first General Plan, including land use and other elements, was adopted in 1961. A revised plan was adopted in 1966, following the County's first adoption of a plan for the San Luis Obispo area in 1965. The City adopted major revisions of its land use element in 1972 and in 1977. The current element is a revision of the 1977 version. l ^ 3n Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use.Element Amendments Page 2 Public Participation Before adopting or revising any General Plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council hold public hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten days before they are held. Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before the hearings are held. The City started work on updating this element with a series of public workshops in 1988. Also, the City took a public opinion survey and established committees to give advice on the element. The City intends to re-evaluate this element about every ten years. Parts of it may be updated more often. There will be annual reports on how the plan has been implemented and changed. Anyone may suggest or apply for an amendment to the General Plan at any time, though there are limits on how often it can be amended. Background to Tbis the 1994 Land Use Element mate The Introduction to the 1977 Land Use Element contained a philosophical discussion of existing conditions and issues facing the City. The discussion is still valid today. Its premise is that the City and County, while still relatively rural and apparently capable of providing room for new residents,face some known and several undefined finite resources which may constrain growth. Furthermore, the introduction said, public attitudes towards the desirability of growth had changed since the City's first General Plan; experience with growth had caused citizens and public officials to question whether growth, even well planned, produces benefits worth the social, economic and environmental costs and consequences. On the environmental side, the element stated that key resources known to have finite limits were water supply and air quality. All the basic resources — land, water and air — can accommodate some additional growth without severe impacts, but eventually and inevitably growth must stabilize and stop, or else exceed resource limitations with destructive social, economic and environmental ramifications. The purpose of the 1977 element, the Introduction said, was to apply planning methodologies to manage the rate and extent of growth so that irreversible environmental problems would not get out of hand before they were recognized. Concerns about environmental quality continue today, and are the basis for much of the General Plan. Votes of residents and the public opinion survey of residents done as part of dtis the General Plan update have strongly reaffirmed the commitment of residents to preserve and enhance the environmental quality of our community. In the years since 1977 additional issues have become better defined. One, for example, is the maintenance of the remaining prime farmland in and around the City. The 1977 Element cited this as one of the primary issues facing planners, but failed to propose a concrete solution. As a result, irreplaceable agricultural land has been lost. This Fe isien The General Plan now proposes solutions to the continued irretrievable loss of this world-class natural asset. Another issue that was less well understood in 1977 is the preservation of important wildlife and native plant habitats.lett The General Plan now proposes ftetheds to begin preservation of such habitats, including planning based on the identification, mapping and monitoring of the community's existing natural assets. This element is an update cetsiedatien of the 1977 element; it represents fine tuning rather than a new beginning. Community Values As the 1977 element noted, public attitudes and values are an essential part of what shapes planning Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 3 documents. The residents of San Luis Obispo have expressed strong community values. For the past 25 28 years, residents have again and again voiced their desire to preserve environmental assets and control excessive growth. There have been many public votes on such issues, and all have expressed the same set of community values: • In 1972,70% of city voters rejected by referendum an environmentally controversial annexation in the Edna Valley,the Danley Annexation. • In June 1978, 62%of city voters amended the city Charter by initiative to allow voters to vote yes or no on annexations. • In November 1978, when the first Charter-mandated votes on annexations were held,58% of voters rejected the Foothills annexation, and 56 %the Ferrini annexation. • In 1983,73% of city voters said the city should protect sensitive hillsides and consider purchasing open space in order to preserve it. • Also in 1983,69% of city voters said Port San Luis should not be used for offshore oil activities. • In 1985,71% of voters chose to amend the San Luis Obispo Charter to require that land annexed to the city can only be developed in consistency with the General Plan. • In 1989,68%of city voters said growth management regulations should apply to all development in the city. • In 1991,69%of city voters repealed by referendum Council-approved zoning for the Islay Hill/Arbors Tract. • Also in 1991, in the midst of the worst drought in history,56%of city voters said the city should not participate in the State Water Project. • In a 1992 referendum,a similar percentage of city voters rescinded Council approval for joining the State Water Project. • In 2005, 51.5% of City voters opposed rezoning for the MarketPlace Project, a mixed-use development proposed on prime farmland within the City's Urban Reserve, thereby rescinding previous City development approvals. As voters, the people of San Luis Obispo residents have spoken clearly and consistently on environmental protection and quality of life issues for the past 25 28 years. Citizens spoke equally clearly when polled by the City in 1988 as part of the c-ttfren Land Use Element update. The 585 poll respondents placed quality of life and environmental issues at the top of their concerns. Ninety percent of respondents listed the natural environment as their top quality of life concern. Asked, in an open-ended question, the City's greatest problem, the top response (42%) was excessive growth. (The next largest response, at 15%, was traffic.) Asked, also in an open-ended question, the City's greatest strength, 53% of responses concerned environmental quality and sense of community. Asked what reductions in quality of life they were willing to accept in return for greater economic growth, in the following areas a majority said"none": • air pollution, 83%; • increased traffic and traffic noise, 67%; • development on peaks and hillsides,66%; • development on farmland and ranch land, 51%; • development harmful to creeks, 67% 3 c — � Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 4 • overall pace of life, 51%. Asked to pick a growth rate from listed categories, 85% of respondents picked categories ranging from none (15%) to slower than the state and county (51%) to no faster than the county (19%). Despite such consistent and strong expression of community values, there has been continued, incremental degradation of the natural environment expressly valued by residents of San Luis Obispo. The pfmseat Land Use Element tette must be understood as emerging from the context of the community's past experiences and present attitudes. It is a document that charts a future course of concern with environment, society,economy and quality of life;,and responds to the desires of the City's residents. PREAMBLE TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT We the people of San Luis Obispo hold that we have the right to determine our community's destiny based on our community's values; that the future livability of our community will be driven by historical choices made from day to day, and not by inevitable forces beyond our control; that in an age when the livability of large, urban communities to our north, south, and east is being destroyed by incrementally accelerating environmental degradation and the breakdown of civility, we assert our desire to seek a different sort of future for our community; that, therefore, we direct our elected representatives and civic employees to preserve our community's natural environment and control excessive growth detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the community. SAN LUIS OBISPO'S VISION Our vision is of a sustainable community, within a diverse natural and agrarian setting, which is part of a larger ecosystem upon which its existence depends. San Luis Obispo will maintain its healthy and attractive natural environment valued by residents, its prosperity, and its sense of safety and community; within a compact urban form. Our community will have a comprehensible scale, where people know each other and where their participation in government is welcome and effective. The general plan outlines basic features of the city needed to sustain our livelihoods, our natural and historical heritage, and our needs for interaction and expression. The general plan is a benchmark in the continuing planning process, reflecting the desires of citizens with different backgrounds to sustain the community's qualities for themselves and for future generations. The City should provide a setting for comfortable living, including work and recreation. The City should live within its resources, preserve the relatively high levels of service, environmental quality and clean air valued by its residents, and strive to provide additional resources as needed. COMMUNITY GOALS, Introduction Goals describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the community's preferences for basic future directions. In the goal statements, "San Luis Obispo" means the community as a whole, not just the City as a municipal corporation. The statements also indicate what the City should do and what it should influence others to do. The goals state San Luis Obispo's basic positions on the extent, rate, composition, and financing of growth. The following Growth Management section includes policies and r- L�*C) Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Attachment Page 5 programs which offer more specific guidance on these topics. Later sections,dealing with parts of the City and with land-use categories, give more detailed direction on preserving neighborhoods and designing new development. Approach to Planning San Luis Obispo should: 1. Choose its future, rather than let it happen. San Luis Obispo should be proactive in implementing its vision of the future, and should work with other agencies and institutions to create our desired mutual future. Environment San Luis Obispo should: 2. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality of air, water, soil,and open space. 3. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded,enhance wildlife habitat on land surrounding the city, ' at Laguna Lake, along creeks and other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse,native plants,fish,and animals can continue to live within the area. 4. Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains. 5. Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of the planning area and the county, protect agriculture from development and from incompatible uses, and protect remaining undeveloped prime agricultural soils. 6. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the city, such as the volcanic morros, hillsides,marshes,and creeks. 7. Foster appreciation among citizens of the complex abundance of the planning area's environment, and of the need to respect natural systems. 8. Identify,map and monitor our community's natural assets to preserve-and protect them. Society &Economy San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community. Environmental, social,and economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Luis Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. The social fabric of the community for both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance. Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives of this element, the City shall maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well being of the community. San Luis Obispo should. 9. Provide employment opportunities appropriate for area residents'desires and skills. 10. Provide goods and services which substantial numbers of area residents leave the area regularly to obtain,provided doing so is consistent with other goals. 5 Attachment 1�/ Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 6 11. Retain existing businesses and agencies,and accommodate expansion of existing businesses,consistent with other goals. 12. Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already committed to urban development. 13. Provide an adequate revenue base for local government and public schools. 14. Provide high quality public services, ensuring that demands do not exceed resources and that adequate facilities and services can be provided in pace with development. 15. Cooperate with other agencies in the county to assure that increases in the numbers of workers and college and university students in the San Luis Obispo area do not outpace housing availability. 16. Accommodate residents within all income groups. 17. Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes. 18. Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes, within existing neighborhoods and within expansion areas. 19. Encourage opportunities for elder care and child care within the city. 20. Enrich community cultural and social life by accommodating people with various backgrounds, talents, occupations,and interests. 21. Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. 22. Have developments bear the costs of resources and services needed to serve them, except where the community deliberately chooses to help pay in order to achieve other community goals. 23. Provide for high quality education and access to related services such as museums, art galleries, public art,and libraries. 24. Serve as the county's hub for county and state government; education; transportation; visitor. information; entertainment; cultural, professional, medical, and social services; community organizations;retail trade. 25. Provide a wide range of parks and sports and recreational facilities for the enjoyment of our citizens. 26. Retain accessible,responsive;and capable local government. 27. Ensure that residents' opportunities for direct participation in City government and their sense of community can continue. City Form San Luis Obispo should: 28. Maintain the town's character as a small, 'safe, comfortable place to live, and maintain its rural setting, r Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 7 with extensive open land separating it from other urban development. 29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. 30. Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land. 31. Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. 32. Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, and preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places. 33. Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense of place and architectural heritage. 34. Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. 35. Focus its government and cultural facilities and provide a variety of business services and housing in the downtown. 36. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle,for recreation and other daily activities. 37. Be a safe place to live. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES; 1.0 Overall Intent 1.0.1 Growth Management Objectives The City shall manage its growth so that: A. The natural environment and air quality will be protected. B. The relatively high level of services enjoyed by City residents is maintained or enhanced. C. The demand for municipal services does not outpace their availability. D. New residents can be assimilated without disrupting the community's social fabric, safety, or established neighborhoods. E. Residents' opportunities for direct participation in City government and their sense of community can continue. 1.0.2 Development Capacity and Services The City will not designate more land for urban uses than its resources can be expected to support. 1.1 Urban Separation Broad, undeveloped open spaces should separate the City from nearby urban areas. This element establishes a final edge for urban development. 1.2 Build-out Capacity Revised on 11/30/05. There should not be major expansion of the urban reserve line because the Substance of added urban reserve provides adequate capacity for new housing and employment statement moves from up to the City's desired maximum. This element seeks to establish an Open Space Element ultimate population capacity. OS 13.2:1.6, p. OS-54 13 Urban Edges Character The boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land should be clear. Development just inside the boundary shall provide measures to avoid a stark-appearing edge between buildings in the city and adjacent open land. Such measures include: using new or existing groves or 7 ( ' 43 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 8 windrows of trees, or hills or other landforms, to set the edge of development;increasing the required side- yard and rear-yard setbacks. 1.4 Jobs/Housing Relationship The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. IS Regional Planning The City will encourage regional planning and growth management throughout the County, and in cooperation with neighboring counties and the State. 1.6 City Size and Expansion 1.6.1 Urban Reserve The City shall have an urban reserve line containing the area around the City where urban development might occur(Land Use Element Map and Figure 2). Urban uses within this line should be developed according to City-approved plans, consistent with this element. Non-urban agricultural, open space, and wildlife corridor uses are also encouraged within the urban reserve, as interim or permanent uses shown on City-approved plans. 1.6.2 Expansion Areas Expansion areas adequate for growth consistent with these policies should be designated within the urban reserve line(Land Use Element Map and Figure 2). 1.63 Interim Uses Expansion areas should be kept in agriculture, compatible agricultural support services, or open-space uses until urban development occurs, unless a City-approved specific plan provides for other interim uses. 1.7 Greenbelt (See also Section 6,Resource Protection) —Sections-ns--1.7-- - ------- Sec — 1.8 1.7.1 Open Space Protection Within the City's planning area and outside retained, as directed; the urban reserve line, undeveloped land should be kept open. Prime by PC on 12/14/05 agricultural land, productive agricultural land, and potentially productive agricultural land should be protected for farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land should be permanently protected as open space. 1.7.2 Greenbelt Uses Appropriate greenbelt uses include: watershed; wildlife habitat; grazing; cultivated crops; parks and outdoor recreation (with minimal land or landscape alteration, building, lighting, paving, or use of vehicles, so rural character is maintained); and home sites surrounded by land of sufficient size and appropriately located with respect to topography and vegetation to maintain the open character. 1.7.3 Commercial Uses Commercial development shall not occur, unless it is clearly incidental to and supportive of agriculture or other open-space I uses. 1.7.4 Parcel Sizes & Density The City will encourage the County to create no new parcels within the greenbelt, with the exception of those 44 1' Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 9 permitted under the following cluster incentive. Outside of clusters, allowed parcel sizes within the greenbelt should be no smaller, and the number of dwellings allowed on a parcel should be no more, than designated by the 1989 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Element. 1.7.5 Building Design and Siting All new buildings and structures should be subordinate to and in harmony with the surrounding landscape. The City should encourage County adoption of regulations prohibiting new structures on ridge lines or in other visually prominent or environmentally sensitive locations, and allowing transfer of development rights from one parcel to another in order to facilitate this policy. 1.7.6 Wildlife Habitat Continuous wildlife habitat --including corridors free of human disruption--shall be preserved and, where necessary,created. 1.7.7 Trees Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be preserved. 1.8 Prime Agricultural Land Sections 1.7— 1.8 1.8.1 Agricultural Protection It is the City's policy to encourage retained, as directed preservation of economically viable agricultural operations and land within by PC on 12/14/05 the urban reserve and city limits. The City should provide for the continuation of farming through steps such as provision of appropriate general plan designations and zoning. 1.8.2 Prime Agricultural Land Development of prime agricultural land may be permitted, if the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one or more of the following methods, or an equally effective method: acting as a receiver site for transfer of development credit from prime agricultural land of equal quantity; securing for the City or for a suitable land conservation organization open space easements or fee ownership with deed restrictions; helping to directly fund the acquisition of fee ownership or open space easements by the City or a suitable land conservation organization. Development of small parcels which are essentially surrounded by urbanization need not contribute to agricultural land protection. - 1.9 Residential Clustering for Open Space Protection 1.9.1 Basis for Variation 1.4.4 when: In the greenbelt, the City will allow, and encourage the County to allow, smaller parcel sizes and more dwellini�s only when: A. All new dwellings will be clustered contiguously in accordance with Table 1; B. The area outside the cluster is permanently protected as open space; C. Agricultural easements are placed on prime agricultural lands outside the cluster. 1.9.2 Means of Protection Open space is to be preserved either by dedication of permanent 9 1 LK Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 10 easements or transfer of fee ownership to the City,the County,or a responsible,nonprofit conservation organization. TABLE 1 RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERING FOR OPEN SPACE PROTECTION Minimum non- Minimum site area to be Minimum overallsite `Maximum lot area(acres) cluster parcel open space,outside cluster area per dwelling size acres . rcent -- - ----(acres)--- 20 acres ---20 80 10 1 30 80 15 1 40 85 20 1 80 90 40 1 160 95 80 2.5 320 or more 95 160 1 2.5 1.93 Public Access Areas preserved for open space should include public trail access, controlled to protect the natural resources, to assure reasonable security and privacy of dwellings, and to allow continuing agricultural operations. Public access through production agricultural land will not be considered,unless the owner agrees. 1.9.4 Design Standards Cluster development shall: A. Be set back approximately 150 feet from public roads; B. Be screened from public views by land forms or landscaping, but not at the expense of habitat. If the visually screened locations contain sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element; avoid development in those areas and instead design the cluster in the form of vernacular farm building complexes, to blend with the traditional agricultural working landscape. C. Be located on other than prime agricultural land and be situated to allow continued agricultural use; D. Prohibit building sites and roads within stream corridors and other wetlands, on ridge lines, rock outcrops, or visually prominent or steep hillsides, or other sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element. E. Preserve historic or archaeological resources. 1,10 AiF QMWY Substance moves to 2.302 City wiIj amend this Land Use Element temduee its deveiepment eapaeky `Ace Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 11 1.11 Growth Rates& Phasing 1.11.1 Overall Intent Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the gradual assimilation of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City's ability to provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the environment, the economy,and open space. 1.11.2 Residential Growth Rate The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This rate of growth may continue so long as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 2 shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the one percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. 1.113 Phasing Residential Expansions Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a specific plan or a development plan for it. Such plans for residential expansion projects will provide for phased development, consistent with the population growth outlined in Table 2, and tatting into account expected infill residential development within the 1994 City limits. Though the periods of development of the major residential expansion areas may overlap, the City prefers to complete one neighborhood before beginning another. The sequence of development of the major residential expansion areas will be decided based on the affordability of dwellings, and other public benefits, primarily open space. The area committing to development of the largest number of dwellings affordable to residents with very low, low, or moderate incomes would be developed first, with open space dedication or other public benefits used to decide the order if two or three areas offer substantially the same housing affordability. The anticipated intervals for the major expansion areas' development are: first area, 1997 —2003; second area, 2004-2010;third area, 2011 -2017. TABLE 2 ANTICIPATED CITY POPULATION GROWTH Year Approximate Maximum Anticipated Number Number of Dwellings of People 1992 18,200 42,800 1997 19,100 45,000 2002 20,100 47,300 2007 21,000 -49,700 2012 22,200 52,200 2017 23,300 54,900 2022 24,300 57,200 Estimated urban reserve capacity: 57,700** * Includes residents of group housing. 11 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 12 ** Includes Cal Poly campus residents, who are inside the urban reserve but who were outside the City limits in 1994. 1.11.4 Nonresidential Growth Rate Each year, the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential floor area over the preceding five years. The Council shall consider establishing limits for the rate of nonresidential development if the increase in nonresidential floor area for any five-year period exceeds five percent, except that the first 300,000 square-feet of nonresidential floor area constructed after 1994 shall be excluded from calculating the increase..Any limits so established shall not apply to: A. Changed operations or employment levels, or relocation or ownership change, of any business existing within the City at the time the limit is set; B. Additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core(Figure 4); C. Public agencies; D. Manufacturing, light industrial,or research businesses. 1.12 Educational and Governmental Facilities Near the City 1.12.1 Overall policy Communication and cooperation between the City and nearby government institutions is important and must be maintained,because changes in the numbers of workers, students, and inmates of the three major public institutions near the City directly influence the City's economic base, land use, circulation, and ability to manage growth. The City should continue to work with Cuesta College and Cal Poly to assure that enrollment growth addressed in their approved master plans will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the City. 1.12.2 Cal Poly The City favors Cal Poly's approved master plan enrollment targets. These targets should not be changed in a way that would exceed campus and community resources. The City favors additional on-campus housing, enhanced transit service, and other measures to minimize impacts of campus commuting and enrollment.. 1.123 California Men's Colony The City supports communication and cooperation between the City and California Men's Colony (CMC). The City shall continue to work with CMC to identify resource constraints and to avoid adverse impacts of increased inmate population. 1.12.4 Cuesta Community College The City favors measures such as course offerings at satellite campuses and enhanced transit service to avoid housing and commuting impacts of increasing enrollment at Cuesta College. 1.13 Annexation and Services 1.13.1 Water& Sewer Service The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City water or sewer services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous connections or contracts with the City. A. Outside the City limits; B. Outside the urban reserve line; C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system; I lu Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 13 D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system. 1.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. (See also Section 7.0,Airport Area.) 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with policy 1.13.5. A. For the Airport area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole area. Until a specific plan is adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria: 1. The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and 2. The property is within the existing urban reserve line;and 3. The property is located near to existing infrastructure;and 4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development;and 5. A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the application for annexation;and 6. The applicant(s)agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost -sharing plan maintained by the City. B. For the Orcutt expansion area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole area before any part of it is annexed. C. For the Margarita Area,annexation may occur following the City Council's 1998 approval of a draft specific plan as the project description for environmental review. Except for City parks or sports fields, further development shall not occur until the City has completed environmental review and adopted a specific plan. City parks or sports fields may be developed before the specific plan is adopted, if environmental review for the park or sports field has been completed, and if the park or sports field is consistent with the General Plan and the draft specific plan most recently endorsed by the City Council. Private properties that are annexed before the specific plan is adopted shall be zoned Conservation/Open Space upon annexation, and shall be zoned consistent with the specific plan when it is adopted. D. For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under "PD" zoning,or similar development plan covering the entire area. 13 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 14 1.13.4 Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. The water management policies may allow part of the water retrofit credit that would be needed for build-out within the 1994 city limits to be used for annexation projects. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combination of the following: A. City water supply, including reclaimed water; B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-term water usage; C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply. 1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in pelie5,-R.Uj-6.1.1- the Conservation and Open Space Element. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas: A. Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed. (See also Hillside Planning section 6.2.6.H.) B. Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the hills above the elevation designated in the hillside planning section and riparian and wetlands areas as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. (See also Hillside Planning section 6.2.6.E.) C. Orcutt Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the Santa Lucia foothills and Mine Hill,as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land,fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. E. Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for at least one-half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open space. IAF. Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill property and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area preserved as open space. Attc'1Chfi e nt 7 :. Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 15 G. Other area properties, which are both along the urban reserve line and on hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be developed (developed area includes building lots, roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required by zoning). (See also the Hillside Planning policies, section 6.2). 1.14 Costs of Growth The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be home by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. 1.15 Solid Waste.Capacity In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development, the City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation. PROGRAMS See also Section 10,Implementation 1.16 Countywide Planning 1.16.1 County "RMS" The City will monitor reports of the County "resource management system" and advocate adherence to that system's principle of assuring that there will be adequate resources and. environmental protection before development is approved. 1.16.2 Regular Meetings The City will advocate and help arrange annual meetings among decision- makers of local jurisdictions to discuss regional issues. 1.16.3 Plans Summary The City will help keep up to date a summary of the land-use plans of all agencies in the County, showing areas designated for urban, rural,and open-space uses, and tabulating the capacities for various kinds of uses. 1.16.4 Countywide Group The City will discuss with other jurisdictions the desirability of forming a countywide planning group. This group would be composed of representatives of the County and each city. It could establish a regional plan, to define urban and rural areas and approximate capacities for different types of uses. 1.16.5 Project Review The City will help establish a procedure for all jurisdictions in the County to formally review local projects and general-plan amendments that could have countywide impact. 1.16.6 Regional Growth Management The City will advocate a regional growth-management program, which should include: A. Population growth no faster than the statewide average growth rate for the preceding year, and no faster than can be sustained by available resources and services, whichever is less. B. No significant deterioration in air quality, due to development activities for which local government has approval. C. Plans for large residential developments to include a range of housing types to provide 15 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 16 opportunities for residents with very low, low,or moderate incomes. D. Voter approval for any significant change from open space, agriculture, or rural use to urban land uses. 1.16.7 Consistent Plans The City will seek County Board of Supervisors approval amending the County Land Use Element to make it consistent with this element, within San Luis Obispo's planning area. The City will work with the County during updates of the County's plan for the San Luis Obispo planning area. 1.16.8 City-County Agreement The City will pursue a memorandum of understanding between the City and County governments, pledging that neither agency will approve a substantial amendment to its plan for San Luis Obispo's planning area without carefully considering the comment and recommendation of the other agency. The key feature of the memorandum would be the City's acceptance of the planned amount of growth and the County's agreement to not allow urban development within the planning area but outside the City. 1137 R-mi-41-4 r-p—as and Open Speee Plan 4-17-1 MeORS Of FFSteedOR The City Will PHFSHe a Wide FMge ef fReaRS !a Substance moves to: 8.21, ; 8.25, 8.30 and Appendix C. easements, er development rights; a0eultufal prerien,e eenawts with twi - — --- -- ef lead, easements, er aeeess fights along pablie, M---Ad- P-MAR-FISi8fiS LIRF8H914 a0ealtral er open spee ; . 1-17,2 Funding The City will tely ptwsue a e f FeyeRHO F Program moves to 8.30.1.D in Draft _ POSE d other ereativ beads, sales 1.17.3 Refined Planning Area Map The City will prepare and continue This policy was to maintain a refined Planning Area Map inthe general plan. The City updated and willseek to establish and maintain County concurrence for the Map, which retained, as applies to the City's planning area outside the urban reserve, including the directed by PC City's sphere of influence. The map shall show: on 12/14/05 A. Areas to be kept in permanent open space, including scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat,and undeveloped prime agricultural land. B. Existing uses other than open space, relatively far from the City's urban reserve line, which maybe maintained but which should not be - �ol Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 17 expanded or made more intense, including institutional uses such as California Men's Colony, Camp San Luis Obispo, and Cuesta College, and scattered residential and commercial developments. C. Existing uses other than open space which may be considered for inclusion within the urban reserve line during the ten-year updates of this element, such as nearby groups of rural homesites; D. Any existing uses other than open space which should be changed, relocated, or removed to allow restoration of the natural landscape or agricultural uses. 11 117,4 L•lust.._ n;.....es- The, Git. ,.1,,.wd a ge the � a --- ------ ---- _..; _...._-- ----.._gib- .,... ., ... .. .,Y... Substance moves Geti.ty -irsdi,tion ..le.......t D..1:,.:,... 1 ad 1 a to: 8.25.3.F, G, and . . H 1.18.1 Model City �` moves to COSE Goal 2.21.2; LIMA 1 11 ad.J.! ity The Gi;5,.will 1.e a edel ..F.phut:.. e . 1 effef4s. 1.18.2 Helping the it wili MaRa !ions te be as peiiUtien We as Possible The Air District moves to LOSE and be integrated with 1.18.2 Helping the Air--Oistfiet Along with ether--agenees md program 2.30.2. aad--implement the EeuHty Glean Air Nan 'Eing with a., ...1., ,.F le 1 d diesel fueled d __.... .. ....... ... .. �.';b^.,. .......:j.,"... 1�'Fp$--iir�v:mo-aRc-alcnrnZacirnz LIS 2 T......1....r.. en ..- ew t D .: The City shall ee wis vith the A'r.D 11 ution CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS (POLICIES 2.1 Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement 2.1.1 Neighborhood Identity The city shall assist residents to identify and designate neighborhoods. The city will work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to facilitate development of a sense of place within neighborhoods. 2.1.2 Neighborhood Groups The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation 17 r - s3 - Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 18 of neighborhood planning groups,composed of neighborhood residents. 2.13 Neighborhood Traffic Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic speed, street design should include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped parkways, traffic circles, textured crosswalks, and, if necessary,stop signs,speed humps,and bollards. 2.1.4 Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. (See also the Circulation Element.) 2.15 Neighborhood Open Links The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link between all areas of the City and all land uses:These features should be designed as amenities for light,air, social contact,and community identity. 2.2 Residential Location,Uses,and Design 2.2.1 Mixed Uses & Convenience Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings. When nonresidential, neighborhood-serving uses are developed,existing housing shall be preserved. If existing dwellings are removed for such uses, the development shall include replacement dwellings. 2.2.2 Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities.. 2.23 Housing and Aircraft New housing should not be allowed in areas where aircraft noise exposure and the risk of aircraft accidents are not acceptable. 2.2.4 Residential Next to Non-residential In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses,protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. 2.25 Street Access New residential developments, or redevelopments involving large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium- or high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. Major arterials through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections. 2.2.6 Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. 2.2.7 Housing and Businesses Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged. Attachment , y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 19 2.2.8 Natural Features Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views,creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants. 2.2.9 Parking Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from street views. In general,parking should not be provided between buildings and the street.. 2.2.10 Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A. Architectural Character New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing,and variety. B. Privacy and Solar Access New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the Energy Conservation and Open Space Element.) 2.2.11 Site Constraints Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation; and significant trees. 2.2.12' Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A. Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; C. Use of natural ventilation,sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D. Pleasant views from and toward the project; E. Security and safety; F. Separate paths for vehicles and for people,and bike paths along collector streets; G. Adequate parking and storage space; H. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project,. are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture,. Places for people to walk through them at regular intervals, and planting.) 1. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. J. Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. 2.2.13 Non-residential Activities Residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, 19 r - �� Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 20 and home businesses meeting established criteria. 23 Residential Expansion Areas 23.1 Specific Plans Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall include: A. Desired types and intensities of development,compatible with the surrounding area; B. Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to availability of resources; C. Measures to protect resources and open space, including, among other types, permanent wildlife habitats and corridors, and farm fields; D. Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them, to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection, storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and passive and active park space; E. Desired levels of public services and the means to provide them, including fire, police, and schools; F. A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range of prices, sizes, and types. (See also policy 2.5 below.) G. Trees to help reduce wind exposure,and water-frugal landscaping; H. Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be built on, such as yards, and community gardens for multifamily areas; I. Dual water systems.allowing use of treated wastewater for non-potable uses. J. Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features;. K. Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area; L. Opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the specific plan developer, to build homes or to create living environments suited to small groups or to special needs. 23.2 Separate Paths Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separate from roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, schools, parks and, where feasible,other areas of the City. 233 Residential Neighborhood Designation The major residential expansion areas are shown as Residential Neighborhood on the General Plan Land Use Map. They may be developed as adequate utilities and services are made available. They should be developed as residential neighborhoods, with a wide range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary schools, and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents. The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3. These capacities are based on the amount of land suitable for development according to policies of this element, and average densities on the housing sites in the range of eight to ten dwellings per acre (excluding public streets, parks,and other land dedicated to public use). 23.4 Transfer of Development Credits For each major expansion area, Table 3 indicates a low capacity which may be developed without transfer I 1 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 21 of development credits and a high capacity which may be used with transfer of development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas in the City, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or;on the County's map,agriculture or rural lands. TABLE 3 RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF MAJOR EXPANSION AREAS Approximate Number of Dwellin s Name of Area Low High Irish Hills 500 500 Margarita 1,100 1,200 Orcutt 500 700 2.4 Residential Density 2.4.1 Density Categories The following residential density categories are established (Table 4). Residential density is expressed as the number of dwellings per acre of net site area within the designation. In determining net area, the following types of areas are excluded: sensitive features such as creeks, habitats of rare or endangered plants and animals, and significant trees; land dedicated in fee to the public for streets or neighborhood parks. For the categories other than Rural,Suburban, and Low-Density Residential,densities are expressed in terms of a standard two-bedroom dwelling. This approach is intended to achieve population densities approximately like those indicated. More or fewer dwellings having different bedroom counts may be built depending on the number of people expected to live in a project, as indicated by the number of bedrooms. The population-density standards also apply to group residential facilities. (For allowed residential development in Office, commercial, and manufacturing districts, see the sections concerning those districts.) 2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project which will: A. Be a receiving site, within expansion areas or the downtown commercial core only, for development credit transferred to protect open space, B. Provide for the minimum percentage of dwellings for elderly or affordable to the income groups specified in State law. TABLE 4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES Average Maximum Category Population Density Dwelling Density (People Per Acre) (Units Per Acre) Rural .16 .1 (ldu/10 ac) Suburban 1.6 1 Low 20 7 Medium 25 12 21 r - � Attachment �{ Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 22 Medium-Fligh 40 18 High 55 24 2.4.3 Density Reductions The allowed density of residential development shall decrease as slope increases. The City may require a residential project to have fewer units than generally allowed for its density category (Table 4), upon finding that the maximum density would have adverse ggnvironmental impacts or cause significant adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of future Igidents of the site,neighbors, or the public generally. 2.4.4 Rural Residential development consists of not more than one dwelling per ten acres. Suburban residential development consists of not more than one dwelling per acre. These residential categories are appropriate for areas that have been developed; or subdivided to allow such development, within predominantly open space areas near the edges of the City. These areas generally were subdivided under County jurisdiction,and are beyond City services. They will be limited to areas shown for such use in the 1989 County Land Use Element. (See also Greenbelt policies.) 2.45 Low-Density Residential development should be"primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them. Such dwellings are generally detached, one- or two-story buildings, with private outdoor space separating them from neighboring dwellings. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Low-density development is appropriate within and next to neighborhoods committed to this type of development. 2.4.6. Medium-Density Residential development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than Low-Density Residential. Such dwellings are generally one- or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Medium-density development is appropriate as a transition from low-density development to higher densities. 2.4.7 Medium-High Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housing,parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. 2.4.8 High-Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two-or three- story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus, the downtown core,and major concentrations of employment. This section is replaced by language in numerous sections 2.5 Affordable Housing of the 2004 Housing Element. i Atta-chment y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 23 - , , , heesifig gfefeFeffee&. 2.6 Residential Land Protection 2.6.1 Large Areas Substantial areas designated for residential use should not be changed to nonresidential designations. 2.6.2 Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce land designated as residential,only if: A. A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met,and; B. The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists. 2.7 Student and Campus Housing 2.7.1 Cal Poly California Polytechnic State University campus should provide housing opportunities for both faculty and students. Existing on-campus housing should be retained. On-campus housing should increase at least as fast as enrollment, so the proportion of students living on campus can remain the same as in 1992. 2.7.2 Cuesta College The City should encourage Cuesta College to facilitate student housing.. 2.73 Amenities Multifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should provide the amenities which students seek in single-family areas, to provide an attractive alternative. 2.7.4 Location Housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly,to reduce commute travel. 2.75 Fraternities & Sororities Fraternities and sororities should be located, in order of preference, (1)on campus, (2) in medium-high and high-density residential areas near the campus. 2.8 Group Housing 2.8.1 Large group housing other than fraternities and sororities, such as retirement homes or homes for handicapped, should not be located in low-density residential areas. They may be located, but not concentrated, in medium-density residential areas. They may be concentrated in medium-high or high- density residential areas, or in suitable commercial or light-industrial areas, where services are convenient. Each large group housing proposal shall be evaluated through use-permit review. 2.8.2 Small residential care facilities should be treated the same as individual houses. 23 Attachment y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 24 2.9 Old Town In downtown residential areas (Figure 4), the City should encourage the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing. Additional dwellings may be permitted, in keeping with density limits, provided that the existing character of the area is not significantly changed. Demolition of structurally sound dwellings shall be strongly discouraged. PROGRAMS (See also Section 10,Implementation) 2.10 Updating& Enforcing Standards 2.10.1 The City will review, revise if deemed desirable, and enforce noise, parking, and property- development and property-maintenance standards. Staff to adequately enforce these standards will be provided. 2.10.2 The City will adopt and implement property-maintenance regulations, focused on proper enclosure of trash, appearance of yards and buildings from the street, and storage of vehicles. The regulations will be periodically reviewed and updated. 2.11 Multifamily Preferences& Standards 2.11.1 The City will evaluate student housing preferences and consider revising development standards to better meet them in multifamily housing near campus. 2.11.2 The City will review, and revise if deemed desirable, its standards for multifamily housing so that apartments will provide usable open space and storage similar to the requirements for condominiums. 2.12 Downtown Residential Development The City will consider adopting special development standards to guide addition of dwellings within downtown residential areas, to implement policy 2.9. The following should be included when evaluating new standards for this area: A. A new density category between the current Low-Density (R-1) and Medium-Density (R-2) designations; B. Requirements that new dwellings on lots with existing houses be above or behind the existing houses, and that the added building area be modestly sized and of similar architecture in comparison with the principal residences on the site and in the surrounding area; C. Requiring new buildings to reflect the mass and spacing of existing, nearby buildings; D. Requiring special parking and coverage standards; E. Requiring minimum amounts of usable open space. 2.13 Affordable Housing Dr• Aitachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 25 The City will adopt inclusionary-housing and development-fee ordinances consistent with the Housing Element. 2.14 Neighborhood Compatibility The City will consider new regulations, for Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings. 2.15 Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans To help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods,the City will: A. Identify neighborhoods, and work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans that empower them to shape their neighborhoods; B. Help devise strategies to help stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood character, safety,and stability; C. Help identify neighborhood problems, and undertake a wide range of focused development- review,capital-improvement,and code-enforcement efforts; D. Encourage the formation of voluntary neighborhood groups, so residents can become involved early in the development review process; E. Involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts; by notifying residents and property owners and holding meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. F. Provide appropriate staff support, possibly including a single staff person for neighborhood issues, and train all staff to be sensitive to issues of neighborhood protection and enhancement. 2.16 Residential Densities The City will evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of dwelling units per acre (based on bedroom count) and height and setback standards, to regulate residential building intensity, and bulk and mass. Floor area limits will be considered. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 3.0 Commercial Siting 3.0.1. Slope Commercial and industrial uses should be developed in appropriate areas where the natural slope of the land is less than ten percent. 3.0.2. Access Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets, and should be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets. 3.03. Residential Area Expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas is 25 U r. s Attachment �( Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 26 prohibited. 3.1 General Retail 3.1.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and nearby County residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stones, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses(see policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5). 3.1.2 Locations for Regional Attractions The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. 3.13 Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area should be added to the commercial centers at Madonna'Road and Highway 101 until .a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan should describe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses, phasing, and circulation improvements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of how much it would transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and whether the proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas. 3.1.4 Mid-I iiguera Enhancement The City shall consider the potential enhancement of underutilized commercial land along Higuera Street between Madonna Road and High Street. (See also Special Design Area, policy 8.5.) 3.1.5 Specialty Store Locations Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area; some may be in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional markets. 3.1.6 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0,except that downtown sites which receive transfers of development credits for open space protection shall not exceed 4.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 3.2 Neighborhood Commercial 3.2.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses c -� a Attachment .� Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 27 to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood Commercial uses include grocery stores, laundromats, and drug and hardware stores.Neighborhood Commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residences. These centers should not exceed about eight acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high density residential development. Specialty stores may be located in Neighborhood Commercial centers as long as they will not be a major citywide attraction or displace more general, convenience uses. 3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers New or expanded Neighborhood Commercial centers should: A. Be created within,or extended into,adjacent nonresidential areas; B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City; C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets; D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good internal circulation; E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating; F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neighborhood activities. 3.23 Expanding Centers The City should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to existing neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made, and not.in response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan. 3.2.4 Stores in Residential Areas Small, individual stores within established residential areas may be retained when they are compatible with surrounding uses. Other isolated commercial uses which are not compatible with residential surroundings eventually should be replaced with compatible uses. 3.2.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 2.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Neighborhood Commercial districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 33 Offices 33.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have sufficient land for Office development to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County residents. Office development includes professional and financial services (such as doctors, architects, and insurance companies and banks) and government agencies: The City should retain the regional offices of state and federal agencies. Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations. (See office location policies below. Also see the Public Facilities section.) 3.3.2 Office Locations A. All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district, but are 27 (- 43 i Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 28 discouraged at street level in storefronts of the commercial core. B. All types of office activities are appropriate in the Office district which surrounds the downtown commercial area, though offices needing very large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not be appropriate in the area which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods. C. Medical services should be near the hospitals. D. Government social services and the regional offices of state and federal agencies should be near the intersections of South Higuera Street,Prado Road, and Highway 101 (Figure 5); E. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application. F. Certain business and professional services having no substantial public visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Examples of such uses are computer services, utilities engineering and administration, architects and engineers, industrial design, advertising, building contractors; labor and fraternal organizations,veterinarians,and insurance and financial services that do not directly serve retail customers. 3.3.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.3.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they: A. Have access directly from collector or arterial streets, not local residential streets; B. Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas; C. Will not have significant adverse impacts on nearby uses. Substance moved , to 3.21 - - - -- 33.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.5.The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Office districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 3.4 Tourist Commercial 3.4.1 Basis for Tourism The City should be an attractive place for short-term stays, as well as an attractive destination for long-term visitors. The City should base its attraction on the character of the community, its natural qualities, and its educational and cultural facilities. The City should emphasize conference and visitor-serving facilities which have a low impact upon the environment and upon existing land forms and landscapes, and which provide low-impact visitor activities and low-impact t" 64 l Attachment Proposed General Pian Land Use Element Amendments Page 29 means of transportation. 3.4.2 Locations Visitor-serving uses should be integrated with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations downtown,near the airport, and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna.Road area; at certain freeway interchanges;and in the downtown. 3.43 Appropriate Uses Tourist Commercial uses are those which primarily serve the traveling public. Tourist Commercial areas should accommodate motels, restaurants, service stations, recreational uses, and minor retail sales for the convenience of travelers. To assure adequate space for visitor-serving uses, areas designated Tourist Commercial should not include offices, general retail stores,auto repair,or business services. 3.4.4 Residential Neighbors Site planning, building design, and types of activities for new tourist- commercial development adjacent to residential areas should be carefully reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission,the Planning Commission, or both,to assure compatibility. 3.4.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 2.5. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Tourist Commercial districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre.. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 3.5 Services and Manufacturing 35.1 Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as business services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing, and retail sales of large items,bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. 35.2 Appropriate Uses The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. Certain areas designated Services and Manufacturing may be reserved through special zoning provisions for certain types of uses, to assure compatibility among the wide range of potential uses,and to assure adequate land for certain types of uses. A. Wholesaling,warehousing,and storage; B. Vehicle sales and rental; C. Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for display and storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building materials dealers, home improvement 29 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 30 centers,furniture and appliances stores,and plant nurseries; D. Repair shops, printing services, laundries, animal hospitals, sporting goods stores, auto parts stores,and some recreation facilities; E. Light manufacturing, research and development, and laboratories. (See also 'Business Parks" in the Airport section.) F. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application. G. Certain businesses and professional services having no substantial public visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Examples of such uses are computer services, utilities engineering and administration, architects and engineers, industrial design, advertising, building contractors, labor and fraternal organizations, veterinarians, and insurance and financial services that do not directly serve retail customers. 3.5.3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However,existing uses such as supermarkets and drugstores may be expanded if: A. They are compatible with nearby uses; B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general-retail or neighborhood-commercial areas which are better located to serve the expected market area. 3.5.4 Access Access to Service and Manufacturing areas should be provided by commercial collector streets, to avoid customer traffic on residential streets or delivery routes which pass through residential areas. Driveway access onto arterial streets should be minimized. 3.5.5 Air & Water Quality Industries locating or expanding in San Luis Obispo shall comply with all applicable air-quality and water-quality regulations. 3.5.6 Utility Service Services and Manufacturing uses should connect to the City water and sewer systems; unless other means of providing service are identified in a City-adopted plan. 3.5.7 Vehicle Sales A. Auto Park Way The City intends to create around Auto Park Way an easily accessible and attractive auto sales and service center. The City will reserveabout50 acres total for vehicle sales in this area, including the areas shown in Figure 3. (This amount is expected to be sufficient for relocation of dealerships located elsewhere in the City, plus expansion of dealerships in proportion to projected County population growth.) The areas shown for vehicle sales should be reserved for that use at least until the anticipated year 2004 update of this element,when the amount of reserved land may be reconsidered. If a plan for vehicle sales expansion onto prime agricultural soils is approved, it shall provide � " P t Attachment Y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 31 for permanent preservation of prime soils, within the urban reserve or greenbelt. If a plan for vehicle sales expansion into wetland or creek areas is approved, mitigation shall consist at least of restoration and permanent preservation, within the urban reserve or greenbelt, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. B. Other Areas Auto sales in areas of the City other than Auto Park Way should be minimized, in order to reinforce the auto sales center and to maximize space for other uses in other locations. 3.5.8 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.5. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines; as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. Dwellings may be provided only as caretaker quarters, as shelters (with discretionary review), or as part of a specially approved mixed-use development. The appropriate residential density would be set considering the maximum residential density allowed in any neighboring residential area. (Also, see the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 3.6 Overall 3.6.1 Dependent Care New development should be offered incentives for provision of child care and elder care for employees. 3.6.2 Convenience Facilities Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as small food stores, branch banks, and child and elder care, and amenities such as picnic areas, will be allowed in centers of employment. Space for such amenities may be required within large commercial and industrial developments. 3.7 Mixed Uses Compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged. PROGRAMS See also Section 10,Implementation [All programs should be numbered 3.8.x.] 3.7.1 Zoning Regulations The City will amend its Zoning Regulations to implement the commercial and industrial policies. 3.7.2 Planned Development Zoning The City will amend the Zoning Regulations so the "planned development"approach can be used on any size parcel, in any commercial or industrial zone. 3.7.3 Neighborhood Uses The City will rezone to Neighborhood Commercial existing Service Commercial sites which have become neighborhood convenience centers, if. (1) they primarily serve a neighborhood rather than citywide market; and (2) they are appropriately located considering access and compatibility with other nearby uses. 3.7.4 Tourist Information The City will consider establishing tourist information facilities near highway entries to the City, to reduce demands for on-site and off-site advertising by tourist- and 31 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 32 general-retail uses. 3.7.5 Dependent Care The City will provide zoning incentives and investigate a program coordinating commercial and industrial development for the provision of child care and elder care for workers. 3.7.6 Neighborhood Centers The City will identify suitable sites for new or expanded neighborhood centers as it prepares specific plans. 3.7.7 Downtown Office Design The City will make more explicit its architectural review guidelines and revise its zoning standards, as necessary, to better achieve the desired architectural character of downtown areas zoned 'office" and "residential-office," so the character and fabric of existing neighborhoods will be protected. 3.7.8 Auto Sales Relocation The City will provide incentives to encourage relocation of vehicle sales to the Auto Park Way area. 3.7.9 Noise Control Zoning Regulations and Architectural Review Guidelines will include measures such as the following to prevent unacceptable noise exposure for residential areas or other noise- sensitive uses: location and shielding of mechanical equipment; location of truck loading, trash collection areas, and loudspeakers; landscaped setbacks or noise attenuation walls along property lines. (See also the Noise Element.) 3.7.10 Madonna Road Center The City will investigate ways to encourage more intense commercial development within, and more cohesion between, the existing shopping centers on Madonna Road. .3.7.11 Tourism The City will: A. Encourage sufficient conference and meeting space to accommodate the demand for medium size conferences; B. Work with the Performing Arts Center in promoting arts oriented tourism; C. Develop aggressive tourism marketing programs; D. Develop concepts such as rail tours, sea cruises, historical tours, and bicycle tours E. Encourage development of appropriate recreational facilities for golf, tennis, equestrian activities, soccer, swimming, fishing, and eco-tourism. DOWNTOWN Introduction Downtown is the area generally bounded by Highway 101, the railroad, and High Street (Figure 4). It embraces residential neighborhoods, including "Old Town," as well as the commercial core, a civic area, and less intensely developed commercial and office areas. The City has approved "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center," which covers an area nearly the same as the core identified in this element. See this separately published plan for an illustration of how downtown development may occur. �- CPQ' AttaLhmant Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 33 POLICIES 4.1 Downtown's Role Downtown is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its commercial core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the downtown support each other. Downtown should provide a wide variety of professional and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of downtown should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, and numerous and varied visitor accommodations. 4.2 Downtown Residential 4.2.1 Existing and New Dwellings Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be provided, for a variety of households, including singles,couples,and groups. Dwellings should be interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial projects should include dwellings. Commercial core properties may serve as receiver sites for transfer of development credits, thereby having higher residential densities than otherwise.allowed. 4.2.2 Dwellings and Offices Residential uses within some downtown areas designated Office prior to this element's 1994 update should be maintained, or replaced as new offices are developed. The City should identify areas which are predominantly residential, and re-designate them for residential use. It should designate for office use the areas which are completely or almost completely developed with offices. For the areas which are a mix of residential and office uses, the City should apply a "Residential/Office" mixed-use designation. This designation would allow existing offices to be maintained and replaced. However, enlarging an office, or replacing a residential use with office, would require replacement dwellings to be built on site or somewhere within the "residential/office" zone,or in the downtown office or commercial zones. 43 Entertainment and Cultural Facilities Cultural facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be downtown..Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and private theaters should be in the downtown, too. Locations outside downtown may be more appropriate for facilities that would be out of character or too big for downtown to accommodate comfortably, such as the major performing arts center planned for the Cal Poly campus. 4.4 Public Gatherings Downtown should have spaces to accommodate public meetings, seminars, classes, and similar activities in conjunction with other uses. Downtown should provide a setting which is festive, and comfortable for public gatherings. 33 f _ (Pq I Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 34 4.5 Walking Environment Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting. To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians. There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks,and planters should provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas. 4.6 Public Safety Indoor and outdoor public spaces should be observable from frequently occupied or traveled places, to enhance public safety. 4.7 Open Places and Views Downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Downtown should include some outdoor spaces where people ate completely separated from vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza,a few new plazas, and selected street closures. 4.8 Traffic in Residential Areas Downtown residential areas should be protected from through traffic. 4.9 Street Changes Street widening and realignment should be avoided. 4.10 Parking There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside the core, and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for customers and clients. 4.11 The Creek San Luis Obispo Creek should be protected and restored, provided this can be done in a manner that minimizes human impact on creek life. Walking paths along the creek in the downtown core should be provided as links in an urban trail system, provided this will not further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem. As properties that have encroaching buildings are redeveloped, the City should enforce a reasonable building setback from the riparian zone. (See also Re-se-iffee- We-tee; ceptiAn. 6 4 1 n, A_11-nd 6 c 1 ,+ the Conservation and Open Space Element and the Safety Element.) Opportunities to open covered sections of the creek should be pursued. 4.12 Building Conservation and Compatibility Attachment q Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 35 Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored. New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant buildings, but not necessarily the same style. 4.13 New Buildings and Views New downtown development should respect views of the hills,framing rather than obscuring them. 4.14 Noise Obtrusive sounds, including traffic noises and loud music, should be minimized. Desired activities which are noisy should be timed to avoid conflict with other desired activities which need a quiet setting. 4.15 Sense of Place To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should remain compact and be the city's most intensely developed area. 4.16 Design Principles The following principles should guide construction and changes of use within the commercial core. 4.16.1 Street Level Activities The street level should be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses benefiting from and contributing to pedestrian traffic, such as offices with frequent client visits. Stores and restaurants may occupy upper levels. Offices not having frequent client visits should be located above street level. 4.16.2 Upper Floor Dwellings Existing residential uses.shall be preserved and new ones encouraged above the street level. 4.16.3 Continuous Storefront There should be a continuous storefront along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk, except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries,and sidewalk cafes. 4.16.4 Building Height New buildings should fit within the existing vertical scal . They should respect street-level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces, and defer to a few tall, "landmark" buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories (about 35 to 50 feet). Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight, and street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall. A few taller, landmark b ildings (about five stories or 75 feet) may be developed where they will not obstruct views or sunlight for public spaces. These taller buildings would be more appropriate at mid-block than at comers, and their floors above the second or third level should be set back to maintain a lower street facade. The tall buildings should include publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels. 4.165 Building Width New buildings should maintain the historic pattern of storefront widths. 4.16.6 Sidewalk Appeal Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs, and architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks. 35 A14kachmarri Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 36 4.17 Government Offices , City Hall and the County Government Center should remain at their present locations. Additional administrative office space which cannot be accommodated within the County Government Center should be developed nearby within the downtown. (See also Public and Cultural Facilities policies, beginning on page 48.) 4.18 Commercial Buildings Outside the Core In retail areas beyond the commercial core, the pattern of buildings in relation to the street should become more like the core, with few driveways and parking lots serving individual developments, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entries and courtyards). However, buildings should not exceed two stories(about 35 feet in height). PROGRAM 4.19 Implementing the Downtown Concept Plan The City will consider including features of "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center," as appropriate, in its Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines, engineering standards, and capital improvement program. PUBLIC & CULTURAL FACILITIES Introduction As the County seat and a cultural center for the region, San Luis Obispo plans to accommodate several types of facilities to support government and cultural services. This section describes preferred locations for various types of facilities. POLICIES 5.1 Public Facilities 5.1.1 Grouping for Convenience Government offices that provide similar types of services should be grouped for efficient service delivery. 5.1.2 Private Businesses Within any area shown as a preferred location for public facilities, there may be compatible private businesses,so long as they do not displace the preferred public agencies. 5.1.3 joint Projects Government agencies should cooperatively plan for new or expanded facilities. They should consider joint projects when mutual objectives can be met. 5.1.4 Civic Center There should be a downtown civic center (Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the civic center,along with compatible businesses: A. City Council offices and meeting rooms, clerk, administration, finance, attorney, personnel, community development, utilities, and public works administration and engineering. Any Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Attachment- Page 37 _ . . additional space for these functions should be in or close to City Hall. B. County supervisors offices and meeting rooms, administration, courts, jury commissioner, clerk, auditor, assessor, counsel, district attorney, personnel, engineering, planning and building, environmental coordinator, and voter registration. Any additional space for these functions should be provided in or close to the County Government Center (Courthouse block). 5.1.5 Health Care There should be a health-care area on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street(Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the health-care area: A. Public Health Department;General Hospital;Mental Health Services. B. Other public or private offices or health facilities found to support the continued viability of General Hospital. If County General Hospital is to be rebuilt, the City will evaluate other sites within the City for public health care facilities, including consideration of convenient access from regional transportation systems. 5.1.6 Social Services There should be a social-services area on-South Higuera.Street near Prado Road (Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the social services area: County Social Services; California Employment Development and Rehabilitation; federal Social Security Administration. This area should have sufficient space to accommodate regional offices of state and federal agencies. 5.1.7 Related Offices Public offices not named in policies 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6, but functionally related to them, should be located in the appropriate area. 5.1.8 Unrelated Offices Public offices not named in policies 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6, and not functionally related to the named offices, should be consolidated at the social services area, or they may be expanded at their present locations or within designated office areas. 5.1.9 Different Offices Government and private activities of types not listed in policies 5.1.4, 5, and 6 may be established in these identified areas, so long as they are compatible with and do not displace the government functions which should be located in the areas. 5.1.10 Other Government Functions Some government functions which have been provided at certain locations in the City should be located close to related activities, though they should not be bound to any one of the identified centers. Such functions include: A. Probation suitable for the civic center(courts), the County operational center on Highway.l (sheriff),or the social services area; B. Alcohol and drug treatment programs suitable for the social-services area or the health- care area. 5.1.11 Consolidation Desired It would be desirable to consolidate government agencies dealing with environmental quality, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Air Pollution Control District. 37 - 93 Affachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 38 5.1.12 Building Intensity Buildings in Public Facility areas will have a wide range of characteristics, since they can range from downtown offices and meeting rooms to fire stations and maintenance yards at the edges of the City. The appropriate building intensity for each location will be decided through use permit and architectural review. Generally, the ratio of building floor area to site area should not exceed 1.0 in outlying locations, and 2.0 downtown. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, generally to reflect the standards for these items in neighboring land use districts. Dwellings may be provided only as caretaker quarters, as shelters (with.discretionary review), or as part of a specially approved mixed-use development. The appropriate residential density would be set considering the maximum residential density allowed in any neighboring land use district. 5.2 Cultural Facilities 5.2.1 Cooperation The City should cooperate with other agencies and with community groups to help provide facilities for a library, and for arts and sciences which meet broad community cultural needs. 5.23 Mission Plaza Area An appropriate area for cultural facilities is the vicinity of Mission Plaza (Figure 5). PROGRAMS 53 City and County Offices Downtown The City and County will jointly develop a plan for meeting their additional downtown space needs. They will coordinate site selection, building design, circulation and utility services, parking, means to reduce vehicle trips,and funding. 5.4 Performing Arts Center The City, Cal Poly, and the Performing Arts Foundation will jointly develop a large performing arts theater on the Cal Poly campus. 5.5 Community Arts Support The City will continue to support community arts programs through a variety of means, such as loans, grants, and help in obtaining sites. 5.6 Land Acquisition The City will attempt to acquire land for cultural facilities or Mission Plaza extension as sites become available. 5.7 Facility Reuse The City will study its surplus facilities for possible reuse by cultural and non-profit groups.. 5.8 Public Art The City will encourage inclusion of appropriate public art in all projects. RESOURCE PROTECTION. diversityINTRODUCTION Pwi ef what makes San Luis Obispo a speeial pl-Ree is Qhe Fieh ..«., at -rFBASand apa l systems, and the faet that unlike e Substance moves to new introduction a! Cha threatened_ b de e�, that section 1.30 tea.__. _ _r_____ _________ __ ____________ _� __ _._� - � ��n.... .�.u� Attachment y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 39 , and Overall Resource Protection The Resource Protection' POLICY section is retained in thej LUE,with mihor1 _ 6.0.1 Resource Planning It is the policy of the City to protect its unique amendments,as directed natural resources and systems by including their considerations and needs within at the 12114/05 Plannfing its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning Commission Meeting priority co-equal with that accorded other community needs. Under this policy, the City will make provisions for the continued existence of its natural resources within the community. The term "community" thus includes not only the urbanized human community, dominated by urban land development and technological systems, but also a natural community rich in biological and geological diversity, as well as a pre-urban human community with a strong agricultural base. PROGRAMS 6.0.2 Resource Mapping The City shall prepare and maintain Geographic Information Systems-based maps of the City, the urban reserve, and the planning area to guide in land use designations and decision-making. Maps for the City and urban reserve shall be in sufficient detail to highlight all significant natural resources and systems. Maps for the planning area may be at a lesser degree of detail. The maps shall show at least the following resources: native plant communities, wildlife habitats and corridors, aquatic ecosystems, productive or potentially productive soils (prime or other unique agricultural soil types), viewsheds, hillsides, greenbelt areas. The overlay maps shall also show development constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction), noise impact areas, airport hazard and noise areas, radiation hazard areas. 6.03 Land Use Element Map Revision The overlay maps shall provide the basis or determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where other needs of the community outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings of these overlay maps, the City shall re-evaluate its land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas, and revise the LUE land use map accordingly. Substance also included 6.0.4 Resource Protection Once resource areas worthy of protection are in Open Space protection identified, the City shall seek to protect them by easement or other permanent programs 8.30.1. means. 6.1 Open Space Policies (See also the Growth Management section) 39 r � Attachment �} Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 40 6.1.1 Open Space and Greenbelt Designations The City shall designate the Substance also following types of land as open space: incorporated in: A. Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources, as i21, 7.21.1, 7 21 2, defined in the Open Space Element, including corridors which 7.21.3, 8.21.1, 8.22, connect habitats. B. Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in 8.22.1, 8.24.1 and agricultural use as provided in policy 1.8.2. 8.24.4 C. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element; agricultural value;and value for passive recreation D. A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area. E. Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and dispersal; these habitat types will be as identified in the natural resource inventory, as discussed in the 'Background to this Land Use Element Update" and in Community Goal#8.I Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Element Map. The City may establish an agricultural designation. (See the Open Space Element for refinements of these policies.) OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LAND (Several land-use designations are mainly for land that is to remain undeveloped, either permanently or until an urban use is identified or certain prerequisites are met. The Conservation and Open Space Element contains more detailed policies for areas that are to remain undeveloped. 6.1.2 Open Space Uses Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat; grazing; cultivated crops; and passive recreation. Buildings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or traditional landscapes on open space lands should be minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as parking or roads, shall.notexceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three percent. (As explained in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open space area may result in it being suitable for some open space uses,but not the full range.) 6.1=3 Open cps Land TM4sion Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further divided. 6.1.3 Agriculture Aericulture is generally open land where there has been a history of agricultural Attachment if Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 41 cultivation or keeping of livestock, which remains generally open and in such use. 6.1.4 Interim Open Space Designation The General Plan Land Use Element Map shows desired future uses for most land within the urban reserve line. However, the City has not decided the best eventual use for some areas. Such areas are designated Interim Open Space, indicating that they will be suitable for urban development when certain conditions are satisfied. Examples of such conditions include demonstrated need for further urban development that cannot be satisfied on already urbanized land, provision of proper access and utility service, and environmentally acceptable reduction of flood hazards. The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is.approved. After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space. 6.1.5 Interim Open Space Uses and Parcel Sizes Uses within Interim Open Space areas should be the same as in Open Space areas (policies 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 ). Interim Open Space areas should not be further subdivided until a development plan or a specific plan is approved (pursuant to policy 1.13.3), except to separate land to be dedicated in fee to the City, or other responsible public or nonprofit agency,for permanent open space. 6.1.6 Eventual Uses This element identifies intended uses for each area designated Interim Open Space. Such areas are discussed under Optional Use and Special Design Areas,and Hillside Planning. One area not discussed under those headings is: About 11 acres between Los Verdes Park and San Luis Obispo Creek, which may be used for residential development if the flood hazard is mitigated without significant harm to the creek. 6.2 Hillside Policies 6.2.0 Introduction As disetissed noted in the open space section of this element and in the Conservation and Open Space Element, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This section focuses on where and how some hillsides may be developed. The City establishes comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the following reasons: A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. B. To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C. To protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding and erosion. 6.2.1 Development Limits Hillsides planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines, and special design standards for the areas which can be developed. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, and public 41 � 1 I Attachment K Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 42 health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. (Locations of hillside planning areas are shown in Figure 6. More precise locations of the development limit line and the urban reserve line are shown on large-scale aerial photographs on file at the Community Development Department; these are part of the Land Use Element.) 6.2.2 Development Standards Development —including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas— on hillside parcels shall: A. Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive (though parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines when necessary to meet minimum parcel-size standards),unless one of the following three exceptions applies. 1. A location outside the urban reserve line or development limit line is necessary to protect public health and safety. 2. New wireless telecommunication facilities may be appropriate on South Street Hills inside the three-acre leasehold already developed with commercial and municipal radio facilities, subject to use permit approval and architectural review and approval. Applicants shall comply with all other provisions of this section,and demonstrate that(a)new facilities will not individually or additively interfere with City radio equipment necessary for emergency response coordination, and (b) will not cause on-site radio frequency radiation levels to exceed exposure standards established for the general public by the American National Standards Institute. 3. Where a legally built dwelling exists on a parcel which is entirely outside the urban reserve line or development limit line, a replacement dwelling may be constructed subject to standards B through H below. B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; D. Minimize grading of roads; E. Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways;_ F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts; H. Minimize exterior lighting. 6.23 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines Before development occurs on any parcel which crosses the urban reserve or development limit lines, the part outside the lines shall be protected as permanent open space. 6.2A Development Credit Transfer Any residential development credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or development limit line should be transferred to land Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments AttaChment y Page 43 inside the lines. 6.25 Homesites Outside the Limit Lines Where homesites are to be developed outside the urban reserve or development limit lines,and beyond the City's jurisdiction,they should: A. Be on land sloping less than 15 percent; B. Have effective emergency-vehicle access from a City street or County road; C. Be on a geologically stable site; D. Have adequate water supply for domestic service and five suppression; E. Avoid areas with high wildland fire hazard; F. Be next to existing development; G. Avoid significant visual impacts. 6.16 Hillside Planning Areas Hillside policies apply to all hills in and around the City. Specific policies to address particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 6, listed below. For each of these areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space. A. The Cal Poly - Cuesta Park area includes the hill east of Cal Poly and north of Highway 101 near Cuesta Park. Development should be separated or protected from highway traffic noise and should have adequate fire protection. Architectural review should be required for development of lots fronting Loomis Street. B. The Woodland Drive area includes vacant land where residential development may occur in the vicinity of the high school and residential or medical-care facilities may occur in the vicinity of the hospital. Before further subdivision or development of any of certain vacant land near Woodland Drive(Figure 7)a specific plan or development plan should be approved. This plan should address the following, in addition to relevant items as noted in policy 2.3.1. (1) The location and design of new public streets and private drives serving several owners, and any necessary changes to existing streets in the area; (2) Water and sewer systems, including new storage tanks, pumps, main pipes, and access roads,and changes to existing facilities necessary for adequate service to the area; (3) New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or combined; (4) Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing the urban reserve line; (5) Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication of fee ownership; (6) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with these hillside planning policies; (7) Location of creek easements to provide flood protection and to protect existing creekside vegetation; (8) Phasing of development and public improvements. C. The Goldtree area extends up the hill from the Alrita Street neighborhood. This is a minor expansion area which can accommodate single-family houses. (1) In addition to meeting the usual criteria for approving minor annexations, this area should: (a)Provide a gravity-flow water system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the expansion area and correcting water-service deficiencies in the Ahita 43 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 44 Street neighborhood; (b) Correct downslope drainage problems to which development within the expansion area would contribute. (2) A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or developed. (Existing houses inside the urban reserve line need not be annexed along with any new subdivision.) (3) All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to architectural review. D. The Orcutt area includes land on the western flanks of the-Santa Lucia foothills east of the Southwood Drive neighborhood and Orcutt Road. Before further subdivision or development of land between the 320-foot and 460-foot elevations, land above the 460-foot elevation should be secured as permanent open space. All building sites should be below the 460-foot elevation. E. The Margarita area includes the southern slopes of the South Street Hills. No building sites should be located above the development limit line. F. The Stoneridge area includes land on the northern slopes of South Street Hills. Development west of the end of Lawrence Drive should be subject to architectural review and to measures assuring that building sites will be stable. G. The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the hill,but no further development. H. The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Optional Use and Special Design Areas.) I. The$illygoat acres area extends into the Irish Hills above Prefumo Creek. No further development should occur beyond the urban reserve line. J. The Prefumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Canyon Road. Development should be limited to areas within the� urban reserve line with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. K. The Madonna area includes land west of Highway 101 on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain and the northeast slopes of the foothill bordering Laguna Lake Park. (1) A specific plan or development plan for the whole area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or further developed. (See also Optional Use and Special Design Areas, policy 8.9.) (2) Upon amendment to an urban designation, the area designated Interim Open Space, may accommodate a generously landscaped, low-intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. Development locations and building forms should respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and should maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. (3) The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer. I Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 45 (4) Any plan for further development in this area must address reconfiguration of the Marsh Street interchange. L. The Luneta Drive area includes parcels which may be used for houses, so long as new construction and major additions to the houses are approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 63 Hillside Programs (See also Section 10, Implementation) 63.1 Designating Sensitive Sites Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas will include designation of"sensitive sites," which are subject to architectural review. 63.2 Transfer of Development Credits The City will add a "development transfer" section in its Zoning Regulations, to encourage the transfer of residential development allowed on land outside the urban reserve line to suitable land within the line, regardless of land ownership. 63.3 Architectural Guidelines Through architectural review guidelines, the City will establish the presumption that all hillside development occurs on sensitive sites, where architectural review is required. The Community Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review. 63.4 Maximum Building Height The City will consider means to mitigate the visual impacts of hillside houses, including revising the way maximum building height is determined. 6.4 Creeks,Wetlands,and Flooding Policies Introduction San Luis Obispo's aquatic ecosystems consist of creeks, Laguna Lake, floodplains, marshes, wetlands, serpentine seeps, and springs. These aquatic ecosystems provide habitat, recreation, water purification, groundwater recharge, and soil production as well as natural flood protection by reducing the force of floodwaters as they spread and decelerate over floodplains. Creeks, which are the most obvious of these systems because they flow through the City, provide wildlife habitat, backyard retreats, and viewing and hiking pleasures, in addition to carrying storm water runoff. When some creeks overflow during major storms, they flood wide areas beyond their channels (Figure 8). San Luis Obispo wants to avoid injury or substantial property losses from flooding, while keeping or improving the creeks' natural character, scenic appearance, recreational value,and fish and wildlife habitat. 6.4.1 Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives The City should manage its lake, creeks, wetlands,floodplains,and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple objectives of: A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat; B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding; C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection,and use of adjacent private properties. D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which are in previously urbanized areas, such as the downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural areas. Those sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may 45 Allachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 46 be appropriate for multiple use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state shall be managed for maximized ecological value. 6.4.2 Citywide Network The lake, creeks, and wetlands should be part of a citywide and regional network of open space, parks, and --where appropriate-- trails, all fostering understanding,enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife. 6,41,21 Flood H—am—rd—RPM-Befion A. The city will deyele gad eafry out eavirefifHeRWI5, rAnsitive Language lies already'been moved, with minor wording changes and an addition, to Safety Element policy S 1.1. , the top ef beak ef any efeek. Yieinity as open spaee; whiek r , (3) eh .,t, a uses hien h a sift.: „i. yeaFfleed lev&. F. cress-anvcarxv+ershall m-vecvixvxao±ca-vmj-n moxo is nv-p.a"sc�.'.^�»�l?' . U Attachment f Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 47 64.4 ® Amenities and Access New public or private developments adjacent to the lake, creeks, and wetlands must respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish natural values. Developments.along creeks should include public access across the development site to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element.. 6x43 6.4.4 Open Channels All open channels should be kept open and clear of structures in or over their banks. When necessary, the City may approve structures within creek channels under the limited situations described in the Conservation and Open Space Element. _ Moves to 8.22.3 in the Draft COSE and revised to reflect ft at A. The City should establish ereek setheeks, eansist0fit With the OPOR creek setback standards have be n added to the Zonlr g Flood NilaBagement Regulations (SLO C ' 17.16.025), p. 36-A0. habita% spwe fef: paths eeAled fef: by any Gil), adopted pi". (See B.T2 The Felle ng items S1+..,l be HE) .. ..-t J.1tlle AIAIALSIMRAd OF l.e than the sett aek line.. buildings ..,root.. .A':,,ewa ,s _ er iag os , , ilots; afeas.. established. -A,M the Open Spaee Element. 64A 6.4.5 Porous Paving The City encourages the use of porous paving to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall,where practical, use one or more of the following measures to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge: porous paving; ample landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained to facilitate percolation;drainage detention basins with soils that facilitate percolation. 47 Y 1 i Atta, lfi1DT1t Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 48 6.5 Creeks and Flooding Programs 65.1 Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in previously developed areas, the City will: A. Ensure that infill, remodel, and replacement projects: (1) Do not displace more flood water than previous structures on a site; (2) Do not contribute floating debris to flood waters; (3) Have finish floors at least one foot above the flood level or, if this is not practical, be flood-proofed, to minimize risk to life and damage to utilities, furnishings, merchandise,and equipment. B. Require new infill buildings to have greater setbacks than their older neighbors, when necessary to achieve the purposes of this section. C. Remove man-made obstruction from channels. D. Ensure that any new development in the watershed detains rather than accelerates runoff from development sites. Substance moves to 8.30.26 I Me and to 10.22.1, 10.22.2 6.5.3 Owner-ship and Easements The gity ,0411 A-IM—Ain &W Substance moves to 8.30.2 D, E, and F wetlands and ereek ehamels. 6.5.4 M.... inade Obstmetions The Gity . ,:11 w ntai, die er-eels flee e 6=5.5 ResteFation at Development sites The Gib, will FBquke pFetee-fien Substance moves to 8.30.1 C and D within deNcelepment sites. 6.6 6.5.2 National Flood Program The City will administer the National Flood Insurance Program standards. Inter-agency cooperation is noted throughout the Open Space and Natural f^mml lniticc yProposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Attachment Page 49 Fairb gild "A e, Regional We' f: Quality Gentfel Beffd' Count)' Reed am 6.5:8 6.5.3 Creekside Care and Notification In maintaining creek channels to accommodate flood waters, the City will notify owners of creeks and adjacent properties in advance of work, and use care in any needed removal of vegetation. 6,5.9—lltxbloe-wefeeess a Substance moves to 8.30.11 and 8.30.2G and H 6=540 Aquatie Eeasystem 14anagement Plan The City will JA,ed; Program would be deleted since it has been completed with adoption of the Waterways Management Plan and on-going preparation and adoption of Open Space Conservation, which address aquatic and a ccnriatad.hahitaTc. 6­541 Non n—Adive R—o—niffi :Pie City %411 wark 40.4uh adher-ag-Reted ageneie-s Substance moves to 8.30.2 C plants. Substance moves to 3.10 Language moves to pfesen'ed' and and pessible,+e . 3.21.1. 49 Language moves to 3.21.2 � r Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 50 Language moves to 3.21.4 , Of: OR , _. Language moves to 3.22.1 thru 3.22.9 ptiFeliase of fee A;:dR;.,AIApfHew fights, shall be explefed 4 shall-beFec}aifed. Language moves to 3.22.1 thru 3.22.9 G. The, City shall establi-sh And- m.-Aim—Ria afebaeelegieai site feleefdr, abeils IERR;;,n will he MeaSarc$"H4CR•i e.. prejeet ..e.i e..:...,. o ng „r4,-.i,_I.u,.... ..F fill'; ..a remeval -under. the direetien of a qualified $ Wing of:trefi ° ^ O Y' Atta-chmeant Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 51 Language moves to 3.22.1 thru 3.22.9 1— W-As-ive American pai4ieipageft should be ifir;ludod in 640 Gitt's knowledge of eultufal Feseumes expands and as the City eensider-s Language moves to 3.30.1 Substance moves to 3.30.2 This will be addressed by 3.30.10 6.7s4----e0.Hoae--4-4ri—AFcae$6 The Git.. ..,:11 fester publ;n appfeeiation Substance moves to 3.30.6 Vrt^s7 5A—r-el—eallegleal Q. Fye StandaMs The GultureA Ne.-: age City has adopted . Archaeological Standards that 51 address this — ZSL AtliaChnnent Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 52 6:7.6 Piisplays The Calwmi HeritageCewAnnt*oand the—caunty Substance moves--' to-3,30.6- AIRPORT o3.30.6AIRPORT AREA POLICIES 7.1 Regional Service The airport will continue to serve the region,consistent with the approved Airport.Master Plan. 7.2 Airport Land Use Plan Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence should be so informed. 73 City Annexation and Services The City intends to actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area. Airport Area land inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation if it meets the criteria stated in Policy 1.13.3.A. Annexation of areas that do not meet these interim annexation criteria may be annexed subject to completion of environmental and economic studies and a specific plan. Pending annexation: A. Any urban development approved by the County shall be consistent with City development standards; and B. Urban development and provision of adequate resources and services needed citywide shall be closely monitored. 7.4 Greenbelt Protection Annexation of the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods: A. Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land- conservation organization. B. Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication, which shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. 7.5 Internal Open Space The areas designated for urban uses, but not necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site _ �50 I � Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 53 amenities and to protect resources, consistent with the Open Space Element. In addition, wildlife corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved. 7.6 Development Before Annexation A. Areas which are designated for eventual urban development may be developed during the interim with rural residential or rural commercial uses. In such areas, County development standards and discretionary review should assure that projects will not preclude options for future urban development consistent with the City's planning policies and standards. Before any discretionary County land-use or land-division approval for such areas, a development plan for the site should be prepared, showing that circulation, water and other utility, and drainage proposals will be compatible with future annexation and urban development. B. Any development within the urban reserve approved by the County prior to annexation should comply with City standards for roadway cross-sections, bus stops, walking and bicycle paths, landscaping, view protection, setbacks,preferred site layouts,and architectural character. 7.7 Transit Service Transit service linking development sites with the citywide bus system should be provided concurrent with any additional urban development in the Airport Area. 7.8 Specific Plan The City will prepare a specific plan for land uses, habitat protection, circulatick utilities, and drainage within the Airport Area. 7.9 Business Parks 7.9.1 Location and Uses Business parks may be developed in areas designated for them. Business parks are to accommodate research and development and light manufacturing in a campus like setting. They should provide high quality design of public and private facilities. Land designated for a business park should not be further divided or developed until the City annexes the area and approves a master plan for the business park. 7.9.2 Building Intensity Building location and intensity standards will be provided in a specific plan for each business park. The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Dwellings may be provided only as caretaker quarters or as part of a specially approved mixed-use development. The appropriate residential density would be set considering the maximum residential density allowed in any neighboring residential area. (Also, see the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 7.3 0 Rpprspntim -4 mw To be eliminated'. for consistency with the Airport fields, ' Area Specific Plans' proposed 53 open space r�ttc:C}';ment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 54 PROGRAMS 7.11 Specific Plan The City will work with Airport Area property owners to complete a specific plan. 7.12 Airline Service and Impacts The City will work with the County to assure that airline services and conditions in the vicinity of the airport are consistent with the Circulation Element policies. 7.13 Growth Management The City will annex the area and accommodate incremental development consistent with the growth management policies, including those concerning adequacy of resources and services and development paying its own way. 7.14 Open Space Dedication and In-lieu Fees In approving development proposals, the City will assure that Airport Area properties secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in-lieu of open space dedication. OPTIONAL USE & SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS INTRODUCTION In and near the City are several areas where it is appropriate to consider a range or mix of uses which do not correspond with any one open-space, residential, commercial, or public designation used by this element. However, a particular use or mix of uses may not be desirable unless it is chosen in combination with a specific physical design which solves problems of relationships between activities within the site, and between the site and its neighbors. In addition, there are areas where special design concepts can help revitalization efforts. In optional use and special design areas, the City intends to do one or both of the following: (A) Make a choice about appropriate land uses based on information which will become available. In some cases, the choice will be connected with approval of a development plan, possibly with customized limits on specific activities and requirements for off-site improvements or dedications. (B) Encourage innovative design concepts which help revitalize and beautify the area Each optional use and special design area that is mostly open land may be designated Interim Open Space AttaChMent y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 55 until the City approves a plan for use of the area. Optional use and special design areas are designated by number on the General Plan Land Use Map, and are indicated on Figure 10. These areas and the guidelines for their development are listed below. (The number following the decimal point corresponds to the map number.) POLICIES In areas 8.1 through 8.5, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building facades is encouraged. The City should work with property owners to prepare area plans containing design guidelines and implementation programs. Programs may include implementation incentives, such as variations from development standards or loan funds. 8.1 Madonna Road Regional Shopping Area 8.2 Foothill Boulevard Area 8.3 Broad Street Area 8.4 Santa Barbara Street Area 8.5 Mid-Higuera Area The City will prepare and adopt a plan for this multi-block commercial area showing any desired street and driveway changes, flood mitigation measures, and opportunities for a linear park along San Luis Obispo Creek. The plan could also serve as a "conceptual redevelopment plan," guiding private construction on sites affected by any widening of Higuera Street or San Luis Obispo Creek. (See also policy 3.1.4) 8.6 Drive-in Theater Area This 25-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated,continued agricultu use and low- intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial regional traffic also depends on providing a full interchange at Prado Road and extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road. Once flooding and access issues are resolved, and agricultural preservation requirements are met, the area would be suitable for government agencies'regional offices(see also policy 5.1.6). 8.7 Los Osos Valley Gap This 16-acre site should be developed if land in common ownership to the east�s permanently preserved as open space.The following are possible uses for the area designated Interi Open Space. • Vehicle sales; • Multifamily housing; • An open space corridor, trail, or both, to connect Laguna Lake Park and Prefurn Creek with the Irish Hills. II 8.8 Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area 55 I -9 � r Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 56 This approximately 180-acre area of prime farm land bounded by Madonna Revised as Road, Highway I01, Central Coast Plaza, and Prefumo Creek is in three directed by the ownerships. The City intends to preserve at least one half of Planning this signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to San Commission Luis Obispo as it existed in 1994. 8.9 Madonna Area 8.9.1 This arra may be developed further only if surrounding hillsides are permanently protected as open space.(See also hillside planning policy 6.2.6.K.) 8.9.2 Land southwest of.the Bianchi ranch house driveway, designated Interim Open Space, may accommodate a generously landscaped, low-intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. Development locations and building forms should respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and should maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. 8.9.3 The area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained as an open space buffer. 8.9.4 Any plan for further development in this area must address reconfiguration of the Marsh Street interchange. 8.10 Irish Hills Area This approximately 110-acre area extends from Los Osos Valley Road to the base of the Irish Hills, and from Madonna Road to Auto Park Way. It shall be zoned Conservation/Open Space upon annexation, and shall be zoned for appropriate urban districts upon approval of development plans. 8.10.1 About 38 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated Medium-Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500 dwellings. There should be a range of housing types, with low-density, medium-density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one-third of the area. While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in policy 1.13.3) are required and should include the following: A. Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no driveway access, to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos Valley Road. B. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access between any separate development sites, in addition to access provided by Los Osos Valley Road. C. Sufficient setbacks for traffic noise mitigation. D. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. E. Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the development area. 8.10.2 About 72 acres southerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 57 General Retail. While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in policy 1.13.3) are required and should include the following: A. Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no driveway access, to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos Valley Road. B. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access integrating circulation among any separate development sites, in addition to access provided by Los Osos Valley Road. C. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road. D. Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the development area. REV1IEW &AMENDMENT 9.1 Comprehensive Reviews The City should conduct a comprehensive review of this element about every ten years, and at other times deemed necessary by the City Council, considering possible changes in citizen's preferences, technology,population characteristics,and regional plans. 9.2 Amendment Proposals Amendments to this element, requested by citizens or deemed useful by the Planning Commission or the City Council, will be considered by the City. Such amendments should be considered in groups, not more than four times each year. 9.3 Annual Report The City will prepare an annual report on the status of the general plan, during the first quarter of each calendar year,to include the following: A. A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet general plan goals; B. A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to meeting general plan goals; C. An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be necessary. D. A status report for each general plan program scheduled to be worked on during that year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is lagging; E. A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open sp$ce preservation policies and programs; II 57 1 - �3 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 58 F. Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan. IMPLEMENTATION Introduction "Implementation" refers to all the City's actions to carry out the general plan. Besides the programs described in previous sections, the City uses the following means of implementing the Land Use Element. The City's actions under the following headings are to be consistent with the General Plan. 10.1 Zoning Regulations consist of the zoning map, lists of uses allowed in certain zones, property- development standards such as maximum building height and minimum parking, and procedures intended to give the interests of development applicants and other citizens fair consideration. i0.2 Subdivision Regulations cover the division of land into parcels which can be sold, and set basic standards for streets and utilities. 10.3 Architectural review applies to the layout and outdoor appearance of new housing tracts, multifamily developments, hillside development, stores, offices, and manufacturing buildings, and remodeling of some downtown buildings and historical buildings. 10AGrading Regulations limit the amount and methods of reshaping the ground to accommodate development. 10.5 Budgets spell out how City funds will be obtained and spent, particularly the capital improvement program, a multiyear list of major facilities and equipment which the City will buy or build. The capital improvement program includes water sources and sewage treatment equipment, water and sewer lines, and streets and bridges. The Planning Commission reviews this program for conformity with the general plan. 10.6Property management covers buying land for new City facilities and for public open space, and selling or leasing land no longer needed for a City government function. 10.7 Development plans and spec plans bridge between general policies and actual construction plans. 10.8 Public Planning is a way for the City and its Citizens to help shape the City's future environmental quality. Before considering private proposals for a major development, such as a specific plan, special-design area, or a large subdivision or planned development not within a specific plan, the City should conduct an evaluation of environmental opportunities and constraints, to which a private proposal can respond. Features to be examined include toxic contamination, airport. operations, ground slopes, seismic hazards, soil and groundwater characteristics, wildlife habitats, scenic values and impacts, agricultural values, open space preservation, aquatic ecosystems, air quality, sustainability impacts, road and rail traffic noise, water and sewer service limits,access and circulation,and historic and archaeological resources. 10.9 Environmental Review is a formal way to inform the public and decision-makers of the expected consequences of their actions. Two common types of environmental documents are environmental impacts reports and "initial studies."Before considering private proposals for a major development, such as a specific plan or special-design area, the City should conduct an evaluation of environmental opportunities and constraints, to which a private proposal can respond. Features to Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 59 be examined would include toxic contamination, airport operations, ground slopes, seismic hazards, soil and groundwater characteristics, significant wildlife habitats, road and rail traffic noise, water and sewer service limits, access and circulation, and historic and archaeological resources. 10.10 Communication, ranging from informal staff discussions to letters from the City Council, lets other agencies know the City's position based on the general plan. DEFINITIONS Some terms unique to the General Plan or city planning activities are used. They are defined below. Generally,the first time each of these terms appears in the text, it is printed in italics. , More closely matches the Agriculture zone Agriculture is generally open land where there has been a history of agricultural as described in cultivation or keeping of livestock,.which remains primarily r� open and the Zoning in such use. Regulations Annexation is the extension of the City limits, to increase the area which is subject to City laws and, sometimes, eligible for City utilities and services. Annexations are acted on by the Local Agency Formation Commission, according procedures and standards in State law. This commission is made up of two members of the County Board of Supervisors,two members of councils of the cities within the County, and a public member. Aquatic ecosystems are biological communities that have developed in and around creeks, Laguna Lake, floodplains, marshes, wetlands, serpentine seeps, and springs. Arterial street is a major road connecting different areas of the City with each other and with highways. Driveway access is usually limited. (See also the Circulation Element.) Business park is a master-planned, campus-like setting for research-and-development or light- manufacturing industries. Building intensity is a measure of the amount of floor space in relation to site area. It is expressed as the ratio of gross building floor area to site area. For example, where a ratio of 1.0 is allowed, building floor area can equal site area. In this example, a one-story building could cover all of the site (except any required setbacks), a two-story building could cover one-half the site, or a three-story building could cover one-third of the site. (See also "density.") Civic Center is a part of downtown where certain types of City and County government offices are to be concentrated. Collector street is a street serving a neighborhood or subarea of the City, usually having only two lanes. See also the Circulation Element. 59 f -R� Attavhment ,y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 60 Commercial core is the part of downtown's commercial area where buildings generally cover whole parcels and there is little or no on-site parking.See Figure 3. Creek is a waterway or portion of a waterway so designated on the Open Space Element "Creek Map," or other source as defined in the Open Space Element; creek includes a natural watercourse or altered natural watercourse where water flows in a definite channel,with a bed and banks. Creek setbacks establish the minimum distance that development must be from a creek's physical top of bank or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, considering preservation of creek habitat and adequate space for natural changes and the storm design capacity,as provided in the Open Space Element. Density describes how many things of a certain kind occupy an area of land. Density is often expressed as the number of residents, dwellings, or employees per acre. In this element, it means the maximum number of dwellings per acre that may be allowed. (See also "building intensity.") Development limit tine is a boundary, inside the urban reserve, between land to remain open and land which can be developed. It has been applied to certain hillsides. Development plan is a plan for development of a certain site which has been rezoned under the "planned development" section of the City's Zoning Regulations. A development plan shows land uses, roads, utilities, building outlines, and development timing in more detail than the general plan, but not so. precisely as construction plans. Downtown is the central part of the City, generally bounded by Highway 101, the railroad, and High Street, including the commercial core and historic residential neighborhoods. Expansion areas are places that the City has decided will be appropriate for urban development,.generally next to and extending beyond the City limits at the time the plan was adopted. The relatively large major expansion areas are shown and named on the plan map. Some smaller expansion areas are also shown; others may be designated as the City identifies additional places which meet certain standards that make them appropriate for urban development. General Retail is a commercial land-use category which includes specialty stores as well as department stores, restaurants,and some services such as banks. Greenbelt is the essentially undeveloped open land beyond surrounding the City's urban reserve line, which maintains the City's rural setting and ecological integrity by preserving hillsides, agricultural land, wildlife and native plant habitat,and other open space.. Health-Care area is a district on Johnson Avenue where County and related.private health-care facilities are to be located. High-Density Residential is a land-use category for attached or closely spaced dwellings, usually in multistory buildings, for group housing, and for other uses that are supportive of and compatible with residential neighborhoods. Hillside planning areas are places at the City's edges where a relatively precise boundary between � ' 9(O A.uiAchment y Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 62 Planning area is the land within the city limits where the City can control development as well as the area outside the City limits where the City is particularly concerned with land use. See Figure 1. Prime agricultural land means land which the U.S. Soil Conservation Service considers to be Class I or Class H. These soils have few or no limitations for growing crops due to slope,depth,texture,drainage, or inherent fertility. Programs are actions which the City intends to take in pursuit of its goals and policies. Public is a land-use category for government facilities, such as schools, offices, meeting rooms, police and fire stations,and maintenance yards. Recreation is a land-use category for publicly or privately owned recreation facilities, either outdoors or buildings within a park-like setting. Region generally means San Luis Obispo County. Residential Neighborhood is a designation for the major residential expansion areas shown on the General Plan Land Use Map, which are to include a wide range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary schools, and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents. ResidentiaUOffice is a potential land-use category for downtown neighborhoods which have started to make the transition from residential to office uses, where the City wants to assure than housing is protected or replaced as office development occurs. Riparian means characteristic of creeks or their edges. Rural commercial is an intensity of land-use in the airport area. Rural commercial includes farming as well as businesses which need a lot of space, which can be supported by on-site water supply and waste disposal rather than City water and sewer service, and which do not concentrate substantial numbers of employees or customers. Rural Residential is a land-use category for one or fewer dwellings per ten acres, where City water and sewer services are not available. Services and Manufacturing is a land-use category including repair and maintenance services, retailing of items such as vehicles and building materials, and light manufacturing. Small residential care facility means a home for not more than six people who need supervision or help with daily activities. Social services area is a district on South Higuera Street near Prado Road where government agencies providing income-maintenance and employment services are to be located. Special design areas are sites where the general plan anticipates a broader range or mix of uses than would be allowed by the named land-use categories, and where those uses can be developed only as part of a / 1 Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 61 potential development areas and open space has been drawn, and where special development standards apply. Historical resources are places,buildings;or artifacts which represent periods in local history. Infill is development on vacant sites which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the city limits existing when this element was adopted. Interim Open Space is a land-use category for areas which may be suitable for development someday but which should be kept open until certain constraints to development are overcome. Local street is a street providing access to all or part of a neighborhood, and not carrying through traffic. See also the Circulation Element. Low-Density Residential is a land-use category for dwellings that provide a sense of individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, generally detached, one- or two-story buildings, with private outdoor space separating them from neighboring dwellings, and other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings. Medium-Density Residential is a land-use category for dwellings that provide a sense of individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than Low-Density Residential. Such dwellings are generally one- or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Medium-high-density residential is a land-use category for attached or closely spaced dwellings, usually in multistory buildings, for group housing, and for other uses that are supportive of and compatible with residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood Commercial is a commercial land-use category for businesses which primarily meet the frequent shopping demands of people who live nearby, such as supermarkets and drug stores. Office is a land-use category for professional and financial services,and related, supporting businesses. Old Town means the part of downtown which includes the residential areas around the commercial core, where most original houses were built before 1940. Open Space is land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state, and is generally free of structures. Such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel or large tracts of land. Such lands may include fanning and grazing; creeks, marshes, watershed and.floodplains; scenic resources; plant and animal habitat;historic and archaeological resources;and passive recreation areas. Park is a land-use category for publicly owned parks. Passive recreation means low-impact activities such as hiking, bird-watching, nature photography, trails, nature study, viewing stations, interpretive areas,and similar uses. 61 Attachment Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments Page 63 development plan which solves certain problems. Specialty store is one which offers a limited range of typically small consumer items to a wide market area, such as a shoe store,book store,or tobacco shop. Specific plan is a document adopted by the City to show land uses, roads, utilities, other public facilities, and development timing in more detail than the general plan, but not so precisely as subdivision maps or construction plans. Suburban Residential is a land-use category for not more than one dwelling per acre, where City water and sewer services are not available. Tourist Commercial is a land-use category for businesses which primarily serve visitors and the traveling public, such as motels,gas stations,and restaurants. Urban reserve line is the boundary between areas that the City has decided may be appropriate for urban development and land to remain in open-space and rural uses. Agricultural and open space uses may also be maintained within the urban reserve. Urban use is a relatively intensive use of land which normally requires City water and sewer service;urban uses are nearly all the types of development accommodated in the following categories of this element: low-, medium-, medium-high, and high-density residential; neighborhood, tourist, and general-retail commercial; offices; services and manufacturing;business parks, and most public buildings. Warehouse store is a large retail or wholesale store which sells items primarily in bulk quantities or containers, and which has minimal range of brands and minimal display space that is separate from storage areas. Wetland is any area where one or more of the following attributes exist: 1. At least periodically, in years of normal rainfall, the plants are those which thrive only in water or saturated soil. 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil as defined by the United States Soil Conservation Service. 3. Substrate other than soil is at least periodically saturated or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season in each year of normal rainfall. Jh/UConservarionandopenSpaceElement/ReportAaachments/proposed LUE amendments2-8-06 63 c — �q Attachment y February 8, 2006 Proposed Amendments to the 2000 Safety Element The Safety Element, adopted in July 2000, is hereby amended as shown below. S 1.1: Flood Hazard Avoidance and Reduction A) The City will develop and carry out environmentally sensitive programs to reduce or eliminate the potential for flooding in previously developed, flood-prone areas of the city. B) The City should allow flood waters to move through natural channels. Flow should be accommodated by removing debris and man-made obstructions. The City recognizes that many natural channels cannot contain runoff from a storm greater than a 25-year event. Areas flooded by storms as large as a 100-year event will be mapped. C) No new building or fill should encroach beyond, or extend over, the top- of-bank of any creek. D) Within predominantly developed areas (such as downtown) infill, remodel, and replacement projects should not displace more flood water than previous structures on the site or in the vicinity. Commercial buildings may be flood-proofed where providing floor levels above the 100-year storm flow is not appropriate due to adjacent improvements. New infill buildings may be required to have greater setbacks than their older neighbors. E) Within new development areas, such as the potential expansion areas shown in Figure 2 of the Land Use Element, substantial displacement of flood waters should be avoided by: 1) Keeping a substantial amount of flood-prone land in the vicinity as open space; 2) Enlarging man-made bottlenecks, such as culverts, which contribute to flood waters backing up from them; 3) Accommodating in such places uses which have relatively low ratios of building coverage to site area, for which shallow flooding of parking and landscape areas would cause minimum damage. 4) Requiring new buildings to be constructed above the 100-year flood level. F) Creek alterations shall be considered only if there is no paEEieable practical alternative, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. G) Development close to creeks shall be designed to avoid damage due to future creek bank erosion. Property owners shall be responsible for protecting their developments from damage caused by future bank loss due to flood flows. I - IDO r• r-, Attachment 'y Proposed General Plan Safety Element Amendments Page 2 S 2.2: Wildland Fire Safety A) Wildland fire hazards shall be classified as follows:... [Table and map not shown.] B) Development shall be excluded from areas of high and extreme wildland fire hazard. C) Buildings that are in areas of moderate fire hazard and which are close to areas of high or extreme fire hazard shall have non-combustible exteriors; noncombustible exteriors are encouraged for all buildings in moderate fire hazard areas. D) In areas of moderate or higher wildland fire hazard, defensible space — accessible space free of highly combustible vegetation and materials— shall be provided around all structures. E) It is recognized that vegetation types, and therefore wildland fire hazards, may change due to natural causes and human activity. Changes are expected to be minimal in areas that the Land Use Element designates as Open Space. Substantial changes are expected in areas that the Land Use Element designates for development. Any losses of native plant habitat must be mitigated as required by the Conservation and Open Space Element. Jh/UConservationandOpenSpaceElement/ReportAttachments/proposedSAFE amendments2-8-06 2 Attachment 5 Y`LL San WIS OBISPO r 6Raft con seRvati on an a open k space Element 4C� >r M 4 \ .' a w �Ion o e J •T \*Ivest side of C° rg San Luis,looking southeast aoss Foothill Zoulevard from Bishop's Peak ° ��A_ city or san l i ._sispo conseRvation an0 open spaceelement city Of A achrnent 5 "I9' , ���� San WI S OBI SPO community development aEpantment MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to identify and serve the needs of all people in a positive and courteous manner and to help ensure that San Luis Obispo remains a healthy, safe, attractive and enjoyable place to live, work or visit. We help plan the City's form and character, support community values, preserve the environment,promote the wise use of resources and protect public health and safety. OUR SERVICE PHILOSOPHY The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff provides high-quality service whenever and wherever you need it. We will • Listen to and understand your needs; • Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions; • Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City's rules • Help resolve problems in an open, objective and fair manner; • Maintain the highest ethical standards; and • Work to continually improve our services. City Council Hearing Draft ii March 2006 c - ID3 crty.ofsanluii iispo conseuvation an0 open spac."!Lement of ISM Utl� os1 conservation ana open space Element Adoption Date San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution No. (2006 Series) SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL David Romero, Mayor Paul Brown John Ewan, Vice-Mayor Christine Mulholland Allen Settle PLANNING COMMISSION Jim Aiken (former member) Michael Boswell (former member) Andrew Carter Carlyn Christianson Alice Loh Jason McCoy Orval Osborne Andrea Miller, Chairperson Natural Resources Inventory Group Phil Ashley, Ray Belknap, Dr. David Chipping, Don Dollar, Gary Felsman, Pam Heatherington, Dr. V. L. Holland Cultural Heritage Committee Bob Schrage, Chair Paula Juelke Carr, Chuck Crotser, Margot McDonald, Steve McMasters, Tom Wheeler, Matt Whittlesey Tree Committee Steve Caminiti, Chair, Linda Hauss,Teresa Larson (Parks & Recreation Commission representative),Jim Lopes (Architectural Review Commission representative), Laura Rice Administration Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer, Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer; Dr. Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager City Council Hearing Draft iii March 2006 � - job city of san tui- jBispo consERvation anb open spat c element Attachment 5 Utilities Department John Moss,Director; Gary Henderson, Water Division Manager; Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator Public Works Department-GIS Division Mapping by: Mary Andrews, GIS Specialist II; David Yun, GIS Supervisor Consultants -Plant community information was developed in conjunction with Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. -Photographs by SLO Land Conservancy under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo pREpaR66 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT John Mandeville, Director Michael Draze, Deputy Director, Long-Range Planning Jeff Hook, Senior Planner Glen Matteson, former Project Planner City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403- 8100 www.slocity.or,g/CommunityDevelopment City Council Hearing Draft iv March 2006 city of san tuis .,Aispo conseRvation ana open spacb stement R�taChinent 5 fouewona The City's General Plan is made up of sections called "elements." Each element focuses on certain topics as required or allowed by State law. The Conservation and Open Space Element is one of eight adopted elements in the City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan. According to State law, each element has equal weight in defining City policies. In .February 2005, the following elements comprised the City's General Plan: Title Adoption or Last Major Revision Date Land Use 1994 Housing 2004 Conservation & Open Space Circulation 1994 Noise 1996 Safety 2000 Parks & Recreation 2001 Water& Wastewater Management 1994 * Revision in progress combining former Open Space Element, Conservation Element, Energy Conservation Element and parts of several other elements. Dedicated in fond memory of Bill Roalman, City Council member from 1989 to 1998, environmental advocate, musician, husband, and friend. ' d Bill Roalman 1952-2002 The Conservation and Open Space Element is available on the City's website, www.slocity.org. To purchase copies of the Conservation and Open Space Element or other elements of the General Plan, please contact the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401- 3249. Phone: (805) 781-7170. Fax: (805) 781-7173. City Council Hearing Draft v March 2006 t - (d (40 city of san lues usispo conseRvation an0 open space element A'fachmath 5 city Of MmOn San tuts OBISPO GENERAL PLAN CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT taste of contents Page FOREWORD................................................................................................................. v 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1 1.10 Background to the 2005 Element......................................................... 1 1.20 Use of Terms.......................................................................................... 2 1.30 Purpose.................................................................................................. 2 1.40 How This Element is Organized............................................................ 3 1.50 Notes on the March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft......................... 3 1.60 What's New in this Draft....................................................................... 4 1.70 The Ahwahnee Principles....................................................................... 5 2. AIR................................................................................................................ 7 2.10 Background..............................................:..................................:......... 7 2.20 Goals and Policies................................................................................. 7 2.21 Air quality..................................................................................... 7 2.30 Programs............................................................................................I... 7 3. CULTURAL HERITAGE.......................................................................... 9 3.10 Background.......................................................................................... 9 3.20 Goals and Policies................................................................................ 10 3.21 Historical and architectural resources........................................ 10 3.22 Archaeological resources............................................................. 11 3.30 Programs...............................................................................................13 4. ENERGY.................................:....................................................................16 4.10 Background...................................:...................................................... 16 4.20 Goals and Policies................................................................................ 16 4.21 Sustainable energy use................................................................ 16 4.22 City form.......................................................................................20 4.23 Solar access......................................................................... ..........20 4.30 Programs...............................................................................................23 5. MATERIALS...............................................................................................26 5.10 Background..........................................................................................26 5.20 Goals and Policies.................................................................................26 5.21 Efficient use of materials..............................................................26 5.22 Minimize effects of materials use.................................................26 City Council Hearing Draft vi March 2006 i crty of san Luis ostspo conseuvation aria open spacE etement Attachment 5 .Page 5.30 Programs..............................................................................................27 6. NATIVE MINERALS .................................................................................29 6.10 Background............................................::............................................29 6.20 Goals and Policies.................................................................................29 6.21 Site reclamation............................................................................29 6.22 Mining operations.........................................................................29 7. NATURAL COMMUNITIES.....................................................................31 7.10 Background............................................................................................31 7.20 Goals and Policies.................................................................................31 7.21 Sustainable natural populations...................................................31 7.22 Trees and other plants..................................................................35 7.23 Minimize environmental toxins.....................................................37 7.30 Programs................................................................................................37 8. OPEN SPACE ..............................................................................................40 8.10 Background...........................................................................................40 8.20 Goals and Policies.................................................................................41 8.21 Greenbelt.......................................................................................41 8.22 Open space within the urban area................................................42 8.23 Open space for safety....................................................................46 8.24 Open space access and restoration..............................................46 8.25 Open space mitigation..................................................................47 8.30 Programs................................................................................................50 9. VIEWS..........................................................................................................56 9.10 Background............................................................................................56 9.20 Goals and Policies.................................................................................56 9.21 Viewsheds......................................................................................56 9.22 Viewing opportunities...................................................................57 9.30 Programs................................................................................................58 10. . WATER........................................................................................................61 10.10 Background..........................................................................................61 10.20 Goals and Policies...............................................................................61 10.21 Urban water needs......................................................................61 10.22 Water quality...............................................................................61 10.30 Programs..............................................................................................63 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................15 2. Species of Concem ...........................................................................................34 City Council Hearing Draft vii March 2006 l _ O A tuc ilent .5 crty of san Uus owspo conseuvation an0 open space element Page 3. Wildlife Corridors...............................................................................................36 4. Creek Corridor and Setbacks...............................................................................39 5. Existing and Proposed Greenbelt Boundaries.....................................................43 6. Open Space Resources ........................................................................................45 7. Habitat Types, City of San Luis Obispo..............................................................49 8. Open Space Resources in a Subdivision .............................................................53 9. Creeks and Wetlands...........................................................................................54 10. Prime Agricultural Soils......................................................................................55 11, Scenic Roadways and Vistas...............................................................................60 LIST OF TABLES 1. Sustainable Energy Sources.......................................................:.......:...:...:.........17 2. Solar Access Standards ............................................:..............................:.............21 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN..................................................65 APPENDIX B. ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE LANDS...................................73 APPENDIX C. MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE LANDS.................................76 APPENDIX D. GLOSSARY........................................................................................79 APPENDIXE. REFERENCES..........................................................................:.:...:..87 APPENDIX G. COUNCIL RESOLUTION................................................................88 City Council Hearing Draft viii March 2006 Attachment 5 city of san Luis vie ispo conseuvation anb open space Element 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.10 Background to the 2005 Element. In the early 1970s, the California Legislature made the open space element and conservation element mandatory parts of a general plan. San Luis Obispo adopted its first conservation element and its first f open space element separately in 1973. Both elements guide the use and protection of various ! resources to meet community needs and purposes. ;"" e' , They reflect consensus and compromise among a wide range of citizens' preferences., within a framework set by State law. Hikers enjoying one of the City's many open spaces and trails 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 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 single-occupant vehicle trips, which affect air quality and energy use. The Circulation Element also contained a section on mads and scenic resources. The 2004 Housing Element update also contains policies on energy, water and materials conservation. 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. Why combine general plan elements? For several reasons: ease of use, to eliminate redundancy and maintain consistency, to group like policies for emphasis, and to address related community issues more comprehensively in one element. Combining and integrating related general plan policies in this manner is allowed for and encouraged by State law. All general plan elements carry equal weight, and policy repetition or redundancy conveys no added legitimacy or legal standing. While inevitably some overlap remains among the General Plan elements, the Conservation and Open Space Element emphasizes protection of natural resources 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 addresses air and water quality, energy sources and conservation, materials recycling, minerals and cultural resources. Other General Plan elements will be amended for consistency with the Conservation and Open Space Element and may still contain policies which address open space or conservation topics as part of other City objectives. For example, the Land Use Element focuses on the types and intensities of development on land designated for urban uses. The Safety Element is concerned mainly with avoiding hazards from fire, flood, unstable land and aircraft flights, in areas where agriculture City Council Hearing Draft 1 March 2006 f _ � io Attachi lent 5 city of san Iuia osispo consertvatton an0 open space element and natural landscape are often the most appropriate uses. The Parks and Recreation Element consists of plans for indoor and outdoor recreational facilities primarily for active recreational uses, such as parks, playfields and community centers. 1.20 Use of Terms 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. As used here, the terms "shall" or "will" are mandatory and mean that an action shall be taken or procedure followed without exception. ."Should" means that such an action or procedure will be followed under normal circumstances to implement the Conservation and Open Space Element, unless there are significant, countermanding reasons or factors that prevent or discourage implementation. The terms "encourage", "promote", "support" are permissive and indicate a desirable, but not a mandatory action. They indicate intent to take action but are not linked to a specific time frame or work program. 1.30 Purpose San Luis Obispo residents are justly proud of their rich and diverse environmental setting. Creeks, hills, morros, valleys , and farmland create a striking landscape which is home to a wide variety of plants and animals. These natural gifts form a distinctive city backdrop and help maintain the overall ' quality of life for all to enjoy. And unlike many other heavily urbanized areas, San Luis Obispo's environmental �� : = ,� = character and diversity remains. However the City and regions special character is threatened by development pressure that incrementally degrades special geographical, ; biological, geological and other natural resources. + The Conservation and Open Space Element is a tool to protect and preserve these unique community resources. Its ' overarching goal is to protect resources (such as air and water, wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, watershed and historic features) with a secondary goal of accommodating passive recreation where it will not harm the environment or interfere with agricultural operations. San Luis Obispo's environmental quality is a precious gift. When surveyed, City residents have repeatedly placed open space and environmental conservation high on the list of community Reservoir Canyon waterfall goals, values and priorities. City Council Hearing Draft 2 March 2006 � - ll � !! crty of san Luis.,sispo conseRvation ano open space Element A°taChi ttent 5 Thus, conservation and open space acquisition are values that strongly influence City decision- making and operations. This Element reaffirms and clarifies the Community's on going commitment to these values. 1.40 How This Element is Organized The Conservation and Open Space Element encompasses a broad range of relatively complex issues and policies. Preparing a document which is both comprehensive and enjoyable to read has been a key objective in this effort. To maintain brevity without sacrificing content, policies and programs have been condensed and combined where possible without changing their meaning or effect. Narratives and detailed discussions of issue areas have been minimized, with maps, tables and other graphics used in lieu of text where possible. Lastly, expanded Glossary and References sections have been included for those wishing to delve into greater detail. Each Chapter begins with an introduction, including a brief discussion of topics covered, how it pertains to San Luis Obispo, and why it's important. This is followed by Goals and Policies for that resource, and finally, a list of programs which the City will undertake. Goals, Policies and Programs are grouped for easy reference and all carry equal "weight." They are not listed in order of priority unless so stated. 1.50 Notes on the March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft This new draft is intended to: 1. Update and combine relevant conservation and open space policies from several General Plan elements into one document so they are easier to find and use. 2. Add to or expand policies and programs in response to changing community needs and issues. 3. Establish the City of San Luis Obispo as a leader in the fields of conservation, environmental sustainability and open space preservation. This draft is the result of approximately six months of detailed review of the October 2005 Planning Commission Hearing Draft. It includes significant changes and additions to the previous draft, primarily in the sections on Energy and Open Space. The new Draft also expands upon and strengthens policies in the 1973 Conservation Element and the Energy Element, Land Use Element and Open Space Element. It includes new goals, policies and programs in response to public and Planning Commission comments made at public workshops during fall 2004 and in subsequent public hearings. During 13 public hearings since the process "restarted" in Fall 2004, Commissioners took public testimony, reviewed the draft in detail, and refined the draft goals developed at the workshops. The Commission compared these draft goals with those of the August 2002 Hearing Draft, and with current General Plan polices, as the basis for a revised set of goals in a new draft. Public comments focused on ways to make the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element more responsive to citizen concerns, more comprehensive and effective. The changes helped establish a stronger leadership role for San Luis Obispo City in the areas of conservation, sustainability and open space preservation. At its February 8, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council Hearing Draft 3 March 2006 r - � i45- Attachment 5 city of san tuisoetspo conseRvation ana open space element City Council: 1) approve a negative declaration of environmental impact on the new element and related general plan amendments, 2) adopt the March 2006 "City Council Hearing Draft" and approve the general plan amendments. Besides content changes, this draft also has a new format, organization and style to make it easier to use and find information on specific topics. New maps and graphics were added to highlight key issues and add visual interest. In summary, the March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element represents asignificantly broader and bolder statement of the City's role in conservation and open space combined into a single, primary policy document. 1.60 What's New in this Draft Several new conservation and open space policies and programs have been included to address comments expressed by Planning Commissioners, the public and community specialists. These include: 1§ Increased protection of archaeological sites, historically and architecturally significant buildings and other cultural features that contribute to "sense of place" Monitoring programs for air and water quality, and for natural populations 1h Requirements for wildlife corridors to be incorporated into the design of major roadways • Preparation of a Strategic Energy Resource Plan to promote sustainability in City services and facilities • "Green Building" standards to encourage energy efficiency in new private and public buildings % Incentives for private development projects that incorporate sustainable "green building" technologies % Passive recreational.uses of open space where compatible with.other open space and ecological objectives ih Exterior lighting design standards to prevent light pollution and preserve nighttime sky views, while enhancing public safety and lighting efficiency th Streetscape corridor design standards to enhance the visual quality, function and safety of major streets £Y Increased emphasis on preservation of the Morros City Council Hearing Draft 4 March 2006 1 - 113 ktachlnent 5 iscrty of san Luw stspo conseuvation anO open space element % Revised Greenbelt boundary to expand open space buffers around the City and more closely reflect natural viewsheds, watersheds and geographic features like valleys, ridgelines and peaks The Ahwahnee Principles 1.70 The Ahwahnee Principles In 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9689, dedicating the City to the Ahwahnee Principles and the Ahwahnee Water Principles (Ch. 10). The City believes these principles are the foundation of a safe, environmentally healthy and life-sustaining community, and intends to incorporate these principles into its General Plan and all future updates of the General Plan. These principles are hereby incorporated into and shall guide the interpretation of this Element: 1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, workplaces, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing,jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. 4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. S. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. 6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network. 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. 8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open spaces in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. 9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. 10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development. 11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and City Council Hearing Draft 5 March 2006 l - � I � Attachment 5 city of san Luis owsipo conseQvation anO open space'element bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high-speed traffic. 12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. 13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. 14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling. 15. The street orientation,placement of buildings and use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community City Council Hearing Draft 6 March 2006 � - IIS ktaChinent 5 city of san lues ustspo conseuvatlon an0 open space eiement 2.0 AIR 2.10 Background We live at the bottom of a relatively shallow "ocean of air" that sustains and protects us. } While progress has been made in reducing fill toxic emissions from individual sources, + �• ' n growth in the number of sources and the " accumulation of gasses that produce climate change are growing concerns. The City : continues to be a State non-attainment area An "inversion layer" is formed by stable air masses for PM10 (fine particulate matter) air with different temperatures trapping pollutants. San pollution. Luis Obispo has one of the lowest inversion layers in the state 2.20 Goals and Policies Goal 2.21. Air Quality. Achieve and maintain air quality that supports survival; health and enjoyment for all City residents. Policies 2.21.1. Atmospheric change. City actions should not add to and should seek to minimize undesirable climate changes and deterioration of the atmosphere's protective functions that result from the release of carbon dioxide and other substances. 2.21.2. Health standards. Air quality should meet State and Federal standards, whichever are more protective, for human health. 2.21.3. No decline. Air quality should not decline from levels experienced during the early 1990s, when the community's growth capacity was last re-examined. 2.21.4. Promote walking, biking and use of public transit use to reduce dependency on motor vehicles. City actions should seek to reduce dependency on gasoline- or diesel powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking, biking and public transit use. City Council Hearing Draft 7 March 2006 t - rlc� city or san luisoaispo conseuvatton an0 open space'element t^,{taChi.lent 5 Goal 2.22 Model City. The City will be a model of pollution control efforts. It will manage its own operations to be as pollution free as possible. The City will work with other agencies and organizations to help educate citizens in ways to prevent air pollution. 2.30 Programs The City will do the following in support of air quality, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise: 2.30.1. 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. If the level of air pollution continues to exceed State or Federal standards, the City will consider modifying its General Plan to comply with the standards. 2.30.2. Air quality monitoring. Along with other agencies and organizations, the City will help the Air Pollution Control District implement the County Clean Air Plan. The City, working with involved agencies and organizations, will help implement programs to reduce the number of single occupant trips in gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles, including restrictions on and alternatives to car access for Cal Poly and Cuesta College: In addition, the City will monitor air quality as one measure of achieving environmental sustainability. 2:30.3. Alternative transportation/land use strategies. Implement public transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented land use and design strategies in new development, as described in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reduce the number of single-occupant trips in fossil-fueled vehicles. 2.30.4. Alternative transportation incentives. Encourage California State Polytechnic University (Cal Poly) students, faculty and staff, Cuesta College students, faculty and staff and San Luis Obispo County government employees to provide incentives for students and employees to use alternative transportation such as walking, public transit and bicycles, and disincentives to discourage single-occupant motor vehicle use. Examples of possible incentives may include flexible employee schedules, financial incentives for carpooling or use of public transit, preferential carpool parking and other similar measures. 2.30.5. General Plan amendment. If General Plan policies and programs, environmental mitigation measures required as conditions of development approvals, or other programs or incentives intended to offset significant air-quality impacts of growth prove to be ineffective, the City will: 1) amend its General Plan to reduce its development capacity and 2) will encourage other jurisdictions to reduce theirs so that air quality will not deteriorate to unacceptable levels due to growth. The City would then consider raising planned development capacities to previous levels only if measures effective in protecting air quality are carried out. City Council Hearing Draft 8 March 2006 f- f� � i crty of san Luis ua spo conseuvation an0 open space element Attachi ne nt 5 3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE 3.10 Background San Luis Obispo is blessed with a rich heritage, as evidenced by many noteworthy archaeological sites and historical , buildings. These cultural resources constitute a precious, yet fragile, legacy which contributes to San Luis Obispo's unique "sense of place." Before Europeans arrived on the central EWE coast, native Chumash and Salinan _ �q 1 •� people had lived in the area for centuries. a While most reminders of these peoples San Luis Obispo. circa 1890 are now gone, evidence of their presence remains in various archaeological, historical and spiritual sites throughout the City. These.sites should be respectfully protected, preserved and studied. The Town of San Luis Obispo began with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772. Since then, the community has experienced many changes. The older buildings, historic sites and landscape features that remain help us understand the changes and maintain a sense of continuity. The City wants to preserve these cultural resources -- tangible reminders of earlier days in San Luis Obispo. Starting in the early 1980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a program formalizing and adopting policies to address historic and prehistoric cultural resources. The first of the City's historic districts was formed, and the City Council created the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The City subsequently adopted numerous policies in its General Plan that addressed the preservation and protection of historic and prehistoric resources. About 700 historic residential and commercial buildings continue to give the community its "historic" character and charm, while adapting to owners' changing uses and needs. After two decades, the City has made important strides with its historic preservation efforts. It has purchased and rehabilitated several historic structures, including the Jack House, the Southern Pacific Railroad Water Tower and the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, and begun rehabilitation of several other historic railroad or adobe structures. Through the Mills Act program, the City and County of San Luis Obispo have helped owners of historic buildings maintain and improve their properties through property tax benefits. Nevertheless, many cultural resources are under increasing threats due to development pressures, benign neglect and lack of funding for maintenance or rehabilitation. Throughout California, older established neighborhoods are feeling the effects of growth and intensification due to contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks the grace of older homes it City Council Hearing Draft 9 March 2006 — hD Attachment 5 crty of san lots osispo conseuvation an0 open space"element . replaces. Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a changing economy with new uses, development patterns and economic realities. Underutilized sites with historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment projects, with the resulting loss of those resources. Moreover, some cultural resources have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public policies, incomplete information and the lack of funding. The loss of significant historic, cultural and archaeological resources can reduce the community's uniqueness and make it a less desirable place in which to live, work or visit. As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it is prudent to look into the future to anticipate problems which may lie ahead. We have already experienced some of these same pressures, and it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to face similar challenges in the near future. Through its General Plan policies and related implementation measures, the City intends to help balance cultural resource preservation with other community goals. 3.20 Goals and Policies Goal 3.21: Historical and architectural resources. The City will expand community understanding, appreciation and support for historic and architectural resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources. Policies The historic Carnegie Library in Mission Plaza was rehabilitated in 2001 3.21.1. Historic preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated. 3.21.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. 3.21.3. Historical documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resource shall be documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgment of the resource should be incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts. City Council Hearing Draft 10 March 2006 r r t ill -�. Attachment 5 l city of san Luis vwspo conseuvation ana open space clement 3.21.4. Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. 3.21.5. Historic. districts and neighborhoods. In evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify and protect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties. Goal 3.22: Archaeological resources. The City will expand community understanding, appreciation and support for archaeological resource preservation. Policies 3.22.1. Archaeological resource protection. The City shall provide for the protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee or easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. 3.22.2. Native American sites. All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected as Open �l - Space wherever possible. 3.22.3. Non-development activities. Activities other than development which could damage or destroy archaeological sites, including off-road vehicle use on or adjacent to known sites, or unauthorized collection of artifacts, shall be prohibited. l 3.22.4. Archaeologically sensitive areas. Development within an archaeologically sensitive area shall require a preliminary site survey by a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a -- -- determination of the potential environmental impacts of the project. Rehabilitation of the San Luis Obispo's historic Michael Righeni 14m co 3.22.5. Archaeological resources present. Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological City Council Hearing Draft 1 March 2006 ��� Attachment 5 crty of san lois .isispo conserzvationano open spac lement resources, before permitting construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include: presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching; project redesign; covering with a layer of fill-, excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional. 3.22.6. Qualified archaeologist present. ,Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction or grading activities, all such activities in the immediate area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures. 3.22.7. Native American participation. Native American participation shall be included in the City's guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation. Native American representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native American community shall be consulted as knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City considers updates or significant changes to its General Plan. 3.22.8. Protection of Native American cultural sites. The City will ensure the protection of archaeological sites that may be culturally significant to Native Americans, even if they have lost their scientific or archaeological integrity through previous disturbance; sites that may have religious value, even though no artifacts are present; and sites that contain artifacts which may have intrinsic value, even though their archaeological context has been disturbed. 3.22.9. Archaeological site records. The City shall establish and maintain archaeological site records about known sites. Specific archaeological site information will be kept confidential to protect the resources. The City will maintain, for public use, generalized maps showing known areas of archaeological sensitivity. 3.22.10. Sunny Acres. Sufficient acreage should be provided around Sunny Acres to enable use of the property for a community center, urban garden, natural history museum and adjoining botanical garden, or similar uses. 3.22.11. Southern Pacific Water Tower. The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and adjoining City-owned land should be maintained as open space or parkland. 3.22.12. Cultural resources and open space. Within the city limits the City should, and outside the city limits encourage the County to, require public or private development to do the following where archaeological or historical resources are protected as open space or parkland: A. Preserve such resources through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of development approval shall be required only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory structures or tree removal permits. If a historic or archaeological resource is located within an open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and City Council Hearing Draft 12 March 2006 crty of san lues usispo conseRvation an6 open space Clement A1taC "+e 1ent 5 maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. B. Designate such easements or dedication areas as open space or parkland as appropriate. C. Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade the resource. 3.30 Programs. The City will do the following to protect cultural resources, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate: 3.30.1. Cultural Heritage.Committee.The City's Cultural Heritage Committee will: A. help identify, and advise on suitable treatment for, archaeological and historical resources; B. develop information on historic resources; C. foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources, through means such as tours, a Web site, identification plaques and awards; D. provide recognition for preservation and restoration efforts; E. communicate with other City bodies and staff concerning cultural resource issues; F. provide guidance to owners to help preservation and restoration efforts. G. review new development to determine consistency with cultural resource preservation guidelines or standards. 3.30.2. Financial assistance and incentives.. The City will participate in financial assistance programs, such as low-interest loans and property-tax reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties. 3.30.3. Construction within historic districts. The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission will provide specific guidance on the construction of new buildings within historic districts. 3.30.4. Post-disaster Historic Preservation. The City will be prepared to assess the condition of historic buildings that may be damaged by disasters and to foster their restoration whenever feasible. 3.30.5. Archaeological resource preservation standards. The City will maintain standards concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys; and the preferred methods of preserving artifacts. 3.30.6. Educational programs. The City will foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources by sponsoring educational programs and by helping to display artifacts that illuminate past cultures, and by encouraging private development to include historical and archaeological displays where feasible and appropriate. City Council Hearing Draft 13 March 2006 city of san tuts owspo conseuvatton anb open spat#Element A+tachment 5 3.30.7. Partnering for preservation. The City will partner with agencies, non-profit organizations and citizens groups to help identify, preserve, rehabilitate and maintain cultural resources. 3.30.8. Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings. The City will, consistent with health, safety and basic land-use policies, apply building and zoning standards within allowed ranges of flexibility, to foster continued use and adaptive reuse of historic buildings. 3.30.9. City-owned adobes and historic structures. The City will preserve and, as resources permit, rehabilitate City-owned historic adobes and other historic structures by aggressively seeking grants, donations, private-sector participation or other techniques that help fund rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. 3.30.10. Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper. The City will implement the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's "Whitepaper", including the adoption of a historic preservation ordinance. City Council Hearing Draft 14 March 2006 �_ ( a3 ii city of san Luis/vaispo conseuvation an0 open spact clement Attachment 5 Figure 1. Cultural Resources City Council Hearing Draft 15 March 2006 w A'tachment 5 Nm ECL m L Q z � In w r N �— = J O m IM E m O m O W U. L ,��' 2O � r` a: In o co co 6 1 $ N q, *li k. 47. •} "y$�"..�`Y ')gyp. P. r3 �I� q � 4l �" � s by,b° , y � �? `�, 7 i� "mak` �* i.r� y � yr h• yrs l��""# ("��'t i T�� 0 f ,c, .y,ir fi ` r �144kr•�„u r� �y4� � � ��' 4 r j 5 , vy,, t y e � s a-- � q� l 'n, , Cx•.�q}L} li+'r'-,-� .+'k+s `ate . �S�' �_ ^ c •ter , x v i / � � tyt{'w' i� S} �++ttSF'� �r�'rvtr K' 3 �•x. V�:' .� ♦ k A �st r+. I .} ems t tiJ:�'I � v_ ��? �•`.k reYF � t � �\ }.ti � L4 i� +� tt} �. � r�v� "` i VG w� Z�. �t6~��� � �v�v� �-y ,��1r� J�•�� * �u '"+4�~ 44� �'/ . � - t� '^��Y \ � -. 1 .4 t" ✓ M1 Lt, � i y;meq, 4 �1....'�, 1 ♦+, rg `t"; t 1 'A wr} t A /y v°Pi.S ' p' 1'4vI .n \ t /'• T �_ �� \ a ti, lir , ! i�"yam, (..r><4 rzt i .. yx.�' "il� y.y ��1_y 't�^^* S^+ h rrl a a-.,w-"e-' t�Vii_ _ r.�1.*`L,�. `�' : . Y 3• ,�+- _ ,h e4� ktachment 5 city of san Luis-owspo conseuvation ana open space Element 4.0 Energy 4.10 Background Our dependence on fossil fuels makes it difficult to avoid air and water pollution and economic uncertainty. 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. While the City has made significant progress in energy conservation in recent years, more can be done through emerging technologies and increased emphasis on "sustainable" practices and building design in both public and private development. 4.20 Goals and Policies Goal 4.21: Sustainable energy use. Increase use of sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind and thermal energy, and reduce reliance on non-sustainable energy sources to the extent possible with available technology and resources. Policies 4.21.1. Use of best available practices. The City will employ the best available practices in energy conservation, procurement, use and production, and - "-�- � will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise. "Best available practices" means behavior and technologies that reflect recommendations of specialists and 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 t are natural] renewed in a relatively Y short time and avoid substantial Natural gas co-generation equipment at undesirable side effects. Table 1 Sinsheimer Pool saves City residents summarizes Sustainable Energy energy and money by heating pool water while producing additional energy to power Sources. lights, pumps and other electrical equipment. City Council Hearing Draft 16 March 2006 1 t., ' crty of san Luis oslspo conseuvatlon an0 open space.ttemEnt A' YaChiile�tt 5 Table 1. Sustainable Energy Sources 1: Supply side 2: Demand side (delivery 3: Combination at site (production) and use (integrated system). 1. Conservation (new item) 1. Space conditioning thru passive heating and cooling (old items A,B,C,D,E & F): 1. Solar thermal electric (old simultaneous utilization of item I.); conversion of solar access, central night sunlight to electricity through ventilation, use of thermal an intermediate generator mass and efficient building using a pressure differential envelope 2. Hydrogen (old item P.): conversion of any sustainable source to an Intermediate 2. Wind electricity generator fuel, such as hydrogen (old item J.): without produced by solar-powered 2. Illumination by natural substantial harm to wildlife electrolysis light (old item E.) 3. Solar photovoltaics (new 3. Natural Ventilation (new item): feeding the power grid item) 4. Biomass (old item M.): conversion of plant material to fuel, or to electricity 4. Solar voltaic (old item H.): through combustion, in a conversion of sunlight directly sustained-yield cycle and with to electricity, preferred form emission controls to protect is structure surfaces at or air quality near the place of use 5. Tidal Wave or thermalcline power (old item O.): electrical generation from the ocean's tidal or wave action, or difference in temperature due to depth, without substantial harm to 5. Solar water heating (old plants or wildlife item G.) direct at place of use 6. Geothermal (old item K.): 1) preferred from: deep heat sources not dependent on release of brine 2) secondary form: near-surface sources requiring release of brine 7. Hydropower (old item N.): electrical generation from falling water, without substantial harm to wildlife, and where reservoir siltation will not eliminate the resource City Council Hearing Draft 17 March 2006 l - t 211 city of san luis ostspo conservation ana open space element A'tachnient 5 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 M. Hydropower: electrical generation from falling water, without substantial harm to wildlife, and where reservoir siltation will not eliminate the resource N. Tidal, wave or thermocline power: electrical generation from the ocean's tidal or wave action, or difference in temperature due to depth, without substantial harm to plants or wildlife 4 — = 4.21.2. Efficient City building operation. City buildings and facilities will be operated in the most energy-efficient manner without endangering public health and safety and without reducing public �\ safety or service levels. A Roof-mounted photovoltaic panels produce electricity which helps meet the Ludwiek Recreation Center's energy needs. City Council Hearing Draft 18 March 2006 1 - f2� r , city of san tins oatspo conseAvation anb open space element Attachment 5 4.21.3. Energy-efficiency improvements. City will continue to identify energy efficiency improvement measures to the greatest extent possible, undertake all necessary steps to seek funding for their implementation and, upon securing availability of funds, implement the measures in a timely manner. 4.21.4. Use of energy efficient, renewable energy sources. City will promote the use of cost effective, renewable, non-depleting energy sources wherever possible, both in new construction projects and in existing buildings and facilities. 4.21.5. Cooperation with other entities. The City will cooperate with federal, state and local governments and other appropriate entities to accomplish energy conservation objectives throughout the state, and inform employees, its contractors, staff and the general public of the need for and methods of energy conservation. 4.21.6. Energy efficiency and Green Building in new development. The City shall encourage energy-efficient "green buildings" as certified by the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Program or equivalent certification, as outlined below. "Green Building Checklist" defined: In the items below, "green building checklist" is used to mean the checklist of a green building certification system approved by the Community Development Department. For projects greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, LEED is approved. For residential projects,LEER or the California Green Building Guidelines (with San Luis Obispo amendments) are approved. A. Submit Checklist: 1) The applicant of any nonresidential project over 5000 square feet of gross floor area, or any residential project with five or more dwelling units shall submit a completed green building checklist to the Community Development Department. The applicant shall be encouraged to submit an optional narrative describing how each credit will be achieved. 2) The applicant for any other development project not included above shall be encouraged to submit a completed green building checklist to the Community Development Department. B. CDD Comments: The Community Development Department shall provide non- mandatory comments in regards to the submitted green building checklist as appropriate C. Posting of Checklist: Completed green building checklists and optional narratives shall be posted for public education, to track success and to make useful information available to future building occupants. D. Checklist Goals: All projects listed above shall be encouraged to achieve a score that would allow at least the baseline certification level of that system, but strive for greater achievement. I EED or other outside certification is not required. City Council Hearing Draft 19 March 2006 ( ^ f A` echi-nent 5 s j city of san luis-owspo conservation anb open space Element E. Projects over 60,000 Square Feet: Nonresidential projects greater than 60,000 square feet gross floor area shall be encouraged to achieve at least a L.EED Silver Certification from the US Green Building Council, or the equivalent rating using another approved green building certification system approved by the Community Development Department. One means of implementing this policy will be through development review of and Zoning Regulations regarding large commercial buildings. F. City Projects: City-owned projects with a floor area of greater than 5,000 square feet gross floor area shall achieve at least a I Silver Certification from the US Green Building Council, or the equivalent rating using another approved green building certification system approved by the Community Development Department. G. Other Governmental Buildings: All governmental agency projects within the City Limits greater than 5,000 square feet gross floor area shall be encouraged to achieve at least a LEER Silver Certification from the US Green Building Council, or the equivalent rating using another approved green building certification system. Goal 4.22: City Form The City's form will support energy efficiency and the use of sustainable energy sources. Policies 4.22.1. Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. Residences, work places and facilities for all other activities will be The Edna-!slay Area and other city neighborhoods located and designed to promote travel by have several dwelling types, parks, neighborhood pedestrians and bicyclists. (also see the Land services, employment, and bus stops within easy Use Element) walking or cycling distance 4.22.2. Alternative transportation. The circulation system will foster travel by modes other than motor vehicles, including bicycles and public transit. (see also the Circulation Element) 4.22.3. Compact, high-density housing.The City will promote higher-density, compact infill housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities and services, land resources, and to improve the jobs/housing balance. Goal 4.23: Solar access Policies City Council Hearing Draft 20 March 2006 f - 130 city of san Luis oatspo consettvation ana open space Element A"Lachi iie nt 5 4.23.1. Solar access standards. 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 likely locations of future collectors, both active and passive. Standards for the subdivision and development of property should assure desirable solar access, as described in Table 2. Protection beyond that established by the City may be provided by recorded agreement among private parties. Table 2. Solar Access Standards Land Uses and Site Conditions Desirable Solar Access Conservation/open space and residential uses All south walls and all roof areas should be up to about six dwellings per acre, on sites of unshaded during midday on the winter one acre or more. solstice.. Conservation/open space and residential uses Nearly all south walls and all roof areas up to about six dwellings per acre, on sites of should be unshaded during midday on the less than one acre. winter solstice. Residential uses between six and 12 All roof areas, nearly all second-story and dwellings per acre, office uses and most first-story south walls should be neighborhood commercial uses, on sites of unshaded during midday on the winter one acre or more. solstice. Residential uses between six and 12 Most roof areas, nearly all second-story dwellings per acre, office uses and and most first-story south walls should be neighborhood commercial uses, on sites less unshaded during midday on the winter than one acre. solstice. Residential uses at densities greater than 12 All roof areas and most south walls should dwellings per acre, public facilities and be unshaded during midday on the winter general commercial and industrial uses on solstice. large parcels or in newly subdivided areas. Residential,uses at densities greater than 12 Most roof areas and some south walls on dwellings per acre, public facilities, and upper floors should be unshaded during general commercial and industrial uses midday on the winter solstice. within downtown and other locations previously subdivided into relatively small lots. 4.23.2. Subdivision design for solar access. 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 subdivider demonstrates that for certain lots any of the following applies: A. The lots are large enough to allow desirable solar access,regardless of lot orientation; B. Buildings will be constructed as part of the tract development, and the buildings will be properly orientated, with adequate solar access; City Council Hearing Draft 21 March 2006 II crty of San s OBlspo conseuvation an0 open space element A'fach,nent 5 Lui C. 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 morning or late afternoon solar exposure; D. Topographical conditions, such as steep, north-facing slopes or shading by the mass of a hill, make solar energy use infeasible; ' E. The size of the subdivision, combined with the existing orientation of surrounding streets and lots, - precludes desirable lot orientation. Solar collector and photovoltaic systems can help reduce utility costs and have virtually no harmful „ effects. This solar collector installation on a San Luis Obispo home is ideally situated on a south facing roof and well screened from its surroundings 4.23.3. Solar Access Easements. Solar access easements will be required in all new subdivisions, as provided in the State of California Solar Rights Act, unless any of the following applies: A. The subdivision incorporates a building development plan that will assure desirable solar access; B. Desirable solar exposure will be protected by the City's Zoning Regulations; C. 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. 4.23.4. Solar collector placement. When solar collectors are proposed as part of a development, the development plan will locate solar collectors and include features to assure adequate solar access. 4.23.5. Solar access exceptions. Exceptions to the standards for desirable solar access may be made if any of the following applies: A. Shading would be an insignificant part of the total solar exposure, in terms of area, duration or both; B. 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; C. Shading is between lots in a subdivision for which a customized system of solar access easements will provide an adequate level of protection; City Council Hearing Draft 22 March 2006 city of san Luis osispo conseRvation and open space element D. Use of solar energy is unfeasible due to topographical conditions. 4.23.6. Solar collector appearance. The following design standards shall apply to solar collectors: A. Solar collectors should be compatible with the appearance of the structuresthat contain or support them. Features of compatibility 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 is 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 City policies. Within historic districts or for historically designated sites or buildings, such projects may be referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee. 4.23.7; Unwanted solar heat gain. Sites and buildings should be designed to avoid unwanted heat gain from solar exposure. Features that provide shading at suitable times of the day and year and generally should be "passive" or automatic, avoiding the need for occupants to regularly monitor or adjust them. 4.30 Programs The City will do the following.in support of energy sustainability, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate: 4.30.1. Efficient City energy use. Manage City operations for energy efficiency, including purchase and use of vehicles,equipment and materials. A. Outdoor and indoor lighting; B. Space conditioning.and water heating; C. Vehicles, travel and traffic flow; D. Office equipment. 4.30.2. Manage City operations for energy self-reliance. 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. 4.30.3. Sustainable design in City facilities. Incorporate conservation and sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities. City Council Hearing Draft 23 March 2006 1 - f33 I city of san Luis oBispo conseuvation an0 open space Element Attachment 4.30.4. Reduce obstacles to energy conservation. In its review and approval of new development, the City will seek to minimize unnecessary obstacles to energy conservation and encourage use of sustainable energy sources and technologies while promoting the economic benefits of conservation in its regulation of private activities. For example, the City will encourage new residential development.to provide space for outdoor clothes drying, and will not allow private restrictions on doing so.. 4.30.5. Encourage sustainable employee commuting practices. Encourage alternatives to employees commuting as occupants of individual vehicles powered by non-sustainable fuels. 4.30.6. Energy conservation education. Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy conservation issues, including the City's energy conservation policies, and instruct that they work with applicants to achieve the housing goals that conserve energy. 4.30.7. State Building Energy Standards. Administer the State's building energy standards. 4.30.8. Energy-efficient project design. 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, citizen advisers, developers and designers on ways to exceed minimum State energy standards. 4.30.9. Solar access for new development. Address solar access in all plans needing City discretionary approval, considering both structures 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. 4.30.10. Retrofit City buildings for energy savings. As funding allows, the City will retrofit existing City buildings with energy-saving features such as insulation, glazing and fluorescent lighting fixtures, and will participate in programs to encourage private property owners to do the same. 4.30.11. Financial assistance for energy efficiency improvements. The City will actively seek all available sources of funding for implementing energy efficiency improvement and utilities infrastructure renewal projects, including federal and state budget appropriations, federal, state and private sector grant opportunities, utilities and other unique public/private sector financing arrangements. 4.30.12. Monitor energy use. The City will monitor energy usage in all City facilities and prepare a system wide biannual report on energy use and efficiency. City Council Hearing Draft 24 March 2006 1 - 134 3A G Attachi-ent 5 city of san Luis oaispo conseavatton an0 open space element 4.30.13. Prepare energy plan. The City will prepare an energy plan leading to the long range reduction in the use of non-renewable resources and increased use of renewable resources in City services and facilities. Such a plan should include standards for construction of new City buildings, public facilities' maintenance, water conservation, solid waste management, and energy conservation strategies in City facilities. The plan will be implemented by all City departments. 4.30.14. Adopt Green Building standards. The City will adopt an ordinance containing requirements and incentives for innovative, environmentally friendly (also known as "green" or "sustainable") development and building projects. Examples of projects that may qualify for such incentives may include: A. Those incorporating innovative, technologically advanced energy-efficient design concepts significantly exceeding State of California Title 24 standards. B. Those utilizing "green"building materials and permaculture landscape concepts. C. Those containing specific, implementable and sustainable measures for reduced dependence on automobile parking demand. Possible development incentives to be considered in this ordinance could include density bonuses, setback variations, modified street standards, reduced parking standards or similar modifications to standard requirements. 4.30.15. Consider City-owned green energy utility. As conditions and resources allow,the City may examine the potential to create a city-owned energy utility. 4.30.16. Promote technology and energy conservation businesses. The City's Economic Development Manager should help establish the City as a center for conservation technology by working with other community organizations and individuals to attract and promote such businesses. This effort should build on existing community capacity and resources, such as that existing in local government, business groups, Cuesta College and at Cal Poly. 4.30.17. Require solar power for new dwellings. Within new residential projects of 20 or more dwelling units, 5% of the total number of dwellings shall be built with photovoltaic solar power beginning in 2008; this percentage shall increase 4% each year until 2020. 4.30.18. County Air Pollution Control District support. Seek the support of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District in calculating emission inventories and the development of balanced strategies for addressing climate protection through development of model ordinances and guidelines designed to meet the City's goals. City Council Hearing Draft 25 March 2006 9 � � - la-J city of san Wiu owspo conseRvation an0 open space element 5.0 Materials 5.10 Background Many commonly used materials have limited - -- natural sources and few potential substitutes if they were to be depleted. Also, finished materials _ embody the energy used to extract, refine, form, and transport them. These processes typically 1 =.a involve some land disturbance and pollution at ., each step. Efficient materials use, reuse and recycling therefore represent energy savings and pollution avoidance. With encouragement from ,•. ,. citizens and from state government, progress has "r �` been made in avoiding the one-time use and discard of materials. Curbside waste recycling and collection programs help reduce the amount of materials However, inefficient recycling efforts can add to going to landfills and conserve valuable resource consumption and pollution if materials resources with low utility must be transported long distances or harmful components must be separated and disposed of. Several materials, notably metals and some types of glass and paper, have economic value that justifies their recycling. For other materials, market prices alone may not be enough to avoid disposal. Modem mass-production and consumption systems make it difficult,for individuals and local governments to deal with the "life cycles" of complex products and wastes. But more can be done to imitate nature's scheme for using the residue of one process as the raw material for another. Emerging ideas and. technologies in "sustainable" building construction and operation offer the potential for more efficient use of finite resources, new business opportunities and enhanced public health. 5.20 Goals and Policies Goal 5.21 Efficient use of materials. The City will use materials efficiently in its buildings and facilities, services and operations, and encourage others to do so. Goal 5.22 Minimize undesirable effects resulting from use of toxic or potentially toxic materials. The City will avoid and, where possible, stop using materials which cause secondary or indirect adverse environmental or health impacts. Policies 5.22.1. Best available practices. The City will employ the best available practices in materials procurement, use and recycling, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other City Council Hearing Draft 26 March 2006 Attachment 5 city of san Luis dBispo conseRvation ano open space element agencies to do likewise. "Best available practices" means behavior and technologies that, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies: A. Use the least amount of newly refined materials for a desired outcome; B. Direct the largest feasible fraction of used materials to further use; C. Avoid undesirable effects due to further use of materials. 5.22.2. Material recycling in City facilities and operations. The City will set a community example for waste diversion and material recycling in City facilities, services and operating systems to achieve a goal of 100 percent recycling of paper, bottles and cans and require similar goals in contracts and procurement for public goods and services and capital improvements. 5.22.3. Material recycling in private development, businesses and operations. The City will promote waste diversion and material recycling in private development, business and operations, and will encourage businesses or nonprofit entities to provide building materials recycling and source reduction services. 530 Programs The City will do the following in support of efficient materials use and recycling, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate. 5.30.1. Efficient use of materials in City operations. The City will manage its operations for efficient materials use by: A. Substituting electronic information exchange for paper whenever feasible and cost effective. B. Reproducing paper documents as two-sided publications whenever cost effective 5.30.2. Promote City materials reuse and recycling. The City will manage its operations to foster reuse and recycling by: A. Avoiding use of inks, papers, and plastics that inhibit recycling or that produce pollutants in preparation for recycling. B. Purchasing products incorporating recycled materials. C. Using plant trimmings for mulch and compost, while avoiding the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native species and pathogens. D. Making wood from tree removal available for mulch, milling, pulping or heating, depending on its characteristics and the volume available, while avoiding the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native species and pathogens. Selection of trees for City streets, parks and grounds will take into consideration their eventual disposal. E. Producing biosolids (sewage sludge) suitable for land application as an agricultural fertilizer or soil amendment, under scientific and health-based criteria. City Council Hearing Draft 27 March 2006 p r� l ' � d t A'tachitent 5 ctty of san Luis osispo conseuvation anO open space Element 5.30.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts. The City will coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business waste-reduction and recycling efforts. 5.30.4. Use of materials with reduced environmental impacts. In its facilities and operations, the City will use materials and systems with reduced environmental impacts. The design team (architect/engineer) for new buildings and facilities should recommend building materials and methods with life cycles (manufacture, installation, maintenance, repair and replacement) of reduced environmental impacts. Considerations will include energy efficiency; energy required in the manufacturing process; life-cycle duration; and maintenance and replacement costs. 5.30.5. Recycling businesses inventory. The City will maintain an inventory of current recycling businesses and services and make it available to the public. 5.30.6. Expanded public education. The City will expand its public education outreach efforts to raise public awareness of energy and materials conservation goals, sustainable technology, benefits and incentives.. City Council Hearing Draft 28 March 2006 A aCIlm ent 5 city of san tuts owspo conseRvation an6 open space element 6.0 Native Minerals 6.10 Background Native minerals are those occurring in the San Luis Obispo area that have, or are expected to have, economic value. Sand, gravel and stone "', sa'- used in construction, and metal ores, are examples of economically valuable minerals. State guidelines and rules aim for continued '~ PR^r• " 3- °-.. ' accessibility to native minerals, while avoiding significant harm to the environment or human o r health from their extraction. I� In the past, quarries and mines in the San Luise w, Obispo area produced basaltic stone for masonry, "red rock" for road base and surfacing, and In early San Luis Obispo, mines and quarries cinnabar, an ore of mercury. No quarry or mine for cinnabar and other minerals were common operations are expected to be reactivated or in )nrnl hiltc initiated. In the 1980s, a petroleum company asked to explore City-owned land in the Lopez Lake area. The request was denied based on the environmental qualities of the area. Since that time, no other such requests have been received, and the City's policy on mineral extraction within City limits has remained unchanged. 6.20 Goals and Policies Goal 6.21 Site reclamation. Achieve environmentally responsible reclamation of past mineral-extraction sites. Policies 6.21.1. Old mineral-extraction sites. The City will implement the following policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so: A. Land-use designations for old mineral-extraction sites shall reflect risks associated with them, and should generally be limited to Open Space, Agriculture, or Park land use designations. B. Previously active mineral-extraction sites should be secured and reclaimed in conjunction with any development approvals for the land on which they are located. Securing them means preventing access that entails unacceptable risk. Reclamation means re-establishing ground contours and vegetation to the extent feasible, use of erosion control measures to enhance and protect soil stability, water and air quality, wildlife habitat values and views. Goal 6.22 Mining operations. Ensure environmentally responsible operation and reclamation of any mineral extraction that may occur in the San Luis Obispo planning area. City Council Hearing Draft 29 March 2006 I , crty of san Luis owspo conseuvatton ano open space Element Policies 6.22.1. Potential mineral-extraction sites. on sites with mineral-extraction potential, the City will: A. Prohibit mineral extraction within the city limits. B. Prohibit mineral extraction and surface entry for extraction of oil or gas within open space owned by the City in fee or as an easement. C. Encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to permit mineral extraction only if significant impacts to human health and the environment will be avoided and site restoration will be assured. Impacts to be addressed include air and water quality, noise, habitat disruption, aesthetics and geologic stability. All phases of the activity, including site access, must be addressed. City Council Hearing Draft 30 March 2006 , �`' i ro A`tachment 5 ii city of san luis sispo consettvation and open spacx element 7.0 Natural Communities 7.10 Background "Natural Communities" refers to the web of organisms, other than people, that live in the _ area. Many of the physical requirements for natural communities are provided by open space. Natural communities give open space Southern steethead trout much of its value for human enjoyment. (Oncorhynchus mykisss) Natural communities also have value in their own right, independent of their tole as sustainers of the human community or as a pleasant background. As urban uses expand into open space, the natural cycles and interrelationships upon which natural communities depend are altered. This results in the disturbance, displacement, loss of habitat or mobility and the loss of animal or plant populations. For example, each species requires a specific range of environmental conditions to survive and reproduce. Areas within this range constitute the species' niche or more generally, habitat. Animals move within and through habitat areas to find water, food, shelter, and to reproduce. Such movements have evolved over time to fit animals' needs within the natural landscape.. Urban development and linear barriers such as major roadways change the landscape too quickly for many animals to adapt, thus interrupting and blocking such movement. As a result,wildlife populations are separated from their historic habitat and from other breeding populations of the same species. The result: a gradual reduction in the numbers and diversity of wildlife. As a steward for the natural resources of future generations, the City must preserve significant habitat and the species that it supports. San Luis Obispo is surrounded by extensive open space areas that provide habitat to many animal species. The City's many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. To help preserve natural communities, it is important to protect, improve and where appropriate and feasible, protect and re-establish these corridors. 7.20 Goals and Policies Goal 7.21 Sustainable natural populations. The City will maintain and enhance conditions necessary to enable a species to become self-sustaining. Within the San Luis Obispo planning area, the City will seek to achieve self-sustaining populations of the plants and wildlife that made up the natural communities in the area when urbanization began. City Council Hearing Draft 31 March 2006 ( -l� ( k-tachident. 5 city of san luib-omspo conseRvation an0 open space element Policies 7.21.1. Protect Listed species. A. The City will identify the location, habitat and buffer needs of species listed for protection. This information will be developed by qualified people early in the planning and development review process. 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 creeks, City roads and facilities; and on land that the City owns or manages. E. City actions that could impact listed species shall be consistent with mitigation policies in 8.25.3. 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 will help with the relocation). F. "Species listed for protection" are: 1) Classified by the U.S. Fish 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) d) "Species of Special Concern" - Are not rare on a State scale, but are found in limited locations City Council Hearing Draft 32 March 2006 Cr� `:-- Attachment 5 crty of san Luis ustspo conseuvatton ana open spact-element 3) Classified by the California Native Plant Society as: r a) "List IA, Plants of Highest , Priority" - Presumed extinct in a California b) "List 1B, Plants of HighestLr - ' Priority" - Plants rare and endangered in California and ... elsewhere C) "List 2" - Plants rare and ``aj{ f�t endangered in California, but Local Bracken Fern species common elsewhere d) "List 3" - Plants about which more information is needed e) "List 4" - Plants of limited distribution (a watch list) 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." City Council Hearing Draft 33 March 2006 9 _ Atachr;�ent 5 dormscity of san Lula osispo consEuvation ana open space dement Figure 2. Species of Local Concern City Council Hearing Draft 34 March 2006 1 - [ 4L� y $ e �) w cs gg z V G 00Li 0 a3aa8af M —Z` � a �• Z L V E a � � � s � 3 p 5O8t5 S r m • g a � F J � 2CL Pa a5a `w J tV OI Y d r d O• O O O O p N A FI tS N SB R A p R �u v, 0 ! 8 0000000000000000000000000®000000 �vo i ' v y 7 �yy}�y!l1,721' 1 � a y � �w b�r ai i p •M'� �.h^�e !_ �,��'' ., i .. �. r• •. :.•fr"s'I< ��f ��'c .��L4 4 �+1 ,�,y ''•'°m *,1'. n +� / -_ n�. � ^ �4 .�y,� T�+'4.�•±Z�y t!,,,,. t w°'S� 1,,�, m�... h,��V f :-1.. �v "' ... �.� � � ° c•.., Yr F,�< tii.' f '�"G• J�'S.�t �J.� Ali .��„y'� ►'im . �pn� i.:.t.� �. . �. . r 1 ( j��c, rl v�'. 17'SJ�cn '��::N .wry.,•`I r -77tnt � . � �,° i�� -, a. � C ; f_ S �, c. .«r a ? r i V ` hye s ami• y. p i i m• � .: q I tV s. _ :r-a r Birt a, .. ,.^ R � r D N r N � � N •.Rt.' 't 1 ` ��S A'tachment 5 city of san luis oBispo conseuvatron anb open space-element 7.21.2. Species of local concern. The City will: A. Maintain healthy populations of native species in 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 increasing. B. Identify the location, 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 or other biological resource professional upon public notice. Anyone may nominate species for the list.) C. Protect species of local concern through: 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. D. Encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to protect species of local concern within their areas of responsibility and jurisdiction. E. Protect sensitive habitat areas, including creeks, from encroachment by livestock and human activities. 7.21.3. Wildlife habitat and corridors. Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will: A. Require public and private developments, including public works projects, to evaluate animal species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors appropriate for wildlife. . B. Plan for connectivity of open spaces and wildlife habitat and corridors using specific area plans, neighborhood plans, subdivision maps or other applicable planning processes, consistent with Open Space Guidelines. C. Coordinate with San Luis Obispo County and adjoining jurisdictions, federal and state agencies such as Caltrans to assure regional connectivity of open space and wildlife corridors. D. Preserve and expand links between open spaces and creek corridors, as shown in Figure 3. Goal 7.22: Trees and other plants. Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species. Policies 7.22.1. Protection of significant trees. 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 8.25.3. Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and in Open Space areas shall be retained. City Council Hearing Draft 35 March 2006 ' I I Attachment 5 j city of san Luis-omspo conseRvation an0 open space element Figure 3. Wildlife Corridors. City Council Hearing Draft 36 March 2006 • Y w. 46 .�. :� * .�-s�,.+� 1'� F s `.fir •t!��. vi lf' Y wl Zm si AL np . .y �s 5 i y V _ w lAw �`aka i..°uu4h'•,,, .�� .z. � •_�,. ,� ,; tr.#. _�, i. ^• o§�a� xi tom' � Y •`x 3 q a Attac -orient rJ crty of san hits vsispo conseuvation an0 open space eLement 7.22.2. Use of native California plants in urban landscaping. Landscaping should incorporate native plant species, with selection appropriate for location. 7.22.3. Heritage Tree Program. The City will continue a program to designate and help protect"heritage trees." 7.22.4. Preservation of grassland communities and other habitat types. Grassland communities and other habitat types in the Greenbelt and in designated Open Space areas shall be preserved. 7.22.5. Soil conservation and landform modification. Public and private development projects shall be designed to prevent soil erosion, minimize landform modifications to avoid habitat disturbance and conserve and reuse on-site soils. Goal 7.23: Minimize synthetic or organic environmental toxins. Policies 7.23.1. Environmental toxins. The City will avoid the use of synthetic organic chemicals unless there is no practical alternative, and support use of integrated pest management techniques. When the use of a synthetic organic chemical cannot be avoided, the material shall be selective (its effect limited to the target species so far as possible), and it shall be applied selectively. 7.30 Programs 7.30.1. Protect natural communities. 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 Communities policies above. B. Participate in any area-wide planning efforts such as Habitat Conservation Plans under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. C. Participate in environmental review conducted by other agencies for projects that could affect natural communities in the San Luis Obispo planning area. D. Develop and maintain current benchmark information on habitat types and conditions, and the known and likely locations of listed species, population number and density estimates, limiting factors, environmental threats and other pertinent information for use in planning and environmental review. 7.30.2. Replace non-native with native vegetation. The City and private development will protect and enhance habitat by removing non-native vegetation that detracts from habitat values and by replanting it with native California species. The Natural Resources Manger will prioritize projects and enlist the help of properly trained volunteers to assist in non-native vegetation removal and replanting when appropriate. City Council Hearing Draft 37 March 2006 L 1 ' `1 l i--� Alachinent 5 crty of san Luis-osispo conseRvation an0 open space Element 7.30.3. Preserve ecotones. Condition or modify development approvals to ensure that "ecotones," or natural transitions along the edges of different habitat types; are preserved and enhanced because of their importance to wildlife. Natural ecotones of particular concern include those along the margins of riparian corridors, marshlands, vernal pools, and Oak woodlands where they transition to grasslands and other habitat types. 7.30.4. Protect wildlife corridors. Condition development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance to wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between sensitive habitat areas. 7.30.5. Creek Setbacks. The City will maintain creek setbacks to include: an appropriate separation from the physical top of bank, the appropriate floodway as identified in the Flood Management Policy, native riparian plants or wildlife habitat and space for paths called for by any City-adopted plan (Figure 4). In addition, creek setbacks should be consistent with the following: A. The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or work areas. B. Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features identified in part A above, whether or not the setback line has been established. C. The features which normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach where there is no practicable alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent with the Open Space Element. D. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this element. Removal of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent properties. 7.30.6. Tree Committee. The Tree Committee will help implement Natural Communities policies through expanded tree preservation and planting programs.. City Council Hearing Draft 38 March 2006 l - iS� r" I A tachi-iient 5 iicity of san Luis usispo conservation ana open space Element Figure 4: Creek Corridor and Setbacks f edges of riparian vegetation >i i creek , -ceekI I� creek corridor - I I 1 setback ; setback I I i I y I I Y 0 top of bank 0�top of bank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Council Hearing Draft 39 March 2006 i city of san Luitv6wspo conseitvation and open space element 'tacflment 5 C;1 z 11 s i The Morros of San Luis Obispo with Chorro Valley and Morro Bay in the distance, with State Highway I crossing diagonally 8.0 Open Space 8.10 Background. San Luis Obispo's desirability as a place to live, visit and do business is closely tied to its scenic character, environmental quality and surrounding open space. This picturesque valley community, traversed by hillsides and creeks and surrounded by mountains, farmlands and oak woodlands has a unique scenic character. San Luis Obispo's charm and character have enriched residents, attracted newcomers and supported a healthy tourist industry. It is this character, defined in large measure by the City's open spaces and Greenbelt, which must be protected for present and future generations while allowing for sufficient City growth. As discussed in the Land Use Element's Preamble, Vision and Community Goals, community decisions must respect and protect open space values. As explained below, the Greenbelt is a tool for preserving habitat, protecting air and water quality, protecting view sheds and defining the City's urbanized boundaries. San Luis Obispo's future must be compatible with the preservation of its open spaces -- hills, creeks, farmlands, its historic resources and other environmental assets. Without these, San Luis Obispo's charm and character will be lost. 8.15 Understanding open space. Unless noted otherwise, this element uses the term "open space" in the generic sense -- that is, any land or water area that remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state and which is generally free of structures, inside or outside City limits, within the San Luis Obispo Planning City Council Hearing Draft 40 March 2006 I - 14�,a, MAT ctty of san Luis oiMspo conseuvation an0 open space Element A'lachmlent 5 Area. As more precisely described in the Land Use Element, such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel such as a Small-Wilderness Preservation Area, or large tracts of land. Such lands may include: prime agricultural soils, range- and farmland; creeks, marshes, watershed and floodplains; scenic resources; plant and animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas. Open space is, however, a broad term and often applied to other situations. For example, going from the general to most specific sense of the term, open space includes: A. Undeveloped or mostly undeveloped lands that are generally free of structures, including privately-owned agricultural land, "Rural Lands" under County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction, government-owned lands, and lands held by land trusts or other non-profit entities. These lands appear to be open space but may or may not have any official open space protection. The City's "Greenbelt"consists mostly of these rural lands. B. Lands designated as "Open Space" in the General Plan Land Use Element Map. These can.be under either public or private ownership, either inside or outside the City limits. Such designation does not provide any official protection for lands outside the City Limits unless they are owned by the City or have open space easements over them. C. Lands designated as "Interim Open Space" in the General Plan Land Use Element Map. These are lands to be kept open for an indefinite period until constraints (such as flooding or access) can be resolved and urban development or Open Space designation is appropriate. D. Lands owned or controlled by the City and intended for long term preservation of agricultural, natural resources, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, passive recreation, visual resources, watershed and for other environmental purposes. Related terms that are often used interchangeably with open space include the terms Greenbelt, Conservation/Open Space zone and Agriculture. "Greenbelt" refers to a geographic area, shown in Figure 5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element, within which the City seeks to use open space as a tool to achieve multiple community objectives, such as soil and water conservation, open space preservation, wildlife enhancement, growth management, public safety, passive recreation, view preservation and clearly defined urban boundaries. The second is "Conservation/Open Space Zone", shown as "C/OS zoning in the Official Zoning Map. Properties zoned C/OS are subject to specific provisions and land use standards under the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Agriculture is generally open land where there has been a history of agricultural cultivation or keeping of livestock, which remains generally open and in such use, and is a specific land use designation in the General Plan Land Use Element. 8.20 Goals and Policies Goal 8.21: Greenbelt. Open space outside the urban area. Secure and maintain a healthy and attractive Greenbelt around the urban area, comprised of diverse and connected natural City Council Hearing Draft 41 March 2006 - ;�`tac��iiant 5 crty of san Lutb-ompo conseRvation anb open space element habitats, and productive agricultural land that reflects the City's watershed and topographic boundaries. Policies 8.21.1. Open space preserved. The City will preserve as open space or agriculture the undeveloped and agricultural land outside the urban reserve line, including the designated Greenbelt as shown in Figure 5, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise. Goal 8.22: Open space within the urban area. Within the urban area,the City will secure and maintain a diverse network of open land encompassing 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 B. Laguna Lake and its undeveloped margins C. Wetlands and vernal.pools D. Undeveloped land within the Urban Reserve not intended for urban uses E. Grassland communities and woodlands F. Wildlife habitat and corridors for the health and mobility of individuals and of the species G. The habitat of species listed as threatened or endangered by the State or Federal governments H. Prime agricultural soils and economically feasible farmland(Figure 10). I. Groundwater recharge areas J. Historically open-space settings for cultural resources, native and traditional landscapes K. Hills, ridgelines and the Morros. L. Scenic rock outcroppings and other significant geological features. M. Unique plant and animal communities, including"species of local concern." Policies 8.22.1. Open space within the urban area. The City will preserve as Open Space, or as Agriculture, the areas listed in Goal 8.22, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do so. (Figure 6.) City Council Hearing Draft 42 March 2006 k5 tachi neat crty of san Wit-oBrspo conseRvatron anO open space-Element Figure 5. Existing and Proposed Greenbelt.Boundaries City Council Hearing Draft 43 March 2006 ! a 7. r• � • ! a w ti IT tl W114 V. EkrrrCY• _ �._ �^ Y rl�ti�•C .sir.' r _, All ...Y \ " :C;ti . ,�� �.i� `r �.. .mow • w 1T.:. d .I 4 � moi.• is s city of san luib oBispo conseuvation anb open space element 8.22.2. Open-space buffers. When activities close to open space resources within or outside the urban area could harm them, the City will require adequate buffers between the activities and the resources. The City will actively 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. Buffers provide distance in the form of setbacks, within which certain features or activities are not allowed or conditionally allowed. Buffers shall also use techniques such as planting and wildlife-compatible fencing. Buffers shall be adequate for the most sensitive species in the protected area and shall complement the protected area's habitat values. Buffers shall be required in the following situations: A. Between urban development --including parks and public facilities— and natural habitats such as creeks, wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines, Morros, scenic rock outcrops and other significant geological features, 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); B. Between urban development and agricultural operations, to address dust, noise, odors, chemical use, and access by people and pets; 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. F. Urban development or uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line (URL)to provide a transition to open space or greenbelt areas. Transition areas should add to the preservation of open space lands or resources. At a minimum, a 50 foot transition area (preserved in essentially a natural state) should be provided within the project along the project boundary with the URL, unless the transition area is defined elsewhere in this Element. City Council Hearing Draft 44 March 2006 1 - rS�l A'_tachment 5 crty of san lues owspo conseuvation an0 open space element Figure 6. Open Space Resources City Council Hearing Draft 45 March 2006 • ,1 1 ,1 1. , •�+ `� tiMINI ,y _I Wit rX mall- v � ���i. 611, . Y ��i C.-'� `L_��.'�� `��•'L`''[1i17a( WRL MA •t M11111 A`tachi-tient 5 city of san tutsostspo conservation anb open space Element Goal 8.23: Open space for safety. Secure open space where development would be unsafe. Generally,the following locations are considered to be unsafe: A. Areas within the most restrictive aviation safety zone as defined in the Airport Land Use Plan. B. Land straddling 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 Policies 8.23.1. Open space for safety. The City will preserve as Open Space, or as Agriculture, the areas listed in Goal 8.23, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do so. (See also the Safety Element.) Goal 8.24: Open space access and restoration. The City intends to allow 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. The main goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal of providing passive recreation where it will not harm the environment. Policies 8.24.1 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 visually or physically restricted in sensitive areas. 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" in the General Plan Land Use Map). The City shall also designate open space areas that are not intended for human presence or activity. 8.24.2 Creekside trails. Creekside trails shall not be established in or across from existing, substantially developed residential areas of the City (such as the San Luis Drive area) where such trails could create a compatibility or privacy conflict with surrounding land uses. 8.24.3. Landform modifications in open space. Buildings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or traditional landscapes on open space lands should be minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as parking or roads, shall not exceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area, on a parcel of ten acres or more,three percent. City Council Hearing Draft 46 March 2006 1 - 1LoD iicrty op san Luis ostspo consettvation an0 open space Element k1tachlient 5 8.24.4. Open-space enhancement and restoration. The City will enhance and restore open space resources identified in Goals 8.21, 8.22 and 8.23, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do so. 8.24.5. Fire prevention activities. Except in an emergency, fire prevention activities such as fuel clearance or thinning, grading, prescribed burns or other activities shall be conducted pursuant to an approved Conservation Plan, and under the supervision of the Natural Resources Manager and Fire Marshall. Habitat preservation shall be given equal priority with fire prevention. 8.24.6. Passive Recreation. The City will consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources, in accordance with an approved open space conservation plan. Passive recreation activities may include: hiking, nature study, off- road bicycle use, rock climbing, horseback riding or other passive recreational activities as permitted and regulated in the Open Space Ordinance. 8.24.7. Determination of appropriate uses for City-owned open space. Determination of the appropriate land management practices and the recreational uses of City-owned open space lands shall be made on an area-specific basis, based upon the policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the Open Space Ordinance (SLOW 12.22), and the adopted "Conservation Guidelines for City-Owned Open Space Lands." These policies will be applied through the public planning and review process specified in the Conservation Guidelines, and will guide the preparation and adoption of Conservation Plans for City-owned open space properties. Goal 8.25: Open space mitigation. The City will avoid the loss of and require mitigation for the loss of open space resources. Policies 8.25.1. Loss of open space. The City may permit loss of an open space resource as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 only when: A. Preserving the resource would permanently deprive the landowner of all reasonable use, and acquisition by the City ora conservation organization is not '- ^ feasible;or -> _ B. There is a demonstrated need, based on public health, safety, or View of Cuesta Pass, looking north along State Highway 101,just , _ north of the City City Council Hearing Draft 47 March 2006 1 ' ( (ot Atachine nt 5 city of san Luis-oatspo conseRvation ana open space element welfare, and there is no practical alternative to loss of the resource; or C. The resource is prime agricultural soil on a small parcel essentially surrounded by urban development, and the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt through transfer of development credit, dedication of open space easements or fee ownership, direct funding for open space acquisition or another equally effective method, as further described in the Land Use Element. 8.25.2. Extent of open space loss. The extent of loss or degree of harm to the resource shall be minimized, consistent with the justifications for any loss provided above. Where creeks must be modified for flood protection or bank stability, the modification shall be patterned after natural conditions to the maximum extent feasible. 8.25.3. Required mitigation. 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. A. 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 lost, of equal quality; in the following order of preference: 1) The same kind on the same site 2) The same kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo planning area) 3) A similar kind (such as seasonal wetland in place of freshwater marsh) on the same site 4) A similar kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area) B. 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). C. 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. D. 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. City Council Hearing Draft 48 March 2006 I - I `j crty of san Luis oaispo conseuvation an0 open space element A ��� � � Figure 7: Habitat types, City of San Luis Obispo City Council Hearing Draft 49 March 2006 Al OW liva city of san lugs-ompo conseuvation and open space element A4tachinent 5 E. 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. F. 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. G. 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) Hillside 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 9.21.1) 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 8). 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. 3) City will encourage the County to create no new parcels within the greenbelt, with the exception of those permitted under the County's agriculture cluster incentive. Outside of cluster districts, allowed parcel sizes within the greenbelt should be no smaller, and the number of dwellings allowed on a parcel should be no greater than as designated in the September 2002 San Luis Obispo Area Plan and related County codes. H. The City will encourage the County to adopt and implement a mandatory cluster district for appropriate areas of the Greenbelt under County jurisdiction to preserve open space qualities,consistent with this Element. I. The City will encourage other agencies to follow these policies. 8.30 Programs 8.30.1. Protect open space resources. The City will take the following actions to protect open space, and 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. City Council Hearing Draft 50 March 2006 A"+achinen 5 crty of san Luis\oBispo conseuvation ana open space element B. Promote open space protection by annexing and applying City Conservation and Open Space (C/OS) and Agriculture zoning to private property where appropriate and 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 for open space, pursuant to City Open Space Guidelines and acquisition priorities. (See 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. The City will explore all potential funding sources and other creative incentive programs, including general obligation bonds, sales tax increase, property transfer tax, assessment districts, tax incentives, and state and federal loans and grants. 3) Advocate countywide planning and funding for open space protection. 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, design and operate 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, avoid grading adjacent to or within creeks and wetlands and limit livestock access within creeks and wetlands. I. Provide information for citizens and in particular, landowners, on the values and techniques for resource protection and land conservation. J. Improve interagency cooperation for open space acquisition, greenbelt, creeks, wetlands, and wildlife habitat protection in open space areas by coordinating with other government agencies and organizations having interest or expertise in resource protection. K. Avoid imposing taxes or fees that discourage retention of open space or agricultural uses. L. Establish mutually respectful, long-term relationships with landowners, and conservation organizations such as land trusts, and local environmental organizations. M. Maintain the position of Natural Resources Manager so that open space functions are consolidated in one existing city department under one person. N. Natural Resource Manager will establish performance standards and/or dimensions for buffers between open space or agricultural resources and urban uses or development. 8.30.2. Enhance and restore open space. The City will do the following in support of open- space enhancement and restoration, in coordination with other agencies and organizations. City Council Hearing Draft 51 March 2006 l - f[4pLe ( A'�tachcnent 5 crty of san lws ostspo conseRvation ana open space Element The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions within their areas of responsibility. ' - Citizen volunteers and youth groups assist in open space re-vegetation 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. 2) To reverse historical trends of creek channelization and modification, re-establish native riparian (creekside) vegetation. 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 and maintain suitably-sized access corridors through or under new and previously established, man-made obstacles to wildlife movement (such as appropriately sized culverts under arterial streets, highways and other major roads). F. Remove trash, debris, and contaminants, using methods that minimally disrupt the open- space resources. G.Provide continuing community education and outreach for all citizens, youth and youth groups, and property owners on open space and natural resource values, programs and responsibilities. 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 8.25.1) J. Following adequate public review, adopt conservation plans for open space areas under City easement or fee ownership. The plans shall include a resource inventory, needs analysis, acceptable levels of change, grazing, monitoring, wildlife (including listed species, sensitive species, and species of local concern, management and implementation strategies, including wildfire preparedness plans. K.Identify and secure alternative funding mechanisms for re-planting degraded creek corridor sections with native California vegetation. City Council Hearing Draft 52 March 2006 (- [Ce city of san Luis oBispo conseuvation ano open space element Figure 8: 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 --- ------ -------------- ------ --- - -- - --- - - - - - -------i----- - creekcorridor & wetland LLJ i ------ - road --------- ---road -- ------road City Council Hearing Draft 53 March 2006 —) A;tachrnent 5 city of san Luis-owspo conseuvation and open spact element Figure 9. Creeks and Wetlands City Council Hearing Draft 54 March 2006 q 'a w cc z y �+ a Yp� 0 L � = !o � o J W Co =g C U UCL m OC 3 �G N L U �T o� O O Y Y � ;, f- ^.m i j'.'q Y`Ft'�"G. •.,. �'be'•t*�'�f e �' y 3 ?'� NL.v r � � .. E � y z ✓ t y^,h .,a.4"$a.• H��'ti'.. v ,�y r1.,4, "3'4 t u r r S � 1�• n p,, ;� v 4 C;y�9 � rs+ t t �t. Rv'h `• >�: SK�F C C • P15.1 K S r n r WPI T ILL i c.� 1 f -� r � _ a :S"ter .�, "7 m3 � ~ �•t�� � k 1 rr41Y. j ". e ;� s• t .r+ . "' t .S � 'n^ x F +�plJi;r G �? f� ! r. C f t fl w" i '�:' � .� ,3 0 7 � v ..•, Y,i„ ��Hull � Y �y. t �x 1 �r � �'tKb� �� _ *4C �� _�x4t r _ �;t e., k ky .y1�.1; ?t + .# '" " •�"' )r Li ..o t sss�i��' 4 e fY b� +'S ryJ ^i � f �r. "5, t ~r {^4 di �CbF h`v 5 •. �� .'., �.. � wa �: ` tiItto y( y, nv 5 fya y,, t'�i'�f 'i� "' '.- f >•rr{ :t^.. ' .i. ,��,r " •i,.s'. w �� yr � k:a -i w? „ :r pd}_f'��, ' �r'I a*+k, '��✓i �' ,�• 19.: F..., a'Y4'1 j `` �;` y n �Tr' �v r � n 4 ¢i I,.�R "fr)t � �r!{'��•. • °fir ^I N'�"Y}�,����'J1..Va !1 1 �, xx „j"4� f .t r h G♦ � k1+.! '+ W� �,-'�+y 111 r� C � t �n � dj. � � f ! crty of san Luis osispo conseuvation an0 open space element Figure 10. Prime Agricultural Soils City Council Hearing Draft 55 March 2006 i lig 1 `^� A6 - r air` ~�,. t ♦� / �N r �`'F``,�i Q,,-� � ::y 1 Igo Im ,�� �` — � � � `�«j•� , �'^ ` '�`,j'' a ''� !� �`" ��.; " `'�, ''� " � , ♦ .,mak t' �T \�j i ctty of san lues oBispo conseuvation ana open space element 9.0 Views 9.10 Background San Luis Obispo has been favored with a beautiful natural setting. Also, the community has strived - for attractive urban development. Protection of these assets enhances the community's quality of life and economic vitality. Protection involves both the integrity of the resource being viewed, - ``�`�` - 43 and lines of sight to the resource. 9.20 Goals and Policies Goal 9.21: Viewsheds. Maintain and create - attractive rural landscapes and cityscapes. "" City Limits form a well-defined urban edge, Policies with open space beyond. 9.21.1. Preserve 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, but is not limited to buildings, signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility and telecommunication lines and structures. Such development shall: 1) Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent; 2) Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting; 3) Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect the setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its setting; 4) Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species or rarity, 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. 9.21.2. 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 City Council Hearing Draft 56 March 2006 l - Irl city of san Luis ostspo conseuvation and open spacE Emsnt design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical and architectural resources. Plans for sub- areas of the city may require certain architectural styles. 9.21.3: Utilities and signs. In and near public streets, plazas, and parks, features that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary features, such as utility and communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should be designed and placed so as not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or surrounding hillsides, or farmland, consistent with the primary objective of safety. New billboard signs shall not be allowed, and existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon as practicable, as provided in the Sign Regulations. 9.21.4. Streetscapes and major roadways. In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes and arterial streets), the City will promote the creation of "streetscapes" and linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the City's visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City will: A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways; B. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings; C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way; D. Emphasizing the planting and maintaining California Native tree species of sufficient height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian- oriented features to enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety. F. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures. 9.21.5..View protection in new development. The City will carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines and Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. 9.21.6. Night-Sky preservation. City will adopt a "night sky" ordinance to preserve nighttime views, prevent light pollution, and to protect public safety by establishing street and public area lighting standards. Goal 9.22: Viewing opportunities. Provide ample opportunities for viewing attractive features. City Council Hearing Draft 57 March 2006 1 - 1 -74 n ach: alt 5 city of san luis-osrspo conseRvation ana open space element Policies 9.22.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. 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 10 are designated as scenic roadways. A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. B. Utilities,traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views, consistent with safety needs. C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features. D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be considered"sensitive" and require architectural review. 9.22.2. Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as amenities -- _-- --- - views from and within private development sites. Private -/' development designs should cause \ - � _ F the least view blockage for `^^' ;H~ neighboring property that allows r a _ project objectives to be met. �- ,��� — a Islay Hill 9.22:3. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting shall avoid: operating at unnecessary locations, levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare (intense line-of-site contrast); and frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing. 9.30 Programs. The City shall do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate: 9.30.1. Public facilities. Locate and design public facilities and utilities consistent with General Plan goals and policies. 9.30.2. Update community design guidelines. . Update and maintain Community Design Guidelines to address views from scenic routes and include them in design standards in plans for sub-areas of the City.. City Council Hearing Draft 58 March 2006 � - res A'tach nent 5 city of san Luis owspo conseitvation anb open space Element good 9.30.3. Sign regulations. Maintain and apply sign regulations consistent with General Plan goals and policies. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single low profile standard. 9.30.4. Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental review and architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual impacts and quality. 9.30.5. Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects affecting important scenic resources and views from public places. 9.30.6. View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant impact. 9.30.7. Development proposals in unincorporated County. Review County-proposed general plan amendments and development proposals within the City's Planning Area for consistency with City General Plan goals and policies. 9.30.8. Scenic highway designation. Advocate State and County scenic highway designations and protective programs for scenic routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other communities. 9.30.9. Undergrounding utilities. Place underground existing overhead utilities, with highest priority for scenic roadways,entries to the city, and historical districts. 9.30.10. Prohibit billboards. Not allow additional billboards. 9.30.11. Billboard removal. Remove existing billboards through amortization, conditions of development approval, and grants for enhancing open-space and transportation corridors, with highest priority for scenic roadways,entries to the city, and historical districts. 9.30.12. Preserve the Morros.. In cooperation with the County of San Luis Obispo, other government agencies and property owners, the City will seek to preserve the Morros as open space through preservation incentives, easements, land acquisition, or other measures to preserve visual qualities. 9.30.13. Monitor viewsheds. The City will establish and maintain a program of describing and monitoring viewsheds within and adjacent to City limits to establish a photographic baseline of visual setting and conditions as part of the Land Use Element update process. City Council Hearing Draft 59 March 2006 k — Le A' achi-nent 5 crty of san lws-oBispo conseRvation an6 open space Element Figure 11. Scenic Roadways and Vistas City Council Hearing Draft 60 March 2006 I!1!� s Mr E`! tv . lar � •. a' •,t ` ;iay STM - s b• r - .- �,.a li. '�• �i, y'1 G�t ,..''� $(� ti. e� y.r G � �''• ,qt' a{�,,+ 3 ,�yp��s ry y�'-¢�-iJ• • ! _ t /�' v 'a fie•}'[���r yjpy,L yy�pp�••o L >r_ +'v�� -�}�tr��.�t�e1 C t l��i�o YiK'n,a.+a"S.`�'��'{+ Y^ .' ♦ _ _�' WE s 'sem-` v � ~ ta atii�•"� 1•{!_,a�;+' �) f � � ` •9 is yY itis', r� '" �}. Y a�'ii♦•♦ [� Y. " ,4-T. P y� *II YA .ter♦ '9� s+EX�'. }I��.} • ` 1 '3! a y to M 4 *�r „n 'ttYA�= � t • �y �v�� ��f�'�� iP�"?Cer �L'^ jBP,t 5 :.YF�t�a`1��� �� t t FP_ � a��.�r�rrt 1� . � r': .'A<�rc I%ti•�,. �y� �. `. .sw1� ��� I�ri .. <.d! r' -. i��Yii�ltit£.S���'-.lam„� f i�'�K-•/9tq ��y ?"t-. .;♦�a�iC"ix$�*1{'�;�,p,y :• �, -� f AS \'.ern S 3A a• C. i'f .`. y}•.�e3 aa,7•a s t, �tlaF�JF�r. � a •, t• e', � - .Tiiy h#^7�{..If ,` � a.µv"4.$.�{4.t s3 ..1 t}♦ J '��idly ! ya�iR,� a. •,,aap,, Y' e ]Y� i.r �N 1 ^, '•'L c' �,i���.,fv m, l-. 1. r:•o^"i x}°' f1 `u• " r��l �' vS. ♦ ifl' .•titW{j a✓ '..� ���,[yF'`�'+a. Z{<'F ^ a ��yT..i t. '^-na.. '�tl.�q' ,� "'�r taa/♦��I�Z u i � a�. 3 �t �1 , 11 `✓t'C. ' '.Ar6 fY Of i .CYC :}lJ rr ♦ i y� .Ago;i J:^� i �?i T.413 a�X�'�����1, -�•~ + � ��. \f�lS`�.ir�j�y�♦ - ij a e� � �y". - �k'p. i:�r �i + "sail vF i. >,yaa{a a �♦i� d��tc�"i ]4 a vrL a$�t. i'� .:,,,,i'-v - 't ��"� „P► �`. ��t� ..�c..tl_* ^�k ^r�Y4�Y w+J�'r'1�'° `iiP'� Jm, �• .d '• e `�! r+ .� �{s�v `* t,W—'l�.,I� � .t � S.IG i tr f� i�to q',.", `. � i{k '�i � ±-a �,.�, 'N�^t ♦ �t^'♦� s__�� Y . � AGS*tr���� � 1'a MI r'�-•,/�,a,•� �..�' >rt1;1�h �p 1�M�C.•`4 i �.,, fR -y, F is 7i •'"by��Zii ��/ • I � �jr.� ate. 1r t/ n/��.JY t {� Aaacivneni r crty of san lois osispo conseuvation an0 open space Element hearing, and only after a 60-day period in which the decision can be suspended pending reversal by referendum. 9. The City's Natural Resource Manager will be responsible for the Open Space Acquisitions Program. City Council Hearing Draft 75 March 2006 f I A" aCh infill J crty of san Luis bsrspo conselmation an0 open space element 10.0 Water 10.10 Introduction Water is the fluid of life, essential for natural and human communities. The Water and Wastewater Management Element contains detailed -- information and policies, focusing on the relationship between urban water demand and supply. The following goals and policies address T �: water as a component of a sustainable community.. 10.20 Goals and Policies Goal 10.21: Urban water needs. Meet urban water needs without substantial harm to Wastewater reclamation facility on Prado Road natural communities or productive agriculture. Policies 10.21.1. Water use planning. In planning for urban water needs, the City will adopt and strive for the most efficient available practices. The City will encourage other agencies to follow this policy. "The most efficient available practices", means behavior and devices that use the least water for a desired outcome, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies. 10.21.2. Competition for supplies. The City will consider the effects of water supply projects on agriculture, wildlife habitat and stream flows, and should ensure continued water availability for these uses in planning for long-term water supplies. The City will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to follow this policy. Goal 10.22: Water Quality. Protect and maintain water quality in aquifers,Laguna Lake, streams, and wetlands that supports all beneficial uses, including domestic supply,agriculture,and wildlife habitat. Policies 10.22.1. Water quality. The City will employ the best available practices for pollution avoidance and control, and will encourage others to do so. "Best available practices" means behavior and technologies that result in the highest water quality, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies. City Council Hearing Draft 61 March 2006 t — f e'-'sO city of san luib osispo conseuvation and open spacr, element F ttach ileo$ 5 wiu 10.22.2. Ahwahnee Water Principles. In planning for its water operations, programs and services, the City will be guided by the Ahwahnee Water Principles and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to follow these policies: A. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented so that automobile-generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible. B. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long-term water resource sustainability. C. Water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape. D. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater. E. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce flooding. F. Dual plumbing that allows grey water from showers, sinks and washers to be reused for landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development, consistent with State guidelines. G. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water. H. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and more efficient water-using industrial equipment should be incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted in _ remodeled buildings. -- Looking southwest from Bishop �,•� ~�' - Peak, toward Laguna Lake City Council Hearing Draft 62 March 2006 � - IFS 1 Attachment 5 city of san Luis ustspo consEuvation ana open space element dOGN I. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies. 10.30 Programs 10.30.1. Efficient water use. The City will do the following in support of efficient water use, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do likewise: A. landscaping: 1) Choose plants that are suitable for the climate and their intended function, with an emphasis on native and drought-tolerant plants. 2) Prepare soils for water penetration and retention. 3) Design and operate suitable and efficient irrigation systems. 4) The City will encourage drought-tolerant landscaping, vegetable gardens and fruit trees in lieu of large expanses of lawn or other more water-demanding plantings. B. Landscape maintenance: Landscaped areas will be properly designed for efficient water use, and shall be properly installed and maintained, including the upkeep and replacement of low-flow irrigation fixtures and equipment. C. Facilitate use of tertiary-treated water and seek to legalize use of grey water for non- potable household purposes. D. Promote water conservation through leak control in residential, commercial, industrial and public plumbing systems. 10.30.2. Maintain water quality. The City will do the following in to maintain a high level of water quality, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do likewise: A. Design and operate its water supply, treatment, and distribution system to prevent adverse effects on water quality(potential point source of pollutants such as chlorine). B. Design and operate its wastewater collection and treatment system to prevent adverse effects on water quality (potential point source of pollutants such as untreated sewage and chlorine). C. Design, construct, and maintain its facilities such as parks, buildings and grounds, storm water facilities and parking to prevent adverse effects on water quality (potential point sources for pollutants such as petroleum and non-point sources of runoff contaminated with fertilizers, pesticides, litter, and vehicle residues). D. Regulate the design; construction, and operation of private facilities over which the City has permit authority to ensure they will not have adverse effects on water quality (potential point sources. for, as examples, sediment from construction and chemicals used in operations, and non-point sources for contaminated runoff). E. Participate with other agencies, in particular the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, in watershed planning and management. City Council Hearing Draft 63 March 2006 1 - rga Attachment 5 city of san luis osispo consettvation ana open spacE element F. In locations subject to flooding, not allow activities, such as outdoor storage, that would be substantial sources of chemical or biological contamination during a flood, even though buildings associated with the activities would meet flood-protection standards. G. Establish standards for non-point source water pollution in cooperation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. H. Establish a program of baseline water quality testing for City creeks. I. Identify and protect groundwater recharge areas to maintain suitable groundwater levels and to protect groundwater quality for existing and potential municipal water sources. City Council Hearing Draft 64 March 2006 cmy of san Luis oBispo conseuvation an0 open space Element ac 'i en$ 5 allas Appendix A: Species of Local Concern The City is concerned with maintaining healthy populations of the following species in the long term, even though they are not listed for protection under State or Federal laws. (Presence or absence of a picture has no significance; pictures are not in proportion.) Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy Plants Clay Mariposa Lily Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient, suitable habitat loss. areas as open space; survey designated potential development sites before or at. time of development proposal, and protect, relocate, or propagate individuals. Club-Haired Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient, suitable habitat Mariposa Lily loss. areas as open space; survey designated potential development sites before or at time of development proposal, and protect, relocate,or propagate individuals. Hoover Button Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient suitable habitat areas Celery loss. as open space; survey designated potential development sites before or at time of development proposal, and protect, relocate, or propagate individuals. Fishes Prickly Sculpin Dependence on stream Protect water quantity and quality. habitat; habitat degradation. -Amphibians Western Toad Limited distribution; habitat Designate likely habitat areas as open loss and degradation. space; survey approved activity sites prior to activity, and relocate individuals to suitable, safe habitat. California Newt Limited distribution; habitat. Designate likely habitat areas as open loss and degradation. space; survey approved project sites prior to activity, and relocate individuals to suitable, safe habitat. w City Council Hearing Draft 65 March 2006 1 - I ' city of san lu,a oBis o conseRvation an0 open aL Element / '.cl��l�'lc flt 5 P P P Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy Reptiles Western Skink Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient habitat areas as open loss and degradation. space; survey approved project sites prior to activity, and relocate individuals to suitable, safe habitat. Coast Horned Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient habitat areas as open Lizard loss and degradation. space; survey approved project sites prior to activity, and relocate individuals to "t ram suitable, safe habitat. Ringneck Snake Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient habitat areas as open loss and degradation. space; survey approved project sites prior a to activity, and relocate individuals to � . suitable, safe habitat. Striped Racer Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient habitat areas as open loss and degradation. space; survey approved project sites prior to activity, and relocate individuals to suitable, safe habitat. Birds Raptors in general Reduction of prey species Designate sufficient habitat areas as open due to habitat loss and space; manage City-owned open space to degradation; susceptibility to sustain prey populations; avoid contaminants in food chain. introducing contaminants to food chain; survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting individuals. Maintain perches, including artificial ones. Cooper Hawk Limited local distribution. In particular, survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Sharp-Shinned Limited local distribution. In particular, survey proposed activity Hawk sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Golden Eagle Limited local distribution. In particular, survey proposed activity i sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Ferruginous Hawk Limited local distribution. See general measures for ra tors. City Council Hearing Draft 66 March 2006 �,l i C city of san luts vaispo conseuvation ano open spact Element ,� dChi i erii 5 -Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy Northern Harrier Limited local distribution. In particular, survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. White-Tailed Kite Limited local distribution. In particular, survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Prairie Falcon Limited local distribution. In particular, survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Burrowing Owl Limited local distribution; In particular, protect fields and creek- loss of burrowing sites that banks containing, or.suitable for, are used for rest, cover, and burrows; avoid disturbance of burrows nesting. by people and pets. Herons in general Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; protect loss and degradation. rookeries and avoid activities adjacent to rookeries that would disrupt nesting. Great Blue Heron Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; protect. loss and degradation. rookeries and avoid activities adjacent to ° rookeries that would disrupt nesting. 1f LN 9�. Black-Crowned Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; protect Night Heron loss and degradation. rookeries and avoid activities adjacent to rookeries that would disrupt nesting. Great Egret Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; protect City Council Hearing Draft 67 March 2006 ( — � a�(� A'lach«ent 5 city of san Luis oatspo conseRvation an0 open spa(-= element Giu Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy loss and degradation. rookeries and avoid activities adjacent to rookeries that would disrupt nesting. 13 - . Snowy Egret Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; protect loss and degradation. rookeries and avoid activities adjacent to rookeries that would disrupt nesting. rd " .f American Bittern Limited distribution;habitat Protect and enhance wetlands. loss and degradation. 4 Y Western Least Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; in Bittern loss and degradation. particular, survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Long-Billed Curlew Limited distribution; habitat Protect and enhance wetlands; in loss and degradation. particular, survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. qq J Vaux Swift Limited distribution. Survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. City Council Hearing Draft 68 March 2006 1 — c29 A_tachment 5 city of san Luis owspo conseRvation an0 open space Element i� Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy Rufous Limited distribution. Survey proposed activity sites prior to Hummingbird activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Roadrunner Likely limit of historic range; Protect sufficient edge habitat (especially habitat degradation and among chaparral, grassland, and scrub reduced prey within historic communities). range. v e Warblers in general Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. Yellow Warbler Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. Survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Wrens in general Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. Vireos Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. Flycatchers Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. � Y Olive-sided Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in ,Flycatcher predation by pets and feral 2articular, avoid scattered residential City Council Hearing Draft 69 March 2006 =r city of san Luis osispo conseuvation and open space Element Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy cats. development in natural areas. Survey proposed activity sites prior to activity, and avoid disturbing nesting areas. Grosbeaks Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. Sparrows (all native Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats; in species) predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential urc� cats. development in natural areas. Rufous-crowned Habitat loss and degradation; Protect riparian and edge habitats;in Sparrow predation by pets and feral particular, avoid scattered residential cats. development in natural areas. California Gull Limited distribution. Avoid disturbance of nesting areas. ZC : (chickspictured) Loggerhead Shrike Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient habitat areas as open loss and degradation. space. California Homed Limited distribution; habitat Designate sufficient habitat areas as open Lark loss and degradation. space. Mammals Mountain Lion Limited distribution; historic Avoid urban expansion into habitat areas; pattern of treating lions and manage City-owned open space beyond some prey as pests; habitat the urban edge to provide suitable loss or encroachment by habitat. Provide wildlife corridors for City Council Hearing Draft 70 March 2006 A4tach,!-len! J crty of san Iws 6wspo consetwatton ana open space et.sment Species Reason for Listing City Conservation Strategy human activities (resulting in arterial streets and highways. —' conflicts and killing of lions, either intentionally or r through accidental vehicle strikes). Black Bear Limited distribution-, historic Avoid urban expansion into habitat areas; pattern of hunting, and manage City-owned open space beyond habitat loss or encroachment the urban edge to provide suitable n f1 by human activities (resulting habitat. Provide wildlife corridors for in conflicts and killing of arterial streets and highways. bears, either intentionally or J through accidental vehicle strikes). Shrews (all) Limited distribution; habitat Avoid urban expansion into habitat areas; loss and degradation. manage City-owned open space beyond .'` the urban edge to provide suitable habitat. Provide wildlife corridors for arterial streets and highways. Bats (all) Limited distribution; Survey proposed activity sites prior to disruption of roosting sites; activity, and avoid roost sites or,schedule possibly affects of pesticide activities to avoid roost disturbance, contamination for some particularly when immature bats are species. present; avoid use of Big Free-tailed Bat pesticides that could affect susceptible species. Pallid Bat Insects Monarch butterfly Interruption of multi- Maintain sheltering groups of trees; generation migrations due to survey proposed activity sites prior to d loss of roosting sites; activity, and avoid roost sites or schedule pesticide mortality. activities to avoid roost disturbance, particularly when over-wintering flocks are present; avoid use of pesticides near roosts or around concentrations of host plant(milkweed). City Council Hearing Draft 71 March 2006 I TI D Ntach9nent 5 city of san Luis-owspo consei vation an0 open spaces element Picture Credits: Illustrations are modified from images maintained by the University of California at Berkeley, Digital Library Project, originally provided by the following photographers, all associated with the California Academy of Sciences: John Game; Dr. Lloyd Glenn Ingles; Jens V. Vindum; Gerald& Buff Corsi; Marguerite Gregory; George W. Robinson; Jules Strauss; Andrea Jesse; Albert P. Bekker. City Council Hearing Draft 72 March 2006 Q Attach iient 5 crty of san Luib .sBispo conseuvation an0 open spa"zlement Appendix B: Acquisition of Open Space Lands 1. The City will strive for the most effective protection of open space resources through its use of public funds. 2. The City will partner with land trusts, environmental organizations and other groups to acquire open space lands,either in fee or as an easement. 3. To be considered for City acquisition, a site must have value in one or more of the following categories: A) Valuable natural resources, such as habitat for listed species or species of local concern, groundwater, or surface water. B) Scenic qualities,cultural resources, or unusual geologic features. C) Natural hazards to public health or safety, such as flooding or landslide, which make reasonable development on the property unlikely. D) Important opportunities for low-impact recreation, such as connecting the Morros by a hiking trail, linking San Luis Obispo to connecting trails in the unincorporated County, or for providing valuable environmental education opportunities. E) Proximity to land that is already permanently protected as open space, or the property is close to land that is likely to be protected in the foreseeable future, thus forming or potentially forming a continuous area of protected lands. F) Productive or potentially productive agricultural land, or a meaningful buffer that would protect agricultural operations. G) Individually or cumulatively forms an important part of the City's greenbelt. 4. A site that meets one or more of the criteria in part 2 above should have high priority for purchase if it meets one or more of the following criteria: A) The property, or resources on the property, are under threat of incompatible development or irreversible damage. B) The site has timely or attractive purchase considerations or conditions (for example, local cash contributions are available or additional land area is available). C)The site is one of the last sections providing continuous habitat or a wildlife corridor, or a trail linkage. D)The site is of sufficient size that resources are likely to remain intact,even if adjacent properties are developed. City Council Hearing Draft 73 March 2006 crey of san lura owspo conseRvation ana open spark element goad E) Purchase of the site would maximize the effectiveness of acquisition expenditures (for example, purchasing one piece of property may guarantee that a second piece of property remains in open space or agriculture, even though a public agency does not obtain the second property. 5. The City should generally obtain fee ownership for: A) Sites that may have or require frequent public access to or through them, such as a public trail. B) Agricultural lands when (1) there may be harmful impacts from current or future agricultural practices, (2) the property could be leased back for continued agricultural use, or(3)public access is desired. C) Lands for which buying the development rights is almost as expensive as obtaining the land in fee. D) Lands that contain delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement. E) Land on which enforcing an easement would be difficult or costly. 6. A site that meets the criteria in parts 2 through 4 above should generally not be acquired by the City as open space if: A) The site is developed with facilities or structures, and thus would not be consistent with the open space definition. B) The site or resource can be obtained in a timely manner as a condition of City, State, or County development approvals or agreements. C) The site's values are primarily scenic, but the property cannot be readily viewed by the general public. D) Adjacent properties are being developed in a way that is likely to significantly diminish the conservation values of the property in question. E) Management of the property would be very costly, or the terms of an easement would be unusually difficult to enforce. F) The site cannot be acquired with reasonable effort.in relation to its value or purpose. 7. The City should generally obtain an easement or development rights: A) On agricultural lands where the cost of development rights is significantly less than fee ownership. B) Where continuation of the private use is compatible with the open space designation, and management by the City is not required. C) To protect views or scenic resources involving little or no public access. 8. The City will sell, exchange, or transfer an interest in open space lands, or relinquish a permanent open space easement, only by approval of the City Council following a public City Council Hearing Draft 74 March 2006 ..Lachrnent 5 crty of san lu,b batspo conseRvatton anb open space element Appendix C: Management of Open Space Lands 1. The City will manage land that it owns, or controls through lease or easement, to implement the policies of this element, and will encourage other agencies to do so on their land. This Appendix focuses on management practices for lands designated by the Land Use Element as Open Space or Agriculture, but does not exclude other designations such as Park or Public. 2. The City's Conservation Guidelines for Open Spaces, in conjunction with approved individual Open Space Conservation Plans, shall guide day-to-day management decisions and activities in open space areas. ; 3. On open space land that the City manages, the City may decide to permit more than one type of activity or use. Where different uses may not be compatible, the following priorities will guide decisions. The items listed under a priority heading are co-equal. (Land uses are subject to any deed restrictions placed by owners conveying land to the City for open space purposes, and to easements or rights retained by others.) PriorityI • Protection of existing wildlife and natural habitat generally Protection of existing listed species and their existing habitat, or re-establishment of such habitat where damaged Protection of public resources such as water quality (watershed runoff and groundwater recharge) Avoidance of threats to public health and safety, such as ground instability (In the case of vegetation management for wildland fire, separation between hazardous vegetation and structures generally should be provided on the land containing the structure, by the owner of the land containing the structure. Where vegetation management on City-owned land is needed or desirable, management practices will minimize harm to wildlife habitat and scenic resources.) Priority 2 • Public access and passive recreation. • Protection of scenic resources Priority 3 • Scientific study Agricultural production 4. Any encroachment of a private use onto the City's land must benefit the City's ownership and management objectives, and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. (See also #13.) City Council Hearing Draft 76 March 2006 1 - (414 ctty of san Lula .,atspo consERvatton ana open spact'EIEmEnt ti3 t i II ���Il J 5. The City will adopt conservation plans (or master plans with conservation components) for large parcels, and for small parcels where conservation challenges and solutions need to be clarified. The preparation and adoption process shall foster participation by resource- protection experts and by the public. On lands designated Park (such as Laguna Lake; Mission Plaza, and Meadow' Park), the plans will provide for previously established recreational uses. They may provide for passive recreational uses that do not adversely impact listed species and that minimize adverse impacts on other wildlife resources. The City's Lopez Canyon property (outside the planning area) and Reservoir.Canyon property will be managed as Open Space. 6. The City will coordinate law enforcement and emergency response for its open space lands with all potentially affected agencies. 7. The City may lease land to other agencies or organizations for maintenance or service activities,provided the lease agreement reflects all City policies and management objectives. 8. The City should lease lands designated Agriculture for continued agricultural use; provided the lease agreement reflects all City policies and management objectives. 9. The City may provide services to or maintain resource-protection lands owned by others, where warranted by adjacency to City-owned land and long-term resource-protection needs. Such activity shall be subject to an agreement approved by the City Council. The costs for such services shall be borne by the owner, unless the City Council determines that bearing part or all of the cost is necessary to implement City policies. 10.The City will monitor its open space holdings often enough for timely discovery and response to problems such as substantial hazards, encroachment, trespass, and degradation of resources. 11. The City may enlist volunteers, including community organizations and neighboring landowners, to help monitor and maintain open space and recreational resources. Volunteers will receive training appropriate to the tasks they will be performing, including recognition of situations and conditions requiring professional response. 12. The City will maintain a publicly accessible inventory of the location and type of its open space holdings and easements. The inventory will contain or be linked to documentation of the initial condition, and the evolving conditions, of land and easement areas that it acquires.. 13. When compatible with the primary purpose of the open space, the City should use revenue from open space lands, such as agricultural lease payments, to fund open-space maintenance. Such revenues may also be used to acquire open space. 14. Mitigation for the impacts of private projects shall generally be conducted on private lands. However, special circumstances may arise that justify use of City-owned land as a mitigation site: City Council Hearing Draft 77 March 2006 city of san luw ostspo conseuvation ana open space element A. Where there is a clear City benefit from a transaction that involves the use of City land as a mitigation site; or B. Where General Plan goals will be furthered by the appropriate use of City lands for mitigation purposes. Private mitigation actions on City-owned land shall have a clear resource-protection or amenity value to the site, and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Mitigation at a City park shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mitigation on City-owned open space shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Natural Resources Manager. 15. The City may form an Open Space Committee to advise staff on open space acquisition and management. City Council Hearing Draft 78 March 2006 Attachment 5 city or san luis voispo conseuvation an6 open spa ' element Appendix D: Glossary Accessory Structure is a structure that is clearly subordinate or incidental and directly related to the primary structure. Active recreation means recreation facilities typical of urban parks, including play fields (such as soccer or softball), school fields, community centers, tennis courts, picnic areas (group and individual), golf courses and golf-related facilities, recreation resorts, and similar facilities. Active trail corridor is a pedestrian or bicycle trail that typically is (1) used for commuting purposes (provides direct access from school or work and residences), (2) located in an urban area, (3) paved with an all weather surface, and (4) utilized by a significant segment of the City population. Agriculture is generally open land where there has been a history of agricultural cultivation or keeping of livestock, which remains generally open and in such use, and if located within the City limits, is a specific land use designation in the General Plan Land Use Element. Candidate species are taxa the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Game (F&G) are considering for listing as endangered or threatened species. City Limits includes that land within the corporate limits of San Luis Obispo where the City has jurisdiction. Clustering means grouping allowed development on a small area of the site, with the remainder of the property protected as agriculture or open space. See the City's Land Use Element for clustering densities. CNPS means the California Native Plant Society. Conservation means the use of less energy in any form than would otherwise occur. It may be accomplished by greater efficiency (for example, more miles per gallon) or reduced activity (for example, going to a nearby park instead of a distant park). Conservation Plan is a document prepared by the City or a City designated representative which specifies the care and management of specific open space sites or areas, in compliance with the General Plan. This plan outlines resources existing on the site, resource preservation, allowed recreational uses, and other similar programs. Creek is a waterway or portion of waterway designated on the Creek Map by a solid or dashed blue, green, or dark orange line. Drainage ditches, concrete swales, underground culverts and storm drains (as indicated on the Creek Map) are not considered a creek. Creeks located in the City Council Hearing Draft 79 March 2006 t " 191 city of san Luis owspo conseuvatton ano open space element greenbelt or Outer Planning Area are as designated by the USGS 7.5 Minute series quadrangle maps or SLO County data. Creek corridor is that area of the creek between physical top of bank on one side of the creek and physical top of bank on the other side of the creek, or the area between the outer edge of the riparian vegetation on one side of the creek to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation on the other side of the creek (whichever is greater). Creek maintenance means work within a creek corridor that involves the trimming of vegetation, the use of herbicides or pesticides, removing debris or trash, removing vegetation necessary to maintain flood control, or similar maintenance activities. Projects that involve creek alterations should not be considered creek maintenance. Creek restoration is the process of restoring a creek to a more natural condition. Restoration includes planting native riparian vegetation, removing wildlife barriers, providing fish ladders, removing debris and trash, removing invasive non-native creek species, grading and changes to the creek associated with creek restoration work, and other similar activities. Creek restoration is not considered development. Creek Setback.means the minimum distance that development must be located from a creek's physical top of bank or the outer edge of the riparian vegetation (whichever is greater). An adequate creek setback should allow for future natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor, and extend beyond the storm design capacity of a creek. Cultural Resources consist of any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, landscape, structure, or object included in, or eligible for local, State or National historic designation, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource. Cultural resources represent the full range of prehistory and history by indigenous cultures and historic American settlement in San Luis Obispo, including traditional cultural properties. Cultural resources also include the remains of historic settlement and development activities of Euro- Americans, Asians, and other non-Native cultural activities over the past 200 years. Development means the erection of structures (including agricultural buildings and accessory structures such as decks and spas), the associated grading, vegetation removal, and paving associated with structures, the subdivision of land, mining, excavation, and drilling operations. Where creeks, wetlands, unique resources, sensitive habitat, and historical resources occur on- site or may be affected, development also includes agricultural uses (such as tilling the soil, grazing, agricultural grading, and similar uses) as well as grading (greater than 50 cubic yards), paving, and vegetation removal (the removal of a tree or riparian vegetation such that a major portion of a creek bank is exposed) whether such activities are associated with a structure or independent of a structure. Enhancement or restoration of a natural resource is not considered development. City Council Hearing Draft 80 March 2006 JA—k.L �1i lvtli 5 crty of san Wis umspo conseRvation ana open space-eLement Endangered species are any taxa in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Game (F&G). Energy means the capacity to change the characteristics of a material, most often its location or temperature. In the realm of daily life, energy is never really used up, only changed from a more useful state to a less useful state, with all forms eventually dissipating as heat. Flood Prone means subject to a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land from: (1) overflow of inland waters; and/or(2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood prone areas are areas within the 100 year flood plain (zones A and B on FEMA maps), but also include areas in which standing water may accumulate after a relatively short rain or flood due to other sources of water such as runoff from nearby land uses caused by inadequate local drainage facilities. Gateways shall mean portions of the following roadways which are located within the greenbelt: Highway 101 (excluding off-ramps and on-ramps), Broad Street (Highway 227), Los Osos Valley Road, Highway 1, South Mguera Street, and Orcutt Road. Grassland Community is a community of plants of varying size, physical structure, abundance, distribution, and taxonomic affinities typically dominated by herbaceous species but also consisting of grasses and fortis introduced during the Spanish colonial period and a mixture of native California grasses and forbs. Grassland communities provide adequate cover, range, and food products for the plants and animals that typically live in the Valley Grassland Communities that can be found in Central California, the interior valleys of the Coast Ranges, and along the coast of central and southern California. Grassland communities within the City's planning area typically contain many of the following native perennial grasses (next page): Koelaria macrantha Junegrass Melica californica California melic grass M. imperfecta Melic grass M. torreyana Torrey's melic grass Nassella [Stipa]pulchra Purple needlegrass N. [Stipa] lepida Slender needlegrass N. [Stipa] cernua Nodding needlegrass Poa secunda Perennial bluegrass Greenbelt is land area surrounding the City's Urban Reserve Line (as depicted on the Greenbelt Map). The greenbelt generally includes the City's view shed and the northern part of the watershed for San Luis Obispo Creek. The greenbelt may consist of private and public property composed of (1) open space area that is preserved to define the limit to urban growth, (2) open space area utilized to protect natural resources, (3) agricultural lands and associated agricultural uses, and (4) rural lands and recreation. A greenbelt functions to preclude adjacent urban communities from merging together by maintaining urban growth in designated urban areas. City Council Hearing Draft 81 March 2006 1 — c9-el . L{tachinent 5 q.4 MAI city of san Iuisowspo conseuvatton ana open space Element Habitat buffer is an area around a sensitive habitat or unique resource that protects the resource from development or associated impacts of development. A habitat buffer should: (1) be located between sensitive habitat or unique resources and proposed, existing, or potential development; (2) be a sufficient width and size to protect the species most sensitive to development disturbances and to compensate for project impacts; and (3) be designed to complement the habitat value associated with the sensitive habitat or unique resource and to protect such resource(s). Hazards include, landslides and soil creep, flooding, potentially active or active earthquake faults, liquefaction areas, wildland fires, and dangers associated with locating too near to an airport(aircraft crashes). Insulation means a material or the property of a material that resists the flow of heat from one place to another. Governmental codes and manufacturers' specifications use a measure called the "R-value" for this property. The higher the value, the greater is the resistance to heat conduction. Life-cycle cost means the total cost of buying and operating a building or a piece of equipment over its useful life. Mitigation banking is a method of resource or habitat protection. It is a method. for compensating for unavoidable impacts of development. It involves a public or private entity creating, restoring, or preserving fish, plant, and wildlife habitats in advance of an anticipated need for actual mitigation. When habitat areas are created a credit is created. When unavoidable impacts occur to habitat or a resource as a result of development, the developer(whether public or private) may utilize an existing credit created from previous successful habitat restoration, create an additional bank area, or pay a mitigation fee (as specified by the City). Mitigation fee is a fee paid to mitigate development impacts to creek, sensitive habitat, unique resource, or similar resources. This fee is paid to protect existing resources or buy land for the future protection of resources or habitat. Mitigation Monitoring Plan is a plan and program to insure the proper implementation of mitigation measures identified in an environmental impact report or negative declaration with mitigation. It typically involves a monitoring and reporting process to document the implementation of all mitigation measures. Mitigation Plan is a plan which provides for natural resources mitigation and long-term preservation. Morros are a chain of ancient volcanic peaks extending from Islay Hill to Morro Rock. These peaks occupy a stretch of land approximately 12 miles long running in an east-west direction from the City of San Luis Obispo to the seashore of Morro Bay. The Moiros include the following peaks: Islay Hill, Mine Hill, Terrace Hill, Cerro San Luis, Bishop Peak, Chumash Peak, Cerro Romauldo, Hollister Peak, Cerro Cabrillo,Black Hill, and Morro Rock. City Council Hearing Draft 82 March 2006 t1k*tachi-nent 5 city of san lues sistspo consEttvation and open space element Native plants are those plant species present in California before the arrival of European explorers and settlers. Natural state means similar to how it would be found in nature (not altered appreciably by humans). Providing a natural state on a hillside or creek is to provide plants typical to that resource. Within a creek or wetland, an essentially natural state would allow some non-riparian vegetation (which is or would not negatively impact that resource) to remain or be planted. Open Space is land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state, and is generally free of structures. Such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel, such as small wilderness preservation areas, or large tracts of land. Such lands may include farming and grazing; creeks, marshes, watershed and floodplains; scenic resources; plant and animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas. Passive recreation means low-intensity recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching, . nature photography, trails, individual picnic areas, nature study, viewing stations, interpretive areas, and similar uses. Passive solar energy system (sometimes called a "direct" system) means a design that uses landscape and architectural features to collect and store energy directly, without any external, mechanical power source. Such systems are nearly always used for heating or cooling space within a building. Many passive systems work best with some management by the occupant, such as opening windows or closing curtains. San Luis Obispo Planning area is the land outside the City's Urban Reserve and within the County's designated perimeter of the San Luis Obispo Planning Area, as shown in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Practical alternative shall mean (1) the project's basic purpose could still be accomplished either through a redesign or a reduction in massing, scale, or density, or (2) if changes are required to the project's design, scale, or density, reasonable use of the subject property could still occur. Reasonable use of the property in the case of new development may include less development then indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, reasonable development may mean that no additional development is reasonable considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design,or density. Prime farmland is the land that is best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It must either be used for producing food or fiber or be available for these uses. It has the soil quality, length of growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce a sustained high yield crops when it is managed properly. Prime farmland commonly has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation (as defined by the City Council Hearing Draft 83 March 2006 city of san Luis o8ispo conseuvation an0 open space'etement Atau-hi gent 5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo, CA, 1984). Programs are actions which the City intends to take in pursuit of its goals and policies. Proposed endangered and threatened species are those taxa for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register, but not a final rule. Rare species are taxa not necessarily threatened with extinction, but which occur in such small numbers that they may become endangered if their environment worsens. Restoration is the process of returning a resource to a more natural state. Restoration includes planting vegetation native to that area, removing wildlife barriers, removing debris and trash, removing invasive non-native plant species, and other similar activities. Restoration is not considered development. Riparian vegetation means vegetation and habitat characteristic of creeks or their edges. Renewable energy source means a type of energy which is more or less continuously flowing from source to potential user, such as sunlight, wind, tidal and wave action, growing plants, geologic heat, and difference between temperatures of layers of ocean water. Nonrenewable sources include stocks of coal, oil, natural gas, uranium ore, and intermediate sources derived form them. (The nuclear "breeder reactor" would in a sense be a renewable source once it is successfully established along with a fuel and waste processing cycle.) Retrofit means to install a system or devices in an existing building or vehicle. Scenic Resources are resources having high aesthetic qualities, such as hills and mountains; creeks and other wetland resources; sensitive habitat and unique resources; and agricultural lands that contain grazing or cropland. Significant means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Significant wetland means those wetlands that are important because of their uniqueness or because they provide habitat for rare, endangered, or threatened plants or animals. Solar access means exposure of a solar collector or passive system to the amount and duration of sunlight necessary for the successful operation of the system. Solar collector means a device which transforms sunlight striking it into another form of energy, such as heat, electricity, or chemical potential. Stream: see the "creek." City Council Hearing Draft 84 March 2006 Attachment 5 city of san Luis ustspo conseuvation an0 open space element Structure means anything assembled or constructed on the ground, or attached to anything with a foundation on the ground. Substitution means the replacement of one form of energy by another, as when fossil fuels replaced animals for farm work and transportation, or when solar energy rather than natural gas is used to heat water. Sustainability or"Sustainable"means an activity, system, procedure,resource or material that is used, designed, conducted or implemented in a manner that does not impede the ability of future generations to live or use resources. Taxa refers to any species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, invertebrate, or plant. Threatened species are any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game. Transfer of Development Credit is a program that allows a landowner(located in the City, the greenbelt, or Outer Planning Area) to transfer a property's development potential to another location where development is encouraged. Such a program transfers development from a site where development is discouraged (sender site) to a site where development is encouraged (receiver site). Thermal mass means a solid or liquid mass which absorbs, stores, and releases heat effectively, such a tank of water or masonry wall which is warmed by sunlight and which gives off its heat at night. Urban Use is a relatively intensive use of land which normally requires City water and sewer service; urban uses are nearly all the types of development accommodated in the following categories of the Land Use Element: low-, medium-, medium-high, and high-density residential; neighborhood, tourist, and general-retail commercial; offices; services and manufacturing; and most public buildings. The following are not considered urban uses according to this document: (1) structures proposed at a density typically associated with agriculture (such as a barn and a single family dwelling); (2) agricultural support structures that need to be provided near agricultural operations (such as cooling and storage facilities); and (3) clustered residential development allowed through the County's Land Use Regulations where existing development rights are clustered to protect agricultural land. Urban Reserve Line (URL) is the boundary which includes land reserved for the urban expansion of San Luis Obispo where the City will have jurisdiction. Vernal pools are low swales, or depressions (typically 12 to 18 inches in depth), in terraces where water ponds for one to three months during the cool season and dries up during the early part of the warm season. City Council Hearing Draft a5 March 2006 t A-tachiiient 5 44" city of san Luis osispo conse>tvatton an0 open space"Element Viewshed refers to the area visible from a defined point or location. Village Reserve Line is the boundary for a San Luis Obispo County land use designation of Village Reserve. The Village Reserve area is an unincorporated area in which urban level development may occur where consistent with the land use plans of San Luis Obispo County. Wetland is an area where one or more of the following attributes exist: 1. At least periodically, in years of normal rainfall, the plants supported by the land are predominantly hydrophytes (thrive only in water or saturated soil). 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil as defined by the United States Soil Conservation Service. 3. The substrate is non-soil and is at least periodically saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year in years of normal rainfall. 4. Where less than all three of the attributes specified above exist, delineation of an area as wetland shall be supported by the demonstrable use of wetland area by wetland associated fish and wildlife resources, related biological activity, and wetland habitat values. Wildlife Corridor means a creekway, trail, path, culvert, underpass or overpass, open space or other linear feature that provides the conditions necessary to allow wildlife to move safely through urban areas or across linear barriers such as arterial streets and highways. Winter solstice means the day —usually December 21— when the sun is lowest in the southern sky and the period of daylight is shortest. (The summer solstice is the day when the sun is at its most northern position at noon and the period of daylight is longest. It occurs June 21.) Woodlands are plant communities dominated by native trees such as oaks. City Council Hearing Draft 86 March 2006 I - � Alta-c i-iie 1$ 5 city of san Luis oaispo conseRvation ana open space Element Appendix E: References 1. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan Digest. December 2004 2. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan Circulation, Conservation, Energy Conservation, Housing,Land Use, Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Safety, Water and Wastewater Elements. various adoption dates. 3. City of San Luis Obispo, Draft General Plan Conservation and.Oven Space Element (Hearing Draft). August 2002. 4. City of San Luis Obispo, Administration Department, Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. October 2002. 5. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research,Element Consolidation: Streamlining Local General Plans. July 1998. 6. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, Saving Special Places: A Study of Open Space Values in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt. August 1995. 7. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, Saving Special Places H: Revisiting Open Space Priorities And the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt in 2003. October 2003. City Council Hearing Draft 87 March 2006 ..' A aci�inent 5 city of san Luis-osispo conssAvation an0 opEn spaces ELEmEnt Appendix F: Council Resolution (to be added) City Council Hearing Draft 88 March 2006 1 -��P RECEIVED FEB 17 20P" SLO CITY CLERK -?+'\�Dv , -,Cj COW Comments WU and Attachments from Michael C. Sullivan ER/GPA 149-98 Conservation/ Open Space etc. Proposed General Plan Amendments City of San Luis Obispo y , City Council --- Hearing 28 February 2006 From Michael Sullivan to Cit San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City C ail hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/cv.:solidation of Conservation and Open Space etc.__eats of General Plan etc. Page 1 o�ECEIVED 16 Feb 2006 FEB 1 7 2nn SLO CITY CLERK To: City of San Luis Obispo, CA-.including City Council and Planning Commicc,on From: Michael C. Sullivan . ; 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614 mcsgday@yahoo.com SUBJECT: City Council hearing of 28 Feb 2006- Citywide:. GPA and ER 149-98. Review the March 2006 City Council Hearing Draft* Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan which updates and consolidates resource conservation policies in the conservation, Open Space and Energy Conservation elements, and amends the Land.Use, Safety,Housing,circulation,Parks and Recreation,and Water and Wastewater Elements of the General Plan. *The"March 2006 City Council hearing draft"was published by City of SLO,Community Development Dept,on 03 Feb 2006 as part of the staff report for planning Commission hearing of 08 Feb 2006. Abbreviations CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act 10-2005 COSE or Oct 2005 COSE-Conservation and Open Space element(draft)of Oct 2005 (including proposed amendments to seir&d other General Plan elements) 03-2006 COSE or Marr 2006 COSE March 2006 City Ccuacil'raring draft Conservation and Open Space element(including ' sed*amendments to several other General Plan elements) (first presented in PC staffreport'of 08 Feb 2006) ER-Environmental review - GPA-General Plan amendment 1994 OSE-Dpen Space-element ofGeneial Plan(Jan 1994)' PC -Planning Commission of City-of SLO SLO-San Luis Obispo "In' 66ductioin This infoimatton expresses my concernsabout.prgposed,amendments:to,the General Plan which in various ways wtff weaken the pi-otec;tions that exist in the present General Plan especially concermng_Open Space and"Land Use. .I also.lqve,concerns abdut the legality of the environmental review process. 1-have provided some suggestions for possible revisions.to various parts of the proposed amendments. Various ATTACHMENTS are included with this letter to help to support my,statements. Documentation items marked.with*.* are;incorporated by reference. I agree vv�ththe sentiments of Rtchard Schai'ttl�s letter of 20 Feb1. -2003 (See ATTAC1�11!I ., 05, Commemts of 12ic6ard Schmidt)aji*nd the comments,of the Environmental.Quality Task Farce . (See ATTAC) 1V't'04#.Gbmments Qf Enl ronmental Quality Task Force-25 geb,2003)that the pity should riot have'done.sach`' dtaslzc re-write of theLand Use,element of the General.Plan. This has been cotmter-produ' Ive and has produced some significant weakening of existing goals, poCtcies and pzograals.,,,m sgme cases,the.Plan�ning Commis*on(in.its deliberations in 2005.2006) agreed'that certain parts of file Lani1 iJse element should be preserved in.existing form,and that is From Michael Sullivan to City of S _uis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Council._.,wring of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 2 of 16 probably a benefit. At least some of the protective language of the Land Use element has been preserved However, it would have been much better to simply combine the Conservation and Open Space elements in somewhat shortened form without deleting and revising so much of the Land Use element language,and also keeping the important protections given in the original 1994 Open Space element rather than significantly weakening that document as has been done now. Some specific examples of weakened language are given in ATTACHMENT 01, Critique of. Initial Study. The Planning Commission decided to act as its own "Task.Force." This was a mistake, Tisk Forces have been used in other General Plan element amendments,such as the Housing'element The contributions of a task force can be important: The Environmental Quality Task Force made's- very important contribution to the General Plan Land Use Element(February and.March T 094)** working jointly with the Planning Commission. Such'an'approach should have been adoptsii'for the current proposed revisions of the multitude of goals,policies and programs that cover various General Plan elements. For example, in its considerations of the proposed changes to the Open Space element{1&Jail 2006),the Planning Commission only did a very rushed and superficial review. During that rev}ew, the only Commissioner who had any significant input.was Commissioner Orval Osb9me. .One_;- Commissioner(Andrew Carter)reported that he was not.familiar with.those,parts and:was prepared to comment on.them. The other Commissioners for the-most part seemed to be-"slq r; walking, tlirougli that.review process, making few comments and.apparently jvstanxious to have-it done with. At least a Task Force could have contributed important review functions to augmpnnt those of the Planning Commission whose energy sometimes seemed to fade. The lack of a true legislative draft has also been a mistake and has made the proposed amendments much less transparent The type of legislative draft seen for the,General Play Land Use element(Feb. and Mar. 1994)should have been used for the current proposed General.Plan amendments. That legislative draft shows explicitly the existing language and proposed changes side-by-side. The method in use now uses explanatory"boxes"that purportedlyexplain what has; happened with the old language—deleted,modified,reorganized,made more general, However,this has been quite difficult and tedious to follow. In some cases,claims made by,staff in these "boxes" are simply not true. In some cases;the planning staff have referred to numbered items that-do not exist.'Because it is difficult'and time consuming to cross reference so man"finis, it has been the trend in the Planning Commissionreview that many of these pieces of inforniatian have-not been reviewed thoroughly': I have°a Bachelor of Science degree in City and Regional Planning and a Master of Scien"ce r degree in City and Regional Planning,both from Cal Poly.University. I have worked in several city planning internships and have worked one year as a city planner for Cityof�tascadero The>?efor�, I believe'-I have expertise'in the realm of urban planning. Some of my statements"herein disagree; wi&fhe findings and statements presentedby the City staff(Planners)who were i>iamty responsible for'the proposed amendments. However,I:do not wish to denigrate their effort '�peseiit this information as constructive criticism which will hopefiilly lead to fiiittier changes in the prof 3 amendment's to better meet the goals of the City and of its citizens for protection of Open Space acid, for wise Land Use decisions. ; From Michael Sullivan to Cit, San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City G it hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/cuusolidation of Conservation and Open Space eleL.cnts of General Plan etc. Page 3 of 16 1. The Environmental Determination (Initial Study and Negative Declaration) is inconsistent with CEQA laws. Approval of this Negative Declaration constitutes an "abuse of discretion" under CEQA. A. Project description is incomplete. The "project" is the proposed amendment of the General Plan, in several elements of the General Plan. Project description(Initial Study for Oct 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space Element Update, ER 149-98, contained in PC staff report of 08 Feb 2006)states, "To show the proposed changes, the City prepared a"Legislative draft" showing anticipated policy and program changes. In addition, the City prepared several matrices summarizing the proposed changes. These-documents-are on file in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo." (Initial Study,p. 2) I(Michael Sullivan)submitted a letter on 06-Feb 2006 to the City(Jeff Hook,Planner,and John Mandeville,Director of Community Development Dept.)requesting to know where the "Iegislative draft" is located in the city files. I inspected the files-recently(03 Feb'2006)and could not locate the "legislative draft." It is my understanding that a"legislative draft"shows the ORIGINAL documents(General Plan.elements)and all of the'proposed changes(deletions,additions, re- Wordings,,re-organization),as proposed in the amendments. Mr.:Michael Dmze(Planner,City of SLO)informed me by e-mail,on 07 Feb 2008 that the "legislative.draft."',exists,within the Planning Commission staff reportfor 08 Feb 2006. In that staff report are,several sections with"Proposed Amendments" for various elements of the General Pian, and apparently these are referred to by Mr. Draw as the "legislative draft" even though they do not contain:explicit side-by-Side comparisons of existing and proposed language,-as-in the original legislative draft for earlier(2002-2003)considerations of General Plan-amendments for ER/GPA 149-98., In PC,staff,report Feb•2006);some of-the proposed General Plawamendments are purportedly(according to:City-Planner Mike Draze)-shown in the'"informal"type of legislative draft.for the following elements: .. Circulation element(1994)and as amended 2001 Housing element(Dec 2004) Parks and Recreation(2QQI).. water and,Wastewater element(2002)': Land use.(1994)and as-amended Sep 2004 Safety element(2000) However, in the amendments approved by PC (08 Feb 2006),some of the so-called"legislative draft"information is Missing for certain General Plan elements: Energy-Conserva'tion-element(19.&1),Conservation element(1973),Open Space Element(1994). These:,`missmg°:parts of the so-called"legislative draft" are explainedby PC staff report of 08 Feb 2006 as follows_(see)6omments following each): "City's statements in Planning Commission staff report;PC hearing'of 08-Feb 2006. Proposed.Amgnd.,ments to the 1981 Eaergy.C.aiuserva'tion Element. ' The Energy Conservation element,adopted,in April1981, is hereby-updated and wholly incorporated into-the March2006 City-Council'Hearing Draft'Conservationand Open Space Element." From Michael Sullivan to City of S. suis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Council-nearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 4 of 16 Comments of Michael Sullivan: Legislative draft is not provided. Certain key parts of the older Element were deleted or modified significantly,thus those parts were not "wholly incorporated" into the proposed amendments. "Proposed Amendments to the 1973 Conservation element. The Conservation Element,adopted July 1973, is hereby updated and wholly incorporated into the March 2006 Council Hearing Draft Conservation and Open Space Element." Comments of Michael Sullivan: Legislative draft is not provided. Certain key parts�of the older Element were deleted or modified significantly,thus those parts were not"wholly incorporated" into the proposed amendments. "Proposed Amendments to the 1994 Open Space Element. The Open Space Element, last revised and adopted.January 1994,is hereby updated and wholly incorporated into the March 2006 Council Hearing-Draft Conservation and Open-Space Element" Comments-of Michael Sullivan: Legislative draft:is not provided.Certain key parts of the-older Element were deleted or modified significantly,thus those:partsvere not"wholly incorporate& ` into the proposed amendments. The so-called "legislative draft referred to by city staff is also inadequate because it sometimes refers to modifications which cannot be located in the record. For.example,forthe PC hearing of 08 Feb 2006,,J.adee.Bennett,in spoken testiniquy.stated,thatt;some of the notes.(m boxes)raeferied to numbered sections of proposed amendments.which.did not exist= Plaimi Commission{OS.Feb:' 2006),ignored Ms..Bennett's comments. Itis.imperative that the Initial Studv contain a complete legislative dra#fi which is.the.critieal part of the project description given in the Initial Study., ;To comply with:CEQA4 the proposed.. complete legislative draftfor all parts-9f the p po General;Plan amendments and any proposed update§ . . must be,furnished.for•both Planning Commissian;hearjngs and Counci`1 hearings: This means-that the Planning Commission should reconvene to first consider the entire legislative draft before this. project is considered by Council. B. Has consultation been accomplished? If so where is the documentation? CEQA Guidelines"15063(g): Consultation. As soon as a Lead AgenWhas,determined,that 9n in�.': study will be required for the project,the lead agency shall;eonsult:informally with all riesp=n dbI6 agencies and all trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project to.obtain-the, recommendations of those agencies as to whether an E1R or a negative declaration should be prepared"etc. E Has the City ever done this required step?.,ApparentLynot,.r0n 06 T0,20061 Mcliael;:Sullivan) submitted a letter to the City(Jeff-Hook, I%nnear;•and,JohnMandeville;direetorof Coninfunity.••.,.; Deyelopment,D.ept)requesting to lmgw where to:fir d:the,documentation to show this-sterhadbedn accomplished. As of 08 Feb 2006 I had not had a reply;,Qn•:15-Feb 2006 if(Michael SuMvan)'' spoke with planner Mike Draze who stated that there was no documentation related to consultations because Initial Study consultations had not been.done.by 4e City:,; The county should be informed;:as•a wsponsible.-agepcy,-1 eeause in any of the-#opose ftoais; 1 policies and programs eithgr relate to county lands;qr require cooperation betv6en,county j rid bity. LAFCO should be notified as a responsible agency',sime-the COSE:speaks of pailicie§ielated`W annexations. Calif.Dept. of Fish and Game must be informed as a trustee agency because of From Michael Sullivan to Cir San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City CGS- it hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/cuusolidation of Conservation and Open Space eleeuents of General Plan etc. Page 5 of 16 potential impacts on wildlife. There may be additional responsible and trustee agencies to notify but these mentioned above should be the minimum. C. The Initial Study must consider all chases of project planning implementation, and operation. CEQA Guidelines 15063(a)(1). This has not been accomplished. For example, the various implementation measures.("programs") have not been analyzed or discussed in the Initial Study. Various older implementation measures have been deleted or modified in the proposed . General Plan amendments (the "project"),while new implementation measures have been added. The Initial Study does not analyze this in terms of potential environmental impact. D. Findings of"No.impact".in the-Initial Study are not based on substantial evidence. Throughout the Initial Study,staff have asserted that there are no substantial changes in comparison of the old General Plan elements in comparison with the proposed amendments. This is false. (For some examples, see AWACHMENT 01 -Critique of Environmental"Initial Study.") One of the purposes of the Initial.Study is to provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15063(c)(5). In the Initial Study part 19, four "Source references" are listed: (1) October 2005 Planning Commission Draft Conservation and Open Space element (2). March 2005 Planning Commission Review Draft Conservation and Open Space element (3) General Plan,.San Luis Obispo,-and included Elements(various adoption dates): - (4) 2005 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines CEQA Guidelines 15063(Initial study) "clarifies that the individual conclusions reached by an initial study must be based on some evidence. Entries on a checklist or other form should-be-briehy explained to indicate the basis for determinations. These explanations are not intended to be as detailed as anEIR.(Leonoffv..Monterey..county Board of Supervisors (1990)222-Cal App 3d 1337)." CEQA.GWdehnes(Sep 2004)ut.discussion following 15063. However,the four source references listed above tell us nothing of the logical or factual information which might lead us to believe that there are no impacts in any of the various categories. In fact,these source references are simply the projectitself',ie.the.proposed-amendments to the General Plan. And although the Initial Study frequentlyrepeats the refrain that 9there would be no substantial changes"comparing the old General Plan and the amended plan,this is simply not true. Goals, policies,and pivgrams in the proposed amendments have often been deleted, or reworded and/or reorganized with weaker or less specific.direction.. (See:ATTACEMIENT 01-Critique of Environmental"Initial-Stddy" for some examples:): The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial]eaiidence in the,record.of the.lead agency. CEQA Guidelines 15064(f). "Argument, sgeculation,:unsubstaniiated opinion or narrative,or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence:that.is not;cradible;shall.not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include factsreasonable,assumptions predicated upon•facts,and expert'opinion supported by.fact5." CEQA Guideiines,15064(fl(5) -One-can easily provide examples that refute the City's-assertion that"there are no substatitial. ' changes°comparing the,-old(existing) General Plan and proposed amendments. The City's From Michael Sullivan to City of S. --Ads Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Council i.�aring of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 6 of 16 arguments in the Initial Study are based on unsubstantiated opinion which is not "substantial evidence_" Therefore the Initial Study is inadequate and unlawful under CEQA. See ATTACHMENT 01 -Critique of Environmental "Initial Study." 2. Comments on some of the proposed "programs"' (implementation measures) Some of the proposed"programs" (implementation measures)..in the 032006 COSE are;weak, vague..ineffective,or infeasible. In addition,most of the proposed programs lack the four key- elements eyelements of effective implementation,namely (a) who or which agency or department is responsible for implementation? (b) how(specifically)will.the.implementation be accomplished including, if known,how will it be funded? . (c) what.is the expected time frame for completion,of implementation? (d) a monitoring program to determine if implementation has been successful Good planning practice today frequently-groups implementation-measures directly under the policies to which they apply,,so the.logic of-implementation is evident,and so itcan be determined whether a certain policy has effective implementation. I:in mytletter and appendices for PC hearing of 30 Nov 2005, I had given the Planning Commission important information which they ignored and,never discussed: (See ATTACHMENT 03-B, Comments of Michael Sullivan;PE hearing of 3.0 Nov 2005) -Examples of exemplary General Plans from various cities:(M:Builivan's comments;PC 30 Nov- 2005.-Appendix B -Ventura 2005 Gen. Plan,Santa Paula Gen::Plan;.etc:)which'demonstrate this effective approach to policy implementation - - -Guidebook.to General Plan-City of Carlsbad:(M Sullivan's comments;PC 30 Nov 2005; ' Appendix Q. (Shows the usefulness of information provided.to the:public.about hose to use the,: General.Plan) . T. - "Putting Action into,the Open,-Space)dement:, Techniquds?for Preserving Open space and Farmland" (Calif. Office of Planning and Research, 1997) (M. Sullivan's comments;:PC 30=Nov 2005-Appendix D) (Shows examples of implementation techniques.) The 'W,o.ezams" (implementation measures)in-the Marah 2006 City Council.Hearing:Ilraft .COSE are weak and ineffective and do.not;follow.good planning practice=asgiveninthe-examples above(e.g.City of Ventura, City of Santa,Paula.General Plans): :The implementation measures-are. nonspecific-(for each policy)but;rather are more general,and:aree lumped together haphazardly at the end of the chapters in the COSE. (Also,there is no information about;who is responsible for' implementation, nor is there any information given about a possible timeframe expected for implementation or finding for implementation) .withthis loose organization of implementation programs in a general way,one;does not-know which programs pertain to which policies;or-even if From Michael Sullivan to Cit. San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Q :I hearing of 28 Feb 2006 Consolidation ER/GPA 149-98. Update/ of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 7 of 16 a particular policy has any implementation program at all. I spoke with planner Jeff Hook about this. His opinion is that it is acceptable to have general implementation programs rather than specific ones. I disagree strongly. The City has used both specific and general implementation programs for other elements,such as the 2004 Housing element; the 1994 Open Space element had both general programs and specific programs. This is a more effective approach, but it has unfortunately not been used in the proposed March 2006 COSE draft. Instead,general and somewhat vague and often infeasible or unenforceable implementation programs are thrown in haphazardly at the end of each chapter, instead of following the policies. This approach weakens important protections for open space, conservation,etc. Some examples of poorly crafted.implementation programs in Mar 2006 LOSE: , Program 7.30.1. (Protect natural communities) "A. Implement the Natural Communities policies above." Comment: An implementation measure(program) is supposed to provide a listing of some specific action to be taken to implementt-a policy. It is certainly not sufficient to simply state "Implement the Natural Communities policies above." This is equivalent to saying, "We will implement the policy by having a program statement which tells us to implement the:policy." This example of ridiculous circular language gives no guidance whatsoever.,as to how the policies could be implemented Program 8.30.1 G(Protect open space resources).- "Locate,design and.operate facilities consistent with General Plan goals and policies." Comment: This is just redundant fluff. Such a so-called "program" accomplishes nothing. It is already understood that facilities must be consistent with the General Plan. A similar redundant and unnecessary program is 830.1 C ("Set conditions of subdivision and.development.approvals consistent with General Plan goals and policies."). This is self:understoodl This is fluff? Another example: 830.1 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.)"). More redundancy! More fluff! Is it necessary to have the City remind itself three separate times that it must approve projects consistent with General Plan goals and policies?,. :` (Maybe so.) Program 8.30.1.11(Protect open space resources) -"Encourage-sustainable agricultural practices...." Co,rriment: This.document.has many programs that say, "Encourage:.this"or"Encourage that." But most developers will take the path of least resistance and do whatever is cheapest and•easiest,.no matter how you,encourage them. Such programs offering encouragenicaare essentially worthless. A better approach is to offer specific incentives_ Program$.30.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling.efforts. - The city will-coordinate'',- local,ark¢parka j ate in regional,household and business waste reduction and recycling efforts.", I Coit imerit. , , -1i6 many other programs in the LOSE,is vague,and gibes litflg or no dtiectiozi aboi t actual actions to be taken. This,like many such'vague-progt�am�;;vv U' very likely be ignored. From Michael Sullivan to City of S . —ais Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Council-..wring of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 8 of 16 Program 7.30.1 (Protect natural communities) C. "Participate in environmental review conducted by other agencies for projects that could affect natural communities in the San Luis Obispo planning area" Comment: This sounds good on paper but it is most likely infeasible. Does the City have the extra money and personnel to allow staff to consistently track environmental review of the county projects near SLO? Probably not. This is one of many examples of proposed programs which are likely to be infeasible. 3. I suggest the following changes in'proposed goals, policies' and programs of the "March 2006 City Council hearing draft" COSE: deletions =strikeout; additions =shaded Chapter 8 - Open Space As propos�PC hearing-08 Feb 2006-."Mar 2006 City Council hearing draft") Policy 8.25.1. Loss of open space.. The City may permit loss of an open space resource as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 only when: A. Preserving the resource would permanently deprive the landowner of all reasonable use, and . acquisition by the City or a conservation organization�is_not feasible;-or , ' ' ' B. There is a demonstrated need, based on public health, safetyor welfare,'and there is no:practical alternative to loss of.the-resource; or C. The resource is prime agricultural soil on a small parcel essentially surrounded,by development, and the development contributes to-the protection of agricultural land in the'urban'reserve'or greenbelt through transfer of development credit,dedication of open:space'easdments or fee ownership,direct funding,for open spaceacquisition or another equally effective methad,-as fiiither described in the Land Use Element Recommended changes Policy 8.25.1. Loss of open space. The City may permit loss of an open space resource as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 only when: A. Preserving the resource.would permanently deprive the landowner of all reasonable use; arid' acquisition by the City or a conservation organization is not feasible; or B, There is a demonstrated need,base&ori public health,safety or welfare, and there is no practical alternative to loss•of theresource or .C: The resource is prime agricultural so1on a small parcel essentially surrounded by development,and the development contributes to-the prbte., ion of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt through transfer of development credit,dedication of open space. easements or fee ownership,direct finding for open space`azquisirion or another effective method,as finther described in.the Land Use Element: ` I tgill RI Rationale for recommended changes From Michael Sullivan to Cit; San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Cc J hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 9 of 16 (a) The term "small parcel" of prime agricultural land should be defined clearly. Certainly,a "small parcel"would not include something like the 131 acre Dalidio site, for example. (b) In the recent past(2004),development proposals such as the Dalidio Marketplace have attempted to have the City approve substantially less open space area than what is called for in LUE Policy 1.13.5. At the Dalidio site,the proposal was for only about 42%open space rather than the "approximately 50%" open space required by LUE 1.13.5. As Mr. John Mandeville has stated in PC hearings(late 2005 /early 2006),the more specific language (LUE 1.13.5)overrules the more general language(COSE 8.25.1). Although it may be in some cases beneficial to dedicate off-site open space,this does not satisfy the General Plan when the proposed amount of on-site open space is less than the amount called for in the General Plan LUE. »»»»»»>>>>>>»»»»»»»»»»»»»> As proyosed(PC hearing- 08 Feb 2006 "Mar 2006 City Council hearing draft") Policy 8.25.3 Required mitigation. E. 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. F. 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. Recommended changes E. Individual small projects,each with an incremental impact.on an extensive resource,may provide mitigation through p,2Ment of a fee,to be used for rotecting that resource:within the San Luis Obispo planningarea. y '4ftLvr- ',ki,, ti�•See ,isti r.r, , �, c —11,-,' 11,-,' E usrt€c E7 � o1;i5(:�z ( lSepGtt `ct : ;-a�1 !'.lac a t:t ? `.s2�t `ic .t ::a" F. 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 o£any u)itigation bank that is established. I this b' goy Rationale for recommended changes (a) Fee payment does not guarantee open space protection. It-661y contributes to a fund which,Way or may not be sufficient to replace what is being lost to development The decision to use this . method of protection should be supported by a recommendation of the Agricultural Commissioner or expert biologists when agricultural or habitat lands are involved.. (b) Neil Havlik,Resources Manager for City of,SLO,gave expert spoken testimony,(PC_18 Ian 2006)that mitigation banking has not worked so well except,in a few limited examples:such-as Filiponi ranch. I(Michael Sullivan)believe that mitigation banking should replace damaged From Michael Sullivan to City of Sa.,Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Council hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 10 of 16 resources with like kind,otherwise there can be a net loss of certain habitat types e.g. riparian, grassland, etc. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> As proposed(PC hearing-08 Feb 2006 - "Mar 2006 City Council hearing draft") 8.30.1 (Program). Protect open space resources. The City will take the following actions to protect open space,and 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. Recommended changes Delete 8.30.1A because it is inconsistent with certain policies of the Land Use Element(LUE): "ILUE 1.2 Build-out Capacity. There should not be major expansion of the urban reserve line because the urban reserve provides adequate capacity for new housing and employment up to the City's desired maximum. This'element seeks to establish an ultimate population capacity." sLUE 1.6.2'Expansion Expansion areas adequate for growth consistent with these policies hould be designated within the urban reserve line (Land Use Element Map and Figure 2) Rationale for recommended changes Policy 8.30.1 A would'allowincremental.' cumulative expansion of the Urban Reserve Line; defeating the intent of LUE.12. Policy 8.30.1 A would allow piecemeal expansion beyond the urban reserve ljne,'�in violation.of LIIE 1.6,2 which requires that expansion areas be within the urban reserve line. »»»» y» »»»»»»s»»»»»»»»»»» As proposed(PC'hearin -08 Fbb 2006-- "Mar 2006 City Council hearing draft"). 8.30.1•B. Promote open spacd protection by annexing and applying City conservation and Open Spatz(C/OS)and-Agriculture zoning to private property where appropriate and consistent with GerieraTl'lari gocaes " r - Recoiniiiended chafes 8.30.1 B. Promote open space protection by annexing and applying City conservation and Open Space(C/OS)and Agriculture zoning to Rnivatewhere ro "ate and consistent with . General Plan goals and licies (r t v r' Rationale for recommended chiimds ' The City has abused C/OS pre-zoiung n cer tain'anneiatiors where it was clearly known that the proposed land use would be something other than open space(commercial, for example),yet the . pre=zoning was for open space(C/OS). Ibis occurred,for example;'at Froom Ranch(site of Home Depot)- Why is this wrong('and illegal)2 From Michael Sullivan to Ci -San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City C oil hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 11 of 16 (a) LAFCO must review annexations for land use compatibility and infrastructure capacity of new development. LAFCO was authorized to "approve the annexation of unincorporated territory consistent with the planned and probable use of the property based upon the review of general plan and pre-zoning designations." Govt.Code_56375. If the land use is characterized as open space rather than its true intended purpose,(e.g. commercial, industrial,residential),then LAFCO will be assessing impacts of open space rather than the actual land use. Thus,LAFCO will not be serving its purpose,which is to properly assess proposed annexations in accordance with their true,,intended. land use types. , (b) Government code requires that the pre-zoning designation cannot be changed until two years following annexation. In the case of Froom Ranch,however,the zoning was changed from C/OS to Commercial Retail immediately, following annexation,thus violating state law. Govt Code 56375. »»»»»»»»»»>»»»»>>>>> As proposed(PC hearing-08 Feb 2006 - "Mar 2006 City Council hearing draft") 8.30.1 M. Maintain the.position of Natural Resources Manager so that open spacefimctions are. consolidated in one existing city department:under one person. Recommended chances 8 30.1 M Maintain the position of Natural Resources an x s `-� x sb°`.�{}� •Si s L '� a :s r ��^j�ru�'(`t}J��,st1 � -. -. '�� rt _. L. 'I_ .��1''.'jk, •IFCi � 4d/'.W,•. }r/�.. Y>y�• � „F.. _ t Rationale for §1recommended changes P The idea of a:Natural Resource:il,,anager(NRM)is,a.good one. However;this personrshould not necessarily be an all-powerful "Open Space Czar" accountable to nobody but himself(or•herseelf): The particular person in this function may change from time to time. The NRM should also cooperate with other experts and other city staff,e.g.planners,biologists,agriculturalists,non-profit conservation organizations, etc: As proposed(PC hearing-08 Feb 2006 - "Mar 2006 Citv{Council hearing draft"1 8.3ff.1 N. NatuW-Resource Manager will establish;performance standards and/or dimensions for buffers between open space or agricultural resources and urban uses or-development. Recommendedchanges 8 30.1 N Natural Resource Manager will.estal 41, =1 - performance standards and/or dimensions for buffers between open space or agricultural resources and urban uses or development. Rationale for recommended changes It is not wise to try to devise a fixed set of dimensions for buffers. The size of a buffer may vary, depending on the specific circumstances. For example,The Municipal Code(Zoning ordinance From Michael Sullivan to City of S.. ruis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Counch..caring of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 12 of 16 17.16.025 of June 2004)has specific setback standards for creeks, yet allows flexibilityfor larger setbacks for mitigations for certain discretionary projects (SLOMC 17.16.025 para. 3, dated Jun 2004). The size of buffers may be determined by various factors e.g. safety(flooding in creeks), habitat concerns, erosion concerns,proximity of agricultural runoff, etc. Performance standards.(not only for creeks but also for agricultural and habitat buffers)could be more useful. However,in any case,there must'be FLEXIBILITY built in to the system so that we are not "locked in" to one particular formula for buffer width and characteristics. The performance standards for buffers should be devised not only by the Natural Resources Manager but also with input from other experts and the general public,and final approval by Planning Commission and Council. Performance standards for creek buffers would have to'be made compatible with existing General Plan policies and ordinances,such as the Creek setback ordinance---or vice versa. As proposed(PC hearing=08 Feb 2006= "Mat 2006-OV Council hearing draft") Appendix B: Acquisition of Open space Land,atpara.6 D, states,that open space should'generally not be acquired by the City as open space if(d) "adjacent properties are being developed in a way that is likely to significantly diminish the conservation values of the property in question:"` Recommended changes This policy needs tQ be re-considtt� , sr►k e:c9§cs,the City might want to acquire open space that is is an urban settuxgneardeveloped orpttehl>ally.developurgpropeiiesor'eample,the City may want.to tcquire�"brown=fields"or`degraded creek areas,=to transform them mto°"vmua+ parks- Rationale for recommended changes Not all open space.must be vast tracts of natural land. Open space in'small parcels in as urban setting is also.quite important »»»»»»»> MAKE OPEN SPACE FUNDING A HIGH PRIORITY TO MATCH CITY GOALS! Make the goals,policies and programs for Open Space FUNDING at least at emphatic as those in the- 1994 OSE. In the 1994 OSE,finding for open space was a high priority. For example,see General program 11,at p. 10; see Community Goals at,p 94 ATTACH11i4ENT 06(G'ity budget 2006-2006)shows that City has"discontinued General Tund support for the open space acquisition program:" ATTACEMffM 06 at p.2. This>s,tn spite of die"Major fifty Goal"of Open Space protection: "Continue funding dpei space acquisition and the natural resources program; maintain and enhance open space,creeks and riparian habitat; and contmue'SLO Stewards' program and collaboration with conservation organiiations." A1TAC IVT "-96 "p:3. The Cfty is abandoning;its ovvn imporlsut goau wfuchYthe czens Tuve demanded c. From Michael Sullivan to Citty° -eGan Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City C il hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 13 of 16 (4) Proposed General Plan amendments are inconsistent with certain parts of City's existing General Plan. This is a violation of state law. Some examples: (1) The Circulation element(as amended Jan 2,001)approved a"northern alignment" of Prado Road running in sensitive grassland habitat at the base of the South Hills Open Space area and adjacent to the Damon Garcia sports fields. The northern alignment would have impacts on archaeological resources,creeks,biological resources,wildlife corridors, scenic rock outcroppings, serpentine rock and soils,and visual resources.. The northern alignment of Prado Road is in•conflict with important Open Space goals and policies and programs. This proposal of the Circulation. element is inconsistent with: Mar 2006 COSE Open Space goal 8.22-secure and maintain open space land: (E)-grassland communities and woodlands,(F)wildlife habitat and corridors for the health and mobility of individuals and of the species,J)historically,open-space settings for cultural resources;native and traditional landscapes, K)hills,ridgelines and the Morros, (L)scenic rock outcroppings and other, significant geological features,(MO unique plan and animal communities. The proposed Prado Road northem alignment is inconsistent with all of the above-sections. (Incorporated by reference: City of SLO,Jan 2001 amendments for Circulation element,northern alignment of Prado Road, Environmental Review documents.) Mar 2006 COSE Policy 812.1 tL Open space within the urban area.'"The City will preserve as Open Space,or as,Agriculture;the areas,listed in Goal 8.22,and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do so. (See map,figure 6.)" Some open space at the base of the South Hills would be lost to development of the 4-lane Prado road northern alignment Mar 2006 COSE Policy 3.22.2 Native American sites. "All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected as Open Space wherever possible." At the site,of the. northern alignment of Prado Road;archil lagical sites are threatened`by the presence of the proposed Prado Road which runs either on top of or verymear to kdowk i ar`cliaeological sites. (2) Mar 2006 COSE Policy 9.21.1B (Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes) implies that development in natural or agricultural landscapes includes but is not limited to buildings,signs (including billboard signs),utility and telecommunication lines and structures." why does this policy permit billboard signs when Policy 9:213.(Utilities and signs)does not? This is an internal inconsistency. �, - _ 4 . • . (3) Mar 2006 COSE at Appendix B 8: -"The-City will sell;exchange,or transfer an;interest in.. open space lands,.or relinquish a petmanent.open space easement,only by approval of the City Council following a public hearing,and.only after a 60-day period,in which the decision can be suspended pending reversal by referendum." (03-2006 COSE at Appendix B,Acquisition:of Open Space Lands) Comment: This policy imantithetical to the idea of permanent open space protections.-Using this policy, the City(three council members)tcould.'convertany°permanent" open•space'easement by Council action at any:time,apparently..without a General Plan-amendment and perhaps without environmental review.Lands previously.setaside to avoid or-mitigate environmental problems` could-be taken out of open space protection From Michael Sullivan to City of L _ ,.uis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Councii..;.acing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 14 of 16 This policy would conflict with various goals and policies related to acquisition, preservation, and maintenance of open space�outside and inside the urban area, e.g. Goal 8.2(Greenbelt),Policy 8.21.1:Open space preserved), Goal 8.22 (Secure and maintain open space within the urban area), Policy 8.22.1 (preserve open space in urban area) in 03-2006 COSE. This policy sets a dangerous precedent, is inconsistent with the rest of the Open Space element and should be deleted. (4) Program 830.1 A(Protect open space resources) "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." This is inconsistent with certain.policies of the Land Use Element(LUE): "LUE.1.2 Build-oat Capacity. There should not be major expansion.of the urban reserve line because the urban reserve provides adequate capacity for new housing'and employmentup:to the City's desired maximum. This element seeks to establish an ultimate population capacity.'•" "LUE 1.6,2. Expansion Areas Expansion areas adequate for.growth consistent:with-_these policies should be designated within the urban reserve line(Land Use Element Map and Figure 2)." 1Y Policy 830.1 A would allow incremental,cumulative expansion of the-Urban Reserve Line;. defeating the intent of LUE 1..2. Policy 8.30.1 A would allow piecemeal.expansion= From Michael Sullivan to Ci !San Luis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City C cil hearing of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 15 of 16 community. For example, the Housing Task force was useful and brought forth various helpful ideas for the 2004 Housing element. In addition, I agree with Don Dollar and others that the City needs an Open Space Committee! Providing and caring for Open Space has often been mentioned by citizens as one of the most important and desirable functions of the City. We have city committees for matters such as the Jack House,trees, etc. Open Space is an issue that is even more important The Committee could provide recommendations to the Natural Resources Manager and to the Planning Commission and Council- The Planning Commission had originally recommended(circa 2003)that the amendment of the Conservation and Open Space elements should have a task force to do "brain-storming" and to provide expert advice..,Perhaps in lieu of a task force, an Open Space Committee could provide a similar fimction for future updates of the Open Space element SUMMARY The proposed Draft COSE has many flaws and weaknesses. (1) The environmental review is not legally adequate. The environmental reviewal Study)Y)is based on false statements that assert that there no significant.changes in the.proposed.General Plan amendments,but actually the new language either weakens or deletes the older language. The lack of a true "legislative draft"means that the information in the staff report does not give a clear picture of comparisons between old and new language in comparison of the existing and,proposed General Plan. (2) The proposed implementation programs are weak and poorly organized,and do'not,fbHow,good pig practice. (3) SuggesWrevisions to the 03-2006 City Council hearing draft COSE ire.disoussed above. 4 Proposed General Plan amendments .,'.. '' ( ) po (Mar 2006 COSE)have various�kinds�of�mconsistienctes with the overall General Plan. (5) Pubfic'participation has been weak. A task force would have improved that An Open Space committee should be formed The City can do a much better job. Please improve our Coasgvation and Open Space ; element. Please allow time to further review and more carefully consider and refine tfis major: . General Plan amendment which will.be with us for years to come. If we don't get it right now;we are acting irresponsibly. Michael Sullivan From Michael Sullivan to City of _ .uis Obispo(16 Feb 2006)-RE City Councu...wring of 28 Feb 2006 ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan etc. Page 16 of 16 LIST OF ATTACIIlIEENTS 01-Critique of Environmental"Initial Study" 02-Planning Commission minutes-various dates(26 Feb 2003-18 Jan 2006) 03-A-Michael Sullivan's comments with attachments for Planning Commission hearing of 09 Nov 2005-COSE 03-B-Michael Sullivan's comments with attachments for Planning Commission hearing of 30 Nov 2005-COSE 03-C-Michael Sullivan's comments with attachments for Planning Commission hearing of 14 Dec 2005-COSE 03-D-Michael Sullivan's comments with attachments for Planning Commission hearing of 18 Jan 2006-COSE 04-Comments,of Environmental'Quality Task Force regarding revision of Land Use element(25 Feb 2003) 05:,Comments ofRichard Schmidt.20 Feb 2003,12 Dec 2005 06-City of SLO Budget•2095-2006 . 07-Dalidio Marketplace Final EIIi(April 2004)-excerpt regarding recommendations of AP CD and responses of EIR authors 07-Dalidio Marketplace Final EIR April 2004-excerpt-Comments of APCD and response from EIR authors Documents incorporated by reference: (1)Environmental-review documents for 2001amendments of Circulation element for Prado Road northern alignment . (2) City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element combined EQTFlPlanning Commission draft- February and March 1994 (3) Others as stated or as noted by double asterisk** ,O a) • q cOi > p i. O W O N N v°i U 'S 0 ° M it O � ,yd '> CL ri .--r cd 1. W b0 U O W y 3 VW7 Ocli G Q U Q ... Nr C% -a N d w aLi N \� Y . w 00 O F -- o c v O N O 'L3 .ca L7 Z; 00 N r+1 fA 7 w �°. 4r Q p y O .O to 3 c�c. a �' O .� �-. > d rT+ CD W of ,sU7 N v� LL cd coo ca ca Q v1 � Y O U Q .G O a) q 190al v y � � 0 C*3 b.a fl q �? '• o ma = �' � ca 3 � C) � a .� Fzl 0 .5 as ffi c a <`1 0 C7 > N w W " v th c o Q1 L U •O .4 •W.��j U N 0 a) tb v q O O� h Cb .+ p '� V q O N O p � 00 C7U Wv� o gh o c o ` ..� �+ � � � � Via .' Low a' 5 o ° cd O p L� U a s, 'm � d a' A •� � as � b� W � � •� � '�+ a ''' w a °° Ix 3 3 q a o °: qU 9 p PC o Im a a o k a va `� o 0 M:= q o a - � � .COD . aoi aoi -ca CN A v 00u >,o20 � � b °' �? � � 00 O Cr' a0 ed a� v� > a) «� a) •O O G o %.0 o ° ° q � 3au' abi � m ° aq Wp w 3 Cw O U ca N w .Q .moi U C d aqi O N ° O W on y o C7 C7 ayni o +: o3 �Ua) 'ay o o ,. m =ra;.v.v brl P O .0 va) OO •0 a :6 O U a o 0 1 Um0 Ix a) �b v o rA iW00a°i ago fes, 3 3 � � ° � q 'yB o Ott � � 0 0 0 0 N H •� O 0 4. C40 C)a q o N y •vi O w % O b m q as d O O o0 � NM e jaa �S. 00 ir06 � o g al w PC ° OU0000 II a II ee as a o � $ dao N N (S] U L"'� .�7".� v Go N s w G � Cj .� �+' � u fir'' ° 3 � �« v •° R ° a� $ q v +p+ O o Csem° O C-3i; W d. d >1 PCC riab � V >, � ¢ m3maaio G4 of fl .a s. aai adi >, o 00•y � c�•�+ ^ is. o ami OC m •� x �bq c. �'o A* C N R G> •N N 7 O U 4O." R U O N 0 ^ ��++ ° O 7 v U .fl ° N ; .S A .9 •� io 4.0cl,� � i a w >, m � aoi .o U .'�. •�•° ami �. o Zy y m U y d y LLI •5, atEM 0 c� y d C 3 R.0 �. c ° a m Lti �^� R a R " +>� ° aw- m m � m AD 00 M a a 9b foo o LCc�i 9 900 `0 CN a 9 o C5 d,, aa � gQ as E .9 'm mom v yR N do .0 m y y m Ow W ° ' O � a = -= �Or+ O US >, Q O 0vyO ' wp W .d yy +" a� O o .vO ON O -P, rh 7 w .O opC:l R7 0 .0 C-4 10 a r:. a a) -p +' U a) E y O O O o .-,CQ O d O O :C m a� o o • oAo+ a H � � a cs bm Q49 cbOw R ` -a .0 O0. .8O. aE O 0, 0yaOyav .. . co � w aw .8o a aw°a . oa, o oomo �«, e° y Uaoa� .9 � A o +• a' oyoS Fb a� WC p � ra r+ � m o 0 0 cc � a~ O ml i•¢.>, o .v0� ;Wo 'C � ° 3� .o9.mo vOo vWi � -» 4rna'iayi � ,, u � > ao ;; any 93 :�,aA �,, rnvdd N ° b � � p v 0 9 o mcd 0 0. '0 coi ani °^ba� rsw ,� � Ow ° baa ° aEi � p a a > wl "Ci 4..- 'o p„ cd o „ cs a > 0, ra VJ. � b •� i. � 'a b /�.4. 000 o y o e°'o o a os o 0.o w0 3 a e4 1. -0 �— dZ at � ° VOl r• � y a� •¢ � cd e0 •O p*79 o 04. a. � ami oc ° `+ "ai Eo� -0o ' 0 cc 0U GO yo0. a0 ° V] O oa. . . tyao A ° oE _ mss 5 ^' _ C43 10rA - 00 � pUp., cs 9 Q '.=• � �, • o 'ca � or o ,, dew c E aa' rA = --oma oq o "0 •a p an N 4! a�2 ,r S Y' ""ccs dJ p M :.: 'd ,� > •j,. a as a °� m: b r•r °CL. C O ^ •D Opp•� T-1 ° iaAs, $ = w 0 0 .0 � a. _ -1 .0 w ° a0 ' W U .�y .. X t° 0 -0 0 = m ad m G c y y •e� .`C > -tips 'ppU N N O N m i0 ►• .O• m m • O V .� V y N N NV Q a� •aC .� O .,qi O O 03 4 •yam V cis Y a ' o an m � aci aa3 '� G o � c o� U c m ago i° ° c • w � a cl N LL 'd G4 Q o Ar 3 v c O 0 '>LD °a 0 9 -0 4. rs. ,, o n ow oa� m ., A ca 00 w a •o >'� -a -.4 � p � u 8 0 a � °�' U p• 3 � Ow ° ,ti i7 .On O > M � eCD. � S� O ID iJ •/� N � .� iti •� Y z V Y Y �-• r U ��^^jj m_ -Y,•, O.r,n 45 as cd Lo GO � � ►Q GLl mss ' o .2 C5 49 •v .% U. v c a o a,.� 'aoti°' m a r. .. a>, w ¢ o � •3 . Uami o =' F 43' °6.� +�3 m au cn is o 8 c m u ,� b-an > m � A o ;; o-o 0 •5 � aA .9 Q c cN'n yy•am «°' -°o � .�� c �_bvo '" e oho .no. $ � o �y oamccv L7 .tea ca iia = 3 .ca � .� o h e: y y G Y O m O O m - '� Oq.•CJ. kj I m O W A4O �:. m - O O O tQ O a U O~. R VO o a A '> a;' JS W 3 oaw 3 0 .mac. q O v a� •� > p a m L" q as m o44 o PC as o ° Y o• 3 0 °. ca rA a� Q c = b obi 0 �. x � o .. o ,� � � o.. F'•p•� y a w � Q 0-0 ri 3 �° �, go.;�.� ��SQ L W °' as wu•, ago Ok. a y U `" C o °� R7 m 4. C.) a a 0W C 0 OOaa Q• o a a,.., :.: a .. a m .. O 0 ° AYvcc 0 cc = ° o 'er x, b 6 .r..y � � - ' ac �' doU ^ a XW. m aoi a ca 0 :. a • ,. a w aW 0 0 � ^a ° o e O0 c) � wd o y Oo a tj 'J .0 X 49 °° � = a o,a o y a U oao aa� w , y C � �a 'e N 0 0t 0 fan � 0W o a..9 a, 3 ami Q. k a ° o9 X0B z0 0 a ^ G CL �, �.� Uva^ o o ON -4 ow a a Von in W o ULl. > `� N '��' ' a adn m 0 sh 0 06 0 30a 00 AO ° a> o m 0 �am A ° N CL a6 a as a O b e a) ° �°a LL o w 0 > aid mbb.� 0 3 r v � '^ �cn ° k_' •o _,�, = vin . D °° `' C7 C'lpAU, � �' o � A .9A c� v .v a0io, a� 0 aca U ~�i � � ° W a 'a '"at> "" O O y ... ^ N a .� a W •+a„ .a. aGO � Ow z3La,U41) o ;, � oaaia spy .a_a ,, 0. a ;,> '• ►�. 'C a) 2 .s0°- k ;� ��P++,'� N -9 p t` O � O � a) fn rr���,,�� 'y � a 'Lf C; d) q .� dl V1.�y,1 Vl ° a ~ � '� a 3 � m C3 0 ata :;a o � � o .b �' mEFd• . o oa O .� acts a OoOarw5 o p ao0 . o a > O -Ep ' o` 'a 'a 'a 'o00a �; d .. a b .a .. .0 0 o a U . _ca 0 � '&g ... � C u • ;" -� ai ,oJ .aai s� d' S� �a q o 'a o •`,�; 0 v m A .9 w o '° m q y W of � . u C m M .o q a d q (D ia, .� O bo a m m ca ww U > aoi V . moo , 5 .O CI ice. > ?a., 0 mom : a p. �° . _: tea y e w ' '}�" O � �- ccl oW 02 G Cd Cd CR w co $ u o o u oPC �+ t7 U m a O [L a 'v o- •ru Q °� w r G c, 0 .. a) 0 a astavme ps M. pq0—rx >a o o o aa ar - dq Vi � 2o 0 90 £t .., 0 &ILo 0 b m ° G o_ ° s. 3tiW o _ Cd m ca. rn ar ? w = .� a C ... O o w V -00_, .0 a O O `d �' o � '0 "' N •`3 v � °' � L' 0 p cd E a� w U w o o > ° y0 3 3 3 = .o 0cn � �>, o..am �a 3 ; a Nob � 3 � ,.0 >, y a cOi � � � �C14 >,W ' 7 .0 `0 '? u, o m m a v m c 000 m k. c w m p it '� m m ti • a) W p 10 vi p 4) wLl >l ir ti OO E=o¢ y en> U -s Cn aU .0U O rW m 0 0 ° C;� - 043 0a oa� 3 � a5 �Rcan � a �O 0 ma � � a ; �ara+s rm 'a W, *6 - a1c q � a � ar 'S ( >�aaas UU •� _ ' ' U' 0 a oo � oC 00 x' q00 0' o i .3a m' � -0 m-9 y � Ltl o .�` `= °' = a u'Oi p 3p 0 0 ° � 0 0 v o S1.2 •r Y O 'a a S M ' -3 C* 0 � O $ m uw � `� > m o .0O0 � r4 BUY . 0a . NO ° a0 > A a�i � d w0 M 0 U .� 'd � a�'�'i a sv.. � '-' •° «U. o CL, :� ° .c .j N > •t7. lz oo 'x'd^ � ° w +' R `�" •a�'^i ca; a U `O o 4. P: Ca � •�>�, ?+�7 aT-i. (DN y 3 r aai 0 m CAd_ 3 'O a 0 > � a) w y Q w o . ,, ooc0 ao r 0 � U 00 y � ps " . ~ rod p 0 (4 1 o P4 G rA o -S :2 m 4 7S o c , e ba CA Cr4a ca tv a ° a4Y a 7 ' n 0 SJ O q U a) CA S:68 0 v 0 03 �i m v.fl V TaJ �J ^ N N d W G,-^� tj N 0 a cd N 5 •� ca O m '" d-' ^ fir. � ' y d . avi _ °q 0 o a' 'd S V 0 Co U ca ?? a o n O «t n ap o td 03 p-c p aai .: vC4 °out ? vWi > a 5 ^ o . O � a? 0nboY n N �o A Or v a F, ewoo O U 'O aGm .. aN M � O� � �C4 A o Ao cs .8 40 n -oma -0 cd oo U 0 'o U m ° o ' c o y a r� c. O CA 0 aID Cal .cas p� " . =,= -S � � 0a >, w a 2 , 9 . 00 � sA 0U .S 0 GoS. Q CS Cd - a� coi � � aa.c a "aOa.i ms =.S u, bo a . � a t9 C- 0 0 o 0 r/ a ab 0 Ca y Uo > � o a RV ^ OC) C3 aA O o ' ° o 0 Q � °�' A ov� � aa �: °n �C �a� �/ -d5 r VU 5yv.. T g to O >. YO vy = O 0 0 .0• bU 0 o w moa° NCc' o a °' C � O. (V0 _p art O p m W 'Oa rn •b el 00 O 00 C-4 IZ y p t Y O U W C.) aDu uN 2 o Q a ca C-1 ao -� o, a) p U C ua> Uu .. dao- a oo . 200 0 C943 0 > N m ra abi «: x �' r� a U on �y �'' p 3 15o U � . = 5 a °°' U -'7 p 0 +' 0 0 �L O 0 �' N C a❑� ' ++ ^ 0'$ Gn Co U ... C) ° 0No * a o uU o o N 0- OU 0. mU pU O > A. 0 G y > U cd -0 �$ a aai � �' ° 0 ,, c . o o `a ai 00 o o C m o - ° m ca EA anid ; B .ate � � ,�� 3 � .� � $, W C40 8 ° a' u � a ° � '" 00a a d � o.:panabC7 v o � 9; mto C4 a A C JSu _ • _� i. a`�i �. y0..f�1 .w 'O r..0 +°'.: CC a'"i a C7 = - �O• •m.'m .. CI O '•� N �' ''' .-` O O +-'' 6) ai N 0 0 O 0D0 ' CD as o Es ca > qa Nc� `oL;L Aa>i x 'Rv wy 9 U ° U o -4),.4 ^tuaoCUo > m 00 en u � 2 o, o om m . c> 'v� o m �ca o yaN wax � o cC1ca 0 9 m-4 '0 w 7 U eoa ¢ w u o4-4 �j .. o Boa > os� o .U. 47 C vh UU UC. etcd y G O O. mO 91 � ^ ani Z a � P 0 C U 0 c, b ^Aa Cd � ~ -i"" �. w n d O'er O q Co ea D,A wO o rKn3 m a_ � � v u td a y O c o >, y N w c"ti U d) 3 ❑ „ U „a '� cacti � 3 � ° p a,m �, ' U as ° o �° ' ❑ o A C _ moo+ as o _ t> o ting 00 :3 � a c. T-. y ,b N b bU M on ❑ o b ❑ a o .g �' ° o �+ y on a � 0 w3a x o 0 0 0 Cd a O V. °0.a -� N g eo b g ° ° coyi ca � � oy 3 ay •> o .., 00 � C b ° w a- .. aso v C d t w v q p m W o A c y tau .4 .'aU a U �' o h y .= o '� � a o w 00 CN w ,n a). N o �: o3po' N y3oo 0 0 00 a o0 0 oo wON a Ch a: W. o o '. 010 .0 .5 0 a .. � .3 y..,a on3 d U �8a9! 0 o y o. b. f o , . ' O •oy II4 ° rA 004 a) O yO , 00 a) NF CD > q CA E 0 -9 cn am , U o =0, 2 o U �.� U � U ' � v x.10 M 4Gn .g o W 8 W GO' W'w ., .. C,c— o aI a W y U v cC O. �/ .� SS U O A4 Y+ U aai 4ab a Y $ C7 w r o.C .� ag O C:l v p aw—d% Tt p o�". �. go,� •� as a o � g � vv � o.-4CIS 0 ,0 a, qo3 ,. o i tjy Cd d , y+ ac... ,a. � at A p •v o v, 00a, A � � v� F" boy 0 ' A :C o"4o" W o a� maj r. at a0i c O d A a. o"'F•g o � �D s�.� 3 Wae .g � a>a w ° 0 1 oco In. w rJ L 0 O O O E o 0-0 -0 4m yw o =.. cn E 00 N 0 rn U 0 0 3 > 0 PC rA ° w ° a �, � > o y o > G = E o m 0 c A CA 0° .• ° 1. o o = V o o 0 -0 �.c 0 u m c �bm0 E � U a3, °o o coag tLV 3 v 0 a� ❑ •t� .d N 00..(2 . 4CDC.) 0cca CD 'd ami E E � a O C3 0V o rn C*q .� C 3 m O O a 0 0 0 + 0 0 Ow y 8 ~ ° o � o so ° o Mme � � b L) '� 0 .0 U a m [ a o U3 � �o oma, w = '0 '� '$ o a 0 .2 EO V o w v 'L. >,H OO �•,001 'b p w0.+ O .�-.' - O. O �° Gn 0 -. .0 C,4 ag w � = UoN 0 -S r. OV U M > p w m O W � O �� � .. b oW "oma ga'"i � 3 = ,� �a�i ¢ > _• cpaE - a� q° aEiyoaUi � aI ° a � E � U CA Go b O 0 en . 0 Co pgv Q �>,�U � ai U • mPON .000 Q > 0 9:6 CL p - Ic � � == 00 N q m .� rq d a m . oOZ 4 1 a yam, 0, O b �00 o o O "' w - ca C7 U ,.y WA. -4. c o O V +4 00 0 ¢ a 02 Av 48 .0 ca fUWWI O 0 O •T+ O O 10�. pq 0 w O ► 4 b o cl ea as a cn o O O a >, o f ON Z a, WPC Go „ Lil a U NVQ .r .r = ° U. S �o APC 00 PC 0 od Q 0c 00 !# cc cc y b r 0 p U U U •p -0 -0 10 •$ m 0 0 0 cd cis ca [ O a a O o U ai a� as w° m e Na •= c •q 3 .Q a 3 y m o as O m o O .r .y.. y CN 0 O Q p 00 •Cy. 3a E R7 0 -6 , £. - o � eq a a a. www C7 v — u " u c Or N ` _ PC > o am m o W b O ° 0 A m. CD .r O O Q\ oow i D s E� _ - ° > oCA Gm. op Q.� N w d 21 r. aM �. m y ps Ix 0 v G ty QC40 u := Z uIx. cc w Z u G U oma-' U O � Ora cis PC PC PC L p as M d w o ►� ` 06 . Ix � 3 b— a g y ° L". a 44 0. a+ .tT' O '"" a GO CJ C U ccN 'O Cs 3 0 o apcn o U p; a a w " a 0 -0 cc " � 3 a 0 0.� eo b C.) b° a ?' C 0 � r. Ca tb 5a �v+ ami .0o ¢ 5 ° ° x'05 =x 0.naK o -° W -0 • ,, •." ° o a 2pa aom . v0 0.� 0. m ° UU 0 U aOcC a a as CA Fb = ao ¢ o a,� or? >o a� A 00 o �" C 0 N y w 00 cd cd4t L� a) N a �' V 4" p ' > w °N' $ ° o a C j QO �a 0 U gyp, w a� m _ 0 a CO •� p a .a p a y a p.,'C N N N ° p m fL a ° w M m 0 o a ani .� b .: ° m � o +-„ a = ya � a � m �Q •3 sqa�. o aai o b " 00 °Cy ° 0 a� w 0. 3 E �`' a � � °•5 a0i o0. � o— � 0 o ' ao oo ° tsob a o0 i+ .a. Jb N Oa N :a D ° U ;4 �C a a. a U (Do f 5 > ° -a n 5 d CIS, ca aWUU � aa, wUao boa ° 3 0 � � c � o R�NO tb ° � , et ,a ao 0 ° a0 0 C' a cd :3 Cd cd 5b a) a :. r-i � 4) 0 , °a' � mbaai 0 .4 � °° b 5 � a ° 'S 0. o '� 0 0 3 2 .o 'm >, a '"U3CA 5 c 0 Y w 0 8 09x: 0 ° 0. ° ... ° U i � ° ° a CC) aa� o a0i aC7 a a�i ^o ' R+ •Q m r .N-N -0 A U oho o = 3 m O 0 m G a ' o.W.p14, U 0 0 a m 0 v � � Z � ��m ba •a � '� _ o 040 o 0 5 c w0 Fd' mmaai caa Cj.- .o 1 wl W rti PC O ..r -"• N MW .� 0 � En � " w boo L) 3 oa Z;. °' 4° ° � n � . C C) O � U � 3 N w O U y O m m O 'C . 00 b CIS •O O bo O 0 .0 ~ y N 43 M wa V U �•.� wcd cna p cc C ^ oW CI ' boa � ami a .. _ oar,: ca abi w O .CJ m w' tu 4-4 a 81 79 00 o � = W � 0• U �9 0 - ' F wl ''�' 3033 °o z � g > om �, � fib: oaaq � � U A. Q m O O N r+ . .0 -S _ .� y 44 0 O m � p w PC .-+ p,'p •Yt..' O O c, •0 O '�b ad'i - +O+ � � F •'j.+ W � � .a ' WcdrA ° � m .oa • c �bo wN X " > o � � aoa¢ ada'02 ccbog00Zs0 0 � 5� '13 3 °w'.a°? Y o C Y o .2 $ a°. 3 0 ani .�-a "a CL o � a Cc, o. a 'C v� 0 .2 r. a C 4) —a � �C m� 0 it rC a s 0w IZ .0 y m a 0 o u O o .t'J' •p �acs a wO in V OC Q C7 a ► i b eC �'+, a, '5. 415 .0 0 m�orw 0 G Q O r N m G. rg O O 3aao. aa Ln C ° � � .0 � a w o a 8 .0 a 0 o , 3 ,9r. m _ � X38 a O YO �7 d C u chi g 0 ca r m 4� y� O m R �+ •aa� a a O cn ° O a + cd aai a 1 01 y e0 y O cn U �,U Ca b C m O Gl C O N00ti w+ aa, N ami cj. c o aai a° 'N o � Cos o 0o C7 v �. a ..a+ a a ci a �. a GW b CPC aai 2 cla ad u rA lz i+ C a 0. 0 ►.1 V O a b 'C:' .n "C w o O ►. O . . U C4 y C v cc a cn 4.4U �30 -0 W •� c U i c �- 0 o � Y eo 3 a O A w .0 0 o (n C o eo .• c d i W 'C Gl o `' •� o 'er y • a.C4.4 ,C a a ani aai p. m C ° a o 4: UC Ge ° .mm at3 . O o r4 Go aa + 0 . ea -0 o b mp4) 0 as pw w 0 d o C M ° a .° aaasa2 6ao � a r•r .-+ 0. 911 CA d ?I A f� rn CIO •O 5 ° � 5eo w m M oma ° a. v 5caad ,-4 c a m a ami v� o o° z o o m 91. C Nry ° d ,� �.. U _ y o o on C as a a> m 4 7 ^^+ •� �+ •t.+ .��5++ O •fl yY at O p, a w ,q aV3 5 o�'i oo� x 5 a •o o "G o > N o 'O o m . 'b w � � oaSa O a c� 5 m 5 6 - A o C .A sF p v Y3 5 a v v a� c m „� ° o m m om '� N wj .r �y > w ;0 A n O s 0 03 en t 00 .o O a to `� b ri U ° u t+ oo °` C3 00 cl C3 >, via"i � om a�Ni � a3Y-°A. � w G adi ' q �' . A 0 Ix CS 5 n � aa' .°^coo ao cl x >oa .5 a� a gaai acv'• " d =1 o ° i a cz o a`"i :-t �w -:5 ,-• y �:p .0 U O°. a 0 c c q y 5 o v aO •a p = algia, y w . �'^' Oa ;; �+.5 � 0 a0 � o. oc .5 o a" f� 8 os' 0 _ c U 7 v 0 0 0 f]. b oC7 V o o = o w . m on" °' = ci -'"-'.'� ^y" o y •� '>' n ' a 41 a .0` a *rl tofw O, . ca 0 � w; F l414, C31 o p : .a . _ in Go '�'010 0 0 p 0. rn W � m OD .: 00 °ato °,ao �ca yod . Fn b 4o cc a) 2c 'a0v) p0 co C3.... Zfl3 c ea0 ca w a C� i .� •v GL ' G °� . U cd m ,, . . � c � ono U � � h $ Op LD W.10 m UcCo 0 "C7 �, o A .5 " W Ca C* W m C o o rA m ca c m au d `� a v m o b as a m a.� m oco . 4 V V O 1 r'. p 0 0 0 O x „ m " 0 mrA ee W ;b _ O 5 y 0m 0 ut � ) C.) 0 o 2Cs• � �rm ms' 0w Oma m 0 � .� O e,p .9 a � y U a = 3a -= °rC+ `� 3a� oa > c 00Cc 8 0 .. ^ � ' oa on S a5, � � s U m � d b C) ev 3 5 > C) �j � � aci � n o oaP+ $ o ,G � O '00 > s a cC m u � -m ownYs ,,, b m o o a' •o o Y d G ,y O p^ mF CLM g w ro 0Uoo oo ma + O c* U00 0 y h > . rz CD C� p y m m cm O O 0m •q >. O m vi O a C14 u . .P4 ; = otono U a`iS a _ o 0x 0 "C . -c3 `* cc U -0 w O 0 a $ . -o000g o 00 .9 . aa �m M10 .. U ' � Q o. ° "' ��' . a� o `a «o^ xb `� tu. 0 6b a y " t ^� b =` aU 0 0� o p 1 0 > ¢ ° a 52 .d .0 �CDoao . � c o o a 2, h8) -�o .� . y 6� f/] m u0, 0...-. 7 U 414 4) a 0 0 ^ N cd O O m PC 4. Ora O . = O y eC m' q G •�«� ^ 'O U O 0 - C ria > O. Ov `g .�y w :: �'.�. ; • ' 000 wa a � � w�o o � a coi C � U uCA ° a w o m c. � �n m W a c U a v 6 S0 x".3 0 oC7 o � ao � ° 3 c . >,�« C � o y .b w 0 o3a. a0, O p � � � � � owc� C m u •� O m �-0 > ~ Cw V d C 2 0S9; o �b •p O d m y g Q ai o w 9 V. b _9 o 'er 0 00 W o 0 rr .� O ai m O C� 0 qm .. _ Y N .b S0 °° ` o .. u aaac > 4 v p w0 .� v•m w w 3 o u O ° tb �... ... y a ,n d ami a c m b "C4. -00 z .- o o °: -0 r- C Go 0" b a a a s >, •O 0 0 S o m y � aai 'U 04') Uc3 � U a i. .S b Q U 'fin al) u m C u a v v a, uN too 'a u U .S .5 A a " �.eSay '�� 02 o Cc*. a E .5 'vas woke u 'o aai a " a 0Ix a •- 3 S � CLI o a) 'a Cd '4 o3C .am. U a U O � .� a "O 1 O C* ° a r G Ca/] a T.+ O 9 a a0. ; V o R 3a� a� a � C13a W a C _oma . Cd m .oa.o ° '� � aoCO m °• m C c d .p0 O •p eq%•O � '000 O .O ed (V &. 0 ,.i 44 C p l C3 d .y CA y > O OO 3UO a 0Oyd . cn A es C O b0 aim y � "O �7 .O O' O u N CL a 3 aC °o a p .S m Q ° 7 .� v «:a4 rA bo•0 .° a yam, c 3can a ao .Sa � 00 49 . dD m �+ S y e •.. °...0 C6 o VI a u .. .0 ca LD SZ Ma a� a!! a a3 �+ u p O p eC s .0 U ... d A. > .S °O C w0 .b .S O •°'v y ed ¢''O 44. cd ID U y b .cd a 7 u N y O O •� O�p p� W O oa. p p b c� 03 c 'S os..� vi � » ..,�3gocvivy � 0 � gio � +- U b � -- �; � •r+ S tl IX 45 ir !'CS jr W PC D, ° 3 0-0 o � c0i w .; � a � a a .0 0 N o am0 � W °' w a'- o z �# � a> a •v �' q a> PC C ( .� V w U a i 5 v ¢ U n a `O m m U 00 U 00 A PO 03 •� V1 .� q 7 'O .aa �"' � k7 �+ CSS c7 b ° �•' m 0 03 C6 0 U r '= .g CA N .^mss U O'Ca u 4w U °4-!� W a5 0,0 qIZ 5 �o � v38ao _ror++ ' N w b w ° b "V tr L U ca as ° ow 9 � Cq asb 4 M 0 O U N W .N ° 'n 0 T a ci Ni Co � O gN MA N mood Q N a) y A p y rn 00 0cs ,� q 00 0 cu 00. p C ►moi 'D q ��^ M U U d a3 e0 '+ �•i a Q) 00 W J7 g 79 rn it p - qV .. O wd' O O aqui Iz o „ c u -6 o vO. a !@m - V mami ami � 3 aqi m q b -� CCS wl 0 ca ca ) mo- T3 w a a� @3 S. � � d cd099 cd bo EA cs o. E ami o m c°� d 6~0C A -8 .� p m � w 0 Q m a�a c°i :: m 3 �' 3 N �« o m 0 c°l� C. 02 0 c°i o M N n o > w o d a p ¢ 3 o - E q 5b O U 'b ' 0" O N S N 2 O d - 0 Cd os ga. A o `° 0 0. U ;a O ,m 0 s • b a � y 7i to . a 0 x 3Y U .9 � o � � > a� .� cr 3 >1 � q U 0 -0 = ya.� %0p' > :du -5 $ �� C •b0 y U ¢ +' N C14 rn > 0 �w U N y S U U 3 tw qow 00 ON \o $ w X 0 0 0 o .-. m a ca ov v Qe � e3 o > d = � N .-� N d .� U .= �p C O . cd �c be N m • •, E =4 000 c 0 p = c � pN01V Q = aCO (13 tQ m .. N C w � d O `' ' G .� m 8 a a �C E z ,,Qa ti � aU, usw .° ooC7 � � v o i aCd ¢ b 0 0 0a o — 0 0 A a Y a 0 Y % 0 Q U 0 0 ab cO -SZ 00 '� � � � 0 U " sem, c - � S � °' 0EGO a � N .� ca 0 0 o C� ~ 0 cd U t 0 .2 >, +� �, , U may 0 � " � > 0 o �, > m 'o0 m 3 03 o0 o cn iW o d �' a .rA SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF.ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 26, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Jim Aiken, Orval Osborne,-Allan Cooper, Carlyn Christianson, James Caruso, and Chairwoman Alice Loh . Staff: Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy Community. Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE: The Minutes of November 20, 2002, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS.ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, . expressed concem about the City growing too fast and felt there should be proper thinking and planning. .There were no further comments made from the public: ` PUBLIC.HEARINGS: 1. 3210.Broad Street. GP/R and ER 154-02: Request to 'amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Neighborhood Commercial (GN), and environmental review; C-S-S zone: Dan Lemburg, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending 'the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Element map changing the land use designation from Services and Manufacturing -to Neighborhood-Commercial, approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration,.:amend the zoning map from C-S-S (Service-Commercial with a special considerations overlay zone) to C-N-S (Neighborhood-Commercial with a special considerations overlay.. He rsp Planning Commission Min February 26, 2003 Page 2 noted the only mitigation measure for this property was to address potential airport hazards since this is in the Airport Land Use Zone 6. Commr. Caruso questioned what would happen if the Airport Land Use Commission did not approve this request. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand explained that it would require a request to the Council to override the decision of the Airport Land Use Commission by a 4/5 vote . Commr. Caruso asked if the City's Land Use Element is required to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Deputy Director Whisenand explained there is a policy in the General Plan that states the Land Use Regulations in the City shall be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Commr. Caruso questioned what kind of uses would be expected in a Neighborhood- Commercial zone. Planner Dunsmore replied personal services, pedestrian-friendly type uses, and smaller retail shops. Deputy Director Whisenand noted this is a neighborhood-centered.area and hopes this development, if approved, would allow more pedestrian-oriented convenience shopping for the people in close proximity. Commr. Aiken noted there are no residential units being proposed and suggested' eliminating the residential component from.the project. Planner Dunsmore .explained that one of the General Plan principles is. to -look-.4t. preserving areas for residential use and to promote mixed-use projects in the future. He also noted that residential care facilities and daycare facilities are currently.prohib. ited_irr Airport Land Use Zone 6, are not allowed in the C-S zone, but are allowed in the'GN zone. Carol Florence, applicant's representative from Oasis;.Associates, asked that Alle. Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the project at recommended by staff. She expressed that the applicant concurs with the additional prohibitions under the Special Considerations (S) overlay zoning, and noted that these- . added conditions should be clearly spelled out in the Resolution. She mentioned they accept a lower density to six dwelling units per acre, feeling this is appropriate for the size of the site. She stated they are willing to prohibit the use of daycare and those. other types of facilities. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A Ann Miller, 33-A Broad Street, requested that the change not be approved because that particular comer is already well served by small neighborhood businesses. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2003 Page 3 MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, stated Ernest and Lemona Martin are not ready to do this project. Ernest Martin, 3210 Broad Street, stated he is not ready for this project at the present time, noting that he owns property at 3212 Broad Street. Deputy Director Whisenand interjected that he believes Mr. Lemburg is the property owner of all the properties. Dan Lemburg, applicant, explained that Peter and Suzanne Nelson and he own the property and felt there is some confusion. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo explained that an application for a rezoning requires the signature of the property owner on the application, and stated there is a representation that the person who signs the application makes that he is the owner of the property. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairwoman Loh asked if the uses that will occupy the tenant spaces could be changed. Planner Dunsmore replied yes. Commr. Cooper moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the CitV Council amend the General Plan Use Element Map and change the Land .Use designation.for from Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood-Commercial, approve.the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and change the zoninafrom C-S-S (Service Commercial/Special Considerations) to C-N (Neighborhood-CommerciaVSgecial Consideration), with the following condition: that the Resolution include more specific reference to a prohibition of daycare facilities and residential care facilities. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. Deputy Director Whisenand suggested modifying the Section 3 (Action) to make it Section 4,and insert a Section 3 (Use Restrictions) that lists uses that will be prohibited. Commr. Cooper accepted the suggestion. AYES: 'Commrs. Cooper, Aiken, Boswell, Osborne;Christianson, Caruso, &'Loh NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Commission Min February 26, 2003 Page 4 2. Citywide. GPA and ER 149-98: Request to update and combine the Conservation Element and the Open Space Element, and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant (Mike Draze) Mike Draze, Deputy Community Development Director explained that the City Council approved a work program for the updating..of the Conservation Element and combining of several elements in 1998. The Planning Commission held hearings on November 20 and December 18, 2002, and those hearings were continued to this meeting. Mr. Draze noted that number of letters have been distributed to the Commission, and issues and allegations noted in those letters have been addressed in the staff report, primarily access to the legislative draft of the document. He clarified that the document has been on the City's website for many months, and is available for purchase on CD . format or paper copy, and a loan copy is available at the Community Development counter. He noted there was a concern with staffs inability -to communicate with the public on this document, however, Mr. Draze reinforced that there was an "open house" Town..Hall meeting on this document, and„each person or .organization that had expressed an interest in the effort was invited_. No one,attended. He-clarified that the letters that have been received on these issues were from groups or individuals who had specifically been invited to the Town Hall meeting. It was staff's opinion that single. documents .are. a benefit: to the extent, that you:can reduce the amount of verbiage .one must.go through ao find, policies, programs and goals, which is an advantage to all concerned. He felt there is a- philosophical;. difference of whether or not it is better to have multiple documents with policies stated multiple times. Staffs position .is that it need only be stated once, provided the document is not too long, and the policy is well documented. Mr. Draze compared this approach to.the General Plan Digest ;where all policies, programs and goals and all elements are in this document.; It is most widely used document .by. staff, the.Planning Commission, City .Council,, and the general public because you can find information much easier. The;.complete, elements contain background information that is not necessary for making,decisions. He clarified that- having fewer elements is not"hiding"_information, but making;it-more exposed for public review. It was the opinion of staff that if,the various letter,writers', goals are to:protect the environment and to improve public access to the information, the proposed consolidated elements achieve that goal, It -was noted that the Office of_,Planning ,and Research. supports consolidation..of elements for all communities_. _Mr. Draze .presented a copy of, the original notice,that clearly described the project, as follows: ". . . it, is ahe aim .to ,consolidate all policies . dealing with the conservation natural resources including. those ,located in the Open Space,- Energy Conservation Element,Land Use. Element, and:,other-elements." , He. reiterated that it was common knowledge that staffs intent was to.consolidate policies into common documents. He further,noted the ECOSLO.newsletter reiterated the.City's- consolidation intentions, which he displayed on the overhead. �� Planning Commission Minutes - February 26, 2003 Page 5 Commr. Cooper felt the Council Resolution should have been part of the staff report, to clearly state the City's intention and the Council's direction. Commr. Caruso noted he found at least two dozen places in the legislative draft where he would like to see the original policies stay in place because they are more specific. He felt that oftentimes, the Commission is told they cannot take an action because the policies in place-are not adequate to support that type of decision, and the reason for this is because they are too vague, too general, or not on point. He felt that with these changes, the City is heading in that direction. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wildling Lane, felt the City is overdoing open space. Jan Howell-Marx, 265 Albert Drive, supported Commr. Caruso's comments, and felt it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to review each and every policy being proposed for elimination and weigh and balance what it is being replaced with. She felt. the proposed element is vague and needs to be more 'specific, and gave some examples. She suggested no changes in the Land Use, Housing, and Energy Conservation Elements. Commr. Cooper was disturbed that citizens want to discard the work done thus far and start over: He said he would only be sympathetic to that:view if it were clear that staff had'not followed Council's direction. Michael Sullivan, SLO, felt there are fundamental differences between some of the letter writers and planning staff, the"main difference being,that citizens want to make"sure that the City follows CEQA laws. He felt this is a case where the City does not want to do ,so. ' He did not feel 'this is just 'a reorganization of information, and that there are omissions or significant weakening of.-Policies. Some examples of these major policy shifts are California native plants no longer protected; protection of creeks and wetlands no longer mandatory but discretionary; and prime agriculture soil no longer protecfe& He asked-that the Commission'-deny this proposal and deny the negative declaration" since there will be significant impacts. He referred toRichard Schmidt's 9-page letter dated December 17, 2002 and concurred with its content. Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, supported Commr.`Caruso'8 preliminary proposal to go back to basics if there are no other solutions. He felt there is a weakening of policies,particularly in the Land Use Element. `Hd'eestated`*His position, noting it is also the position of the Environmental Quality'Task Fbrce. If the full'package is submitted for a yes or no vote; theyurge 'the Commission to vote'no. He outlined another'proposal, which was to agree to leave the Land Use Element`alone and concentrate on critiquing the'Conservation Element itself.- He said he was 'not surprised that the environmental community did not attend the'Town*Hall meeting since it was not to provide public input, but rather to explain the element to-the public, and most of them already knew what was' in the element. Planning Commission Min February 26, 2003 ' Page 6 Mr. Schmidt further noted that it,was his understanding that environmental programs and policies in the LUE would be cross-referenced in the new element. He later found out they were proposed for removal, and met with staff to discuss this. He did not feel he was heard. He noted the State Office of Planning and Research Guidelines indicate that like things should be together, so Mr. Schmidt felt all Land Use policies should be in the Land Use Element. Mr. Schmidt was asked if this were just a re-write of an old Open Space and Conservation Element and included some consolidation, would he and the Commission be here at this meeting. Mr. Schmidt replied absolutely not. Jody Bennett, San Luis Obispo, said she was not aware that there were policy changes being made to the Land Use Element. She echoed the sentiments of Commr. Caruso and Ms. Howell-Marx, and opposed anything that lessens environmental policies. She felt consolidation means putting things together, making things simpler, and eliminating redundancies.. She did not feel this was the case. . COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Cooper asked staff if the Council Resolution discussed earlier in the meeting had been located. Deputy Director Draze responded that he did not find.the.resolution, but located the Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) where the budget is approved for any program in the City. The request summary indicates that this is a consolidation an update of the elements with the.adopted Open.Space Element creating one resource element and thus reducing redundancy among elements. In August 1998, a staff report went to the City Council regarding consultant services,to assist with.this .consolidation; and it again mentions integrating contents of the Open Space:;Element, Energy, Element, and Conservation Element. Deputy Director Draze further explained that staff felt that.those policies and programs in the Land.Use Element that were proposed to be . moved to the new element were, in fact, Conservation and Open Space-type programs and policies. Commr. Osborne questioned the change in the language where all verbs are removed, which he felt is a change from "shall" and "should". Deputy Director Draze referred to Page 5 of the hearing ,draftdocument (not the legislative draft), and clarified the language was in reference. to a goal, which is specific and does not require a-verb.. A,goal is used to get to the Policies and Programs,.and that is where the "shalls" and "shoulds"are located, Commr. Boswell moved to continue this item to a;date uncertain. Seconded by Commr. Caruso for discussion. Commr. Boswell noted he will be offering some amendments but.wanted to make some comments. . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2003 Page 7 Commr. Boswell indicated his dissatisfaction with the effort on this element and did not believe it reflects appropriate citizen involvement, and it does not reflect a step forward in a conservation of open space and natural resources in the community. He stated his three reasons for this: 1) This is a substantial revision rather than simply an update and a consolidation, and whenever elements of the General Plan are substantially revised; the City should include a proactive and workshop-style public participation. 2) A substantial revision, such as the Conservation and Open Space Element, should include new information regarding the state of the environment in a current regulatory context at the local, State, and Federal level, which were not provided. He was concerned that the environment in SLO has changed since these elements were Written, and the energy situation for the State of California and the world has substantially changed. Without understanding how it has changed makes it impossible to write. a good Energy Element. 3) The new language is dependent on reference to outside regulatory agencies as being the appropriate way to conserve resources in the community, and he felt this is problematic, the City needs to set the policy that it is interested in, provided it does not legally conflict with State or Federal standards. 3) The General Plan should be a visionary document that includes specific goals, policies and programs and guides the implementation, not reacts to it. He felt that too much detail has been lost, and applying the document to decisions to be made by the Commission would make it extremely difficult to interpret. Commr. Boswell offered an amendment to the motion: That it should be directed back to staff with a certain amount of direction, one of which is to try to pet together some type of Ad Hoc committee of interested persons who can be more responsible for putting this document together so it is not coming from staff but rather a document that has the imprimatur of members of the community who are interested in the subiects. Once authorship is perceived; authorship leaves the staff level and goes to the public, which is a more well-accepted document in general. He also added. that the Commission agrees in theory, or• at least in concept, with the consolidation effort of General.-Plan policies, but without even a perceived weakening in any of the policy protections that now.exist. The seconder accepted the motion. Gil Trujillo, Interim City, Attorney, rioted for the Commission's information that establishment of Ad Hoc committees is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Council, so an appropriate action would be to recommend that the City Council establish an Ad Hoc Committee. Chairperson Loh asked if this is the intention of the motion maker to amend the motion. Commr.'Boswell responded yes. Commr. Cooper,suggested incorporating into the motion that some of the suggestions from the meeting of December 18, 2002 be incorporated into revisions. Commr. Boswell accepted the amendment. Commr. Osborne would like to see the goals retained in the General Plan, even if they have been expressed in ordinances. He felt general policies need to remain. _v� Planning Commission Mink February 26,2003 Page 8 Commr. Christianson supported this motion, noting she does not feel this is a weakening of the General Plan. She expressed confusion as to why the Land Use Element keeps being separated from the other elements by the public, since they are all part of the General Plan. The entire General Plan needs to be taken under advisement for any changes, not just small.sections of it. She noted the document desperately needs consolidation and revision of some sort — it is very long, redundant, and confusing. She supports the update as presented at this meeting, but felt the right public support is lacking for this change, and something this important needs much broader consensus as to what is proper policy and close to a unanimous Planning Commission vote. Chairwoman Loh did not support the motion, expressing that it would be a waste of time to set up another Ad Hoc committee. She felt staff did an excellent job of consolidating the information. Commr. Aiken did not support.the motion, although he was largely in agreement with Commr. Christianson. He felt disheartened that the Commission has been inundated, with letters over the last two days, often times duplicates of letters already received. Deputy.Director Draze clarified that this item will probably not return to the Commission this calendar year. If something of the magnitude discussed is in order, it will require funding and staffing which is not currently_available. Even if there was no task_force.= type thing (we don't know yet because.the Council will make that determination), it will not be able to be worked on for many months. He felt staff would go to the Council for their direction on what to do about this project, and bring up the Commissions recommendations and the possibilities of using another task force for this project, and then budget as appropriate. Given current staffing, this would probably not be until 2004. Chairwoman Loh noted the Council.had directed staff a year ago to consolidatethe. elements. She felt they needed to be improved, not;discarded. AYES: Commrs. Boswell,Caruso,,Osbome„Cooper,and Christianson NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None BUSINESS ITEMS- 3. Watershed-Greenbelt area. GPA 10-03: Study Session: Natural Resources and Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo.County presentation on the City's Greenbelt;! to adjust the boundary to the natural watershed boundary;.City of San Luis Obispo applicant. (Neil Havlikand Mike Draze) The Planning Commission continued this item to a date uncertain-due to difficulties with. the projection equipment. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2003 Page 9 4. Irish Hills Natural Reserve. ER 2-03: Review and comment on the Conservation Plan for the Irish Hills natural reserve; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik presented the staff report .requesting the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Conservation Plan for the Irish Hills Natural Reserve be approved. He noted the Commission's review of the guidelines was favorable and the City Council approved them. He noted the Conservation Plan for the Irish Hills is the first plan to be prepared under those guidelines. Michael Clark, City Biologist, presented an overview of the process that was used in the development of this plan. He explained that an inventory was prepared of all the various resources that represent the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. He noted there are approximately 250 species that are found on this site. He explained that the City would like to develop an extensive system of educational resources for the reserve and to acquire adjoining parcels of land to expand the reserve to join with nearby federal land -and facilitate the development of the loops trail system if the'opportunity or the funds become available. Commr. Cooper asked if trashcans near trailheads should be provided. Resource Manager Havlik explained the experience has been that if trashcans are provided, they get filled up with trash that could easily be taken home. He stated the rule of thumb is "pack it in, pack it out". Commr. Cooper commented the trail that adjoins the mineshaft area is an attractive nuisance and wondered why they are going out of their way to run a trail to ttre mineshaft. Natural Resource Manager Havlik explained the mine area is the working area of the mine that offers some opportunities for some interpretation, and does not present ''a hazard. He explained that staff put a short trail that goes up the hill to make. .'a connection because people were going that that anyway, but noted they would like to improve that trail to improve the angle and not become an erosion hazard. Commr. Boswell felt if there is going to be active- recreation, could certain trails be closed to pedestrians, provided there is a parallel route available. Natural Resource Manager Havlik replied they have discussed it and noted .there are several trails they would like to do that with. Commr.Aiken asked about the implementation of the program and flow if is'affected by the current budget shortfalls. Natural Resource Manager Havlik replied that is likelyto be a general issue and most issues are not major cost items, but time-related items. Planning Commission Mir ~ s February 26,2003 _ Page 10 Mr. Clark interjected that in writing the plan, they wanted to be realistic, so they only included items they were confidant they could achieve within resources available to them. Commr. Christianson asked if mountain biking is considered active recreation or passive recreation. Resource Manager Havlik replied the General Plan talks about them as active recreation. Commr. Christianson questioned how would public comments become goals. Natural Resource Manager Havlik felt that "goals" is not a good choice of words, but rather projects that were asked of them. Mr. Clark explained them as specific improvements that people felt should be implemented rather than goals. Commr. Caruso noted there is a lot of serpentine and asked if they could introduce some Morning Glory. He noted he was disturbed by the reference made to mountain biking and questioned whether there would be a problem between the hikers.and the mountain bikers using the same narrow trails. Natural Resource Manager Havlik felt it is certainly possible, but have not experienced anything like that. Commr. Caruso suggested some monitoring programs for these types of conflicts.. . Chairwoman Loh expressed a concern on the stabilization of Fume Creek. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Dollar, 2357 Banderola Court, presented a letter to. the Corrimission and commented that open space is valuable community property. and felt.they are off to.,a good start in San Luis Obispo. He commented that it is important to set a good example with the first plan because it will be a precedent for the others and suggested - staying close to the guidelines. John Cutter, Buchon Street, Central Coast Mountain Bikers member, presented some background on mountain bikers. He mentioned that his group has been successful in. having trail workdays with the Sierra Club and equestrian.groups, and are hoping to set. a good example that mountain bikers can be an appropriate form of recreation in certain . open spaces. Commr. Cooper commented on a statement in a.letter that was received and.asked-Mr. Cutter's reaction that bikers should yield to hikers. Mr. Cutter responded that bikers yield to'everyone. �� Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2003 Page 11 MaryBeth Schroeder,_2085 Wilding Lane, commented that she lived in the Irish Hills when she was young and would never want to see mountain bikes up there. Michael Sullivan- 1127 Seaward Street, expressed support for the open space program and felt it is a great success. He requested that staff explain the process of developing trails and finding out where they are specifically going to be located, and mentioned he hoped there would be an opportunity for public input. He felt grazing is good for fire suppression, but questioned if there would be any impacts associated with that such as erosion or trampling of endangered plants. He suggested a ban on mountain bikes in the very steep trail portions. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso moved to recommend the Council adopt the Conservation Plan for the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Seconded by Commr. Cooper: Commr. Caruso expressed concerns with mountain bikers sharing trails with pedestrians. He suggested the plan identify those trails where the users could be segregated. Commr. Cooper expressed support for this suggestion. Commr. Christianson expressed support for the motion. She requested an amendment to change the wording on public comments from goals, to something else, and expressed grand-fathering in the use of horses and mountain bikes and suggested:that section 3.9 could echo 3.13 with the language that the local mountain bike community will be encouraged to stay actively involved. The motion maker and second accepted the amendment. Chairwoman Loh expressed concern on the blind spot problem, feeling it is a safety issue and suggested this be added as an amendment. The motion maker and second accepted this amendment. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Boswell, Aiken, Osborne, Christianson, & Loh NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. Commr. Caruso commented the reason the City could open these types of natural areas is because this City has decided to put the budget that is necessary to construct trails the way they should be. Planning Commission Mini February 26,2003 Page 12 COMMENT AND.DISCUSSION: 5. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: March 12, 2003: Secondary Dwelling Update; Planning Commission Elections. March 26, 2003: Second half of the Commercial Zoning Update. Deputy Director Whisenand mentioned the Costco EIR.and Bowden Ranch EIR would become public and asked for some input on when to schedule these EIR's. There was Commission discussion on this. Commission: Chairwoman Loh presented a brief report on the Housing Task Force. Commr. Caruso mentioned there is a Housing Task Force meeting on February 27"', and explained they are going through policy by policy and program by program and deciding if it a policy or program that needs to stay or go. Vice-Chair Osborne mentioned he is looking to going to the Smart Growth conference: ADJOURNMENT: With no-further business.before the Commission, the meeting adjourned--at-111 0:80 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for March 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary Jj MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 23,2003-7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER,990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members John Ewan,Ken Schwartz,Allen K Settle, Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland and Mayor.Dave Romero Planning Commission Members Present: Planning Commissioners,Cariyn Christianson,Jim Aiken,Alice Loh, Allan Cooper,Michael Boswell,Vice-Chair James Caruso,and Chairperson Orval Osborne City Staff: Present: Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer,Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney;Lee Price,City Clerk, Mike Draz%Deputy Director Community Development Department;John Moss,Utiittles Director; Nell Havlik,Natural Resources Manager and Mlchaet Coifron, ,- Associate Planner BUSINESS ITEM 1. JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 'CONSERVATION&OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN(GPA-AND ER 149-98L. Mayor Romero described the purpose of the meeting as follows: 1)to discuss the process associated with the Draft Conservation&Open Space Element,2)to review and respond to concerns relating to the process,and 3)to develop a plan for proceeding toward completion of the Element. Planning Commission Chairperson Osborne clarified that the meeting was not to study,review,analyze or act on the content of the Draft. CAO Hamplan provided introductory comments. Deputy Director Community Development Draze and Natural Resources Manager Haviik presented an in-depth staff reporL C O Hamnian reviewed the"CAO recommendation,as outlined in the staff report. Brief questions followed Public Comments: Michael Sullivan,1127 Seaward SL,spoke in support of the formation of a task force and suggested that the City conduct public surveys to get additional Input into the process. He ' asked that the matrix(comparison chart)be amended to more clearly indicate where to find existing language proposed to be changed. Deputy Director Draze explained that the matrix is C2.- Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 Tuesday,September 23,2003,7.00 p.m. cross-referenced to reflect where to find the current goal or policy statement and,further, where the new language Is proposed to go. Jan Howell Marx.265 Albert Drive,voiced opposition to consolidating the Open Space and Conservation Elements. She argued that the Open Space Element Is working the way It is but agreed that the Conservation Element should be updated. She cautioned the Planning Commission to be diligent in their relvew of the documents to make sure that standards are not being lowered,but rather raised Patricia Wilmore.Chamber of Commerce,commented In support of the CAD's recom- mendation(letter on file In the Office of the City Clerk). Pam Heatherinoton.Executive Director of ECOSLO,concurred with comments made by Jan Howell Marx and encouraged the Council to consider the formation of a task force. --end of public comments— Planning Commission and Council discussion ensued. Vice Mayor Mulholland proposed, and the Council majority supported,expanding CAO Recommendation#1b to allow for more public discussion In a meeting format less formal than typical public hearings at which citizens are Ilmlted to three minutes to testify. Coancli took no action on Me Planning Commission's recommenda8on to form a task force. ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Settle to: 1)Direct staff to: a)Update the existing policy comparison chart to make easier the review of the draft for the public and Planning Commission. b)At the earliest reasonable time,schedule a series of public and' - , Planning Commission workshops In a discussion format so that the public and the Planning Commission have ample time to review.the proposed draft,page by page if necessary,prior to holding formal public hearings on the revised Conservation& Open Space Element c)Proceed to the formal public hearings only efttr the Planning Commission has completed the Housing Element Update. 2)Direct staff to discuss with the Planning Commission how they want to break down the work before proceeding; motion carried 5:0. There being no further business to come before the City Council,MBVor Romer o adjourned. the meeting at 9:28 p.m.to Tuesday,October 7,2003 at 4: p.m. the uri 0tamber,990 ' Palm Street,San Luis Obispo. Lee City Clerk APPROVED BYCOUNCIL 10/21/2003 LP:jo SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE IF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osbome Absent: Commrs. Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Vice-Chair James Caruso Staff: Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Gil Trujillo, Civil Engineer Supervisor Ron Livick and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS.ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryB.eth Schroeder, 2.085 Wilding Lane, 'expressed her feelings on the City's kind of government. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 702 through 798 Clearview Lane. 702 through 798 Clearview Lane. PD 117=03. Request to amend the Clearview Estates Condominium Development to allow the elimination of curbside parking;.R-1 zone; Jill DuFault, applicant. .(Phil Dunsmore) (Continued from October 8, 2003.)(To be continued to January 28, 2004.) This item was continued to the meeting of January 29,_2004, without discussion, at the request of the applicant. 2. 1730 Alisal Avenue. AP-PC 133-03; Appeal of Hearing Officer's approval of a request for an 8-foot tall fence (5400t-6-inch fence on a 30-inch retaining wall) where a 6-foot tall fence is allowed; R-1 zone; Michael Wilson, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending denial.of the appeal and upholding the Administrative Hearing Officer's action, based on findings. 6P is Planning Commission Mirk November 19,2003 Page 2 Steve Secrest, appellant, 1739 Conejo Avenue, felt this is a storm drainage issue and not a fence or cross-lot drainage issue. He expressed concern with surface water overflow from the City's underground pipes and creek channel that is part of the City's storm drain system for the neighborhood. He requested clarification from the Director of Public Works regarding a storm drain easement. He asked that the Commission deny this request and keep the storm drainage open. Mr. Secrest presented a video of the area and gave a brief explanation on how the storm water runs into their property. Michael Wilson, applicant, 1730 Alisal Avenue, noted there is an existing fence and that every effort has been made to improve the drainage along the fence. He presented some pictures of the site and explained the flow of the drainage. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Matt Wall, applicant's consultant, presented a letter and some photos that show the neighborhood and gave a brief explanation on how the flow of water could be addressed. Tom Knuckles, 1717 Conejo Avenue, explained where his property line is located. He had no concerns with the height of the fence, but had issues with drainage. He asked the City to investigate the affect the proposed structure might-have on the potential for flooding. David Moore, 1759 Conejo Avenue, commented on the new fix upstream that is referred expressed as an extension of the other conduit. He xpressed a concern that the other inlet could receive a lot of water during a heavy rain, which would also cause a.heavy build up. He pointed out the leaves, soil, and rock that washes out as the stream of water comes down the hill. George Cluckas, 1726 Corralitos Avenue, requested .that. tCie Commission take no action. He-recommended that a meeting,.be held.so the residents could have the City Attorney available to explain the ramifications of the decision that was made in 1995 by a Superior Court Judge. Jeanne Secrest, 1739 Conejo Avenue, was concerned with storm drainage overflow and neighborhood flooding, but did not have a problem with the fence height exception. Walter Schroeder, 17.22 Conejo Avenue, requested that no additional obstructions be . placed.in the easement that might cause flooding in the Gonejo Avenue area. Ann Hansen, 1744 Alisal Drive, felt the height of the fence is not a problem, but experts should address the drainage issues. Mike Wilson 1730 Alisal Drive, noted,.that drainage was the topic of concern. and requested some options of what could be done that would not affect the drainage. There were no further comments made from the.public. «I� Planning Commission Minutes - November 19,2003 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: There was much discussion on the problem of drainage in'this area. Hearing Officer Ronald Whisenand clarified Finding 1 and gave a brief explanation why the finding was made. Chairperson Osborne suggested the language of Finding 1 be modified to state, "will improve drainage of the property at 1730 Alisal Avenue." Commr. Christianson moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Administrative Hearing Officer's action to approve the fence height exception with Finding 1 amended to read. "no public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City's Fence Height Standards", and not address the drainage issue. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Loh noted that she Could not support the motion because the drainage issues should be addressed. AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, and Chairperson Osborne NOES: Commr. Loh ABSENT: Commrs.Aiken, Boswell; and Vice-Chair Caruso. ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on-a 3:1 vote. Assistant 'City Attorney Gil Trujillo noted that this item may be appealed to the City Council within l0 days. 3. 1771 Johnson Avenue. TR/ER/A 177-01; Review of tentative tract map for a common-interest subdivision creating 9 lots from 2 lots, with request to allow reduced street yards from 15 feet to 10 feet,'including Environmental Review; R-S zone; Richard Porter, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve'the subdivision nr ap and environmental document. Mark Rawson, Project Architect, 444 Higuera Street, concurred with the staff recommendation, and asked the Commission to recommend approval of the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS; Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, felt there should be flexible standards on these infill developments that are located-in ratherpoor locations. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that this is not a perfect infill location and felt there are too many-Units being crowded on a small piece of land'. Planning Commission Mino..,s November 19,2003 Page 4 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh moved the staff recommendation, with Code Requirement 21 deleted. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Deputy Director Ronald-Whisenand reiterated that the staff recommendation includes a recommendation to the City Council for approving the project, which includes adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Christianson, and Chairperson Osbome NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken, Boswell, and Vice-Chair Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:0 vote. 4. 2176 Johnson Avenue.. GPC 142-03; General Plan conformity report regarding the restoration and use of the Sunny Acres facility for a community, school; PF zone; SLO County Office of Education, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report requesting that the- Planning Commission determine, and,to report to the City Council, that the proposed school use conforms to the General Plan. Carol Florence, Project Representative, Oasis Associates, concurred with staffs interpretation of the policies and reference of the historical resources, and with staff's recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Julian Crocker, County Superintendent of Schools, noted that this project. does 'a number of things by benefiting the kids they are serving as well as providing restoration of a historical site. MaryBeth.Schroeder,:2085Wilding Lane, expressed.disappointrrlent with the reopening of the Sunny Acre Community School, and noted concern with the asbestos in the building materials. George Rosenberger, Deputy Director of General Services, asked that the Commission look favorably on the County Office of.Education's request. -He gave a brief summary on the.history of Sunny Acres and how long the.County has owned it. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2003 Page 5 Commr. Christianson moved to recommend to the City Council that the Commission find that the proposal generally conforms to important general plan goals and policies. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Mr. Crocker asked that the record correct an error•, there will be 55 students, not 100 students. AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, Loh, and Chairperson Osborne NOES: None .ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken, Boswell, and Vice-Chair Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:0 vote. Commr. Loh moved that the Commission ask staff. to consider amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element Policies and Map that speaks specifically to the development proposal, and such .amendment would require a map and text amendments to the Land Use Element to discuss the Sunny Acres Property as an educational facility and possibly move the Urban Reserve- Line above the proposed community school. Seconded by Commr. Cooper.- AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Christianson, and Chairperson Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken, Boswell, and Chairperson Osborne ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo gave a brief overview on an article of the Brown Act violation. ADJOURNMENT: With-no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.mi to the next regular meeting scheduled for December 3, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.,in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary U�`� 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Jim Aiken; and Chairperson James Caruso Absent: Commr. Andrea Miller Staff: Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, -Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of July 28, 2004 were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her opinion of the development in San Luis Obispo. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC.HEARING ITEMS: 1. 3250.:3220, 3232, 3240, 3238. 3190, and 3196 South Higuera Street. PD 95-044.- Planned 5-04:Planned Development Amendment to allow non-government office spaces with less than 2,500 square feet; O-PD zone; Walter Brothers.Construction, applicant. (Buzz Kalkowsld) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that the City Council modify PD-1541 by deleting Condition. #4 which reads: "Tenants other than those listed in No. 2 (government offices) shall not occupy less than 2,500'gPoss square feet of adjacent, interconnected floor area per tenant." Bruce Frazier, Frazier Architects, Osos Street, spoke in support of the modification to eliminate the?,500 square foot limit for non-government offices. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Aiken moved staff recommendation to allow non-government offices less.than 2.500 square feet. Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, Osborne, Boswell, Christianson, and Caruso NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 2. 892 Aerovista Place. PD 91-04: Planned Development amendment to allow auto dealer/repair uses in the Business Park; C-S-PD zone; Brent'Smith, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending that'the City Council amend the approved list of uses for the property's Business Park. PD, adding Auto Sales and Service uses as a conditionally allowable use, and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, SLO, gave a brief summary of the proposed PD amendment requesting. She presented an overhead illustration of the proposed dealership and the businesses surrounding it to show how the dealership will fit into this area. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh moved the staff recommendation, with the following text added"Auto Sales and. Service..uses as a conditionally. allowable use and `Trucks and Recreational Vehicle sales and car rentals shall be prohibited. Seconded by Commr. Osborne. Commr. Aiken spoke to the aesthetics of the project. Commr. Christianson expressed a concern.on the lighting since this scenic.area.is the gateway to the City. She proposed stronger design controls in the PD to insure that the plan that actually gets constructed is compatible with design guidelines for business park"development. Planning Commission Min, August 11, 2004 Page 3 AYES: Commrs. Loh, Osborne, Boswell, Aiken, Christianson, and Caruso NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. Commr. Boswell moved that the City Council require Planning Commission review of the use permit to ensure that the site design is compatible with the Draft Area Airport Specific Plan Design Guidelines. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Christianson, and Caruso NOES: Commrs. Osborne, Loh, and Aiken ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion failed on a 3:3 vote. 3. City Wide. GPA 149-98: Review the work program for updating and combining the Conservation Element and the Energy Conservation Element; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) On the advise of the City Attorney, this item was continued to the August 25, 2004 meeting, to allow staff to notice the hearing with a more accurate project description COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. 5. ' Commission: Commr. Osborne reported that he attended the last City Council meeting and notedthat_ he related a comment from Chairperson Caruso on the Marketplace. ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for August 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene Pierce Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 8, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 8, 2004, in.the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Jim Aiken, and Chairperson James Caruso Absent: Commr. Carlyn Christianson Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Assistant City Attomey.Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of August 25, 2004, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her opinion of the way the City is run. Jeannie Potter, Chamber of Commerce, expressed appreciation that the City will be reviewing the Conservation/Open Space Element, and encouraged the process be as fast and rational as possible. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Citywide. GPA 149-98; Review of the work program for the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space, Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and Wastewater Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) _ � 23 Planning Commission Min,- September inaSeptember 8, 2004 Page 2 Senior Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report requesting public comment, discussion, public review of the draft work scope for completing the update and confirmation .of a hearing. strategy. He gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Conservation and Open Space Element Update. There were questions and answers between-staff and commission on:the upcoming workshop for the Conservation Open Space Element. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, requested that the open space in the City be preserved. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission discussed and generally supported the draft work program. They revised the..work program to clarify that informal stakeholder meetings should -be held earlier in the process, after the public workshops, to clarify comments made during the workshops. Commissioners set Wednesday, October 6, 2004 and Wednesday, October 27, 2004 as public workshop dates, beginning at 7.p.m., and emphasized these would be informal, with the bulk of the meeting spent on visioning and brainstorming — not reacting to the previous draft document. Commissioners asked that the workshops. be held in the Council Hearing Room, if possible. By the time of the first workshop, staff was asked to have scheduled one additional possible workshop date in November... Commissioners, .stressed the .need. :for::.an aggressive, public .outreach program* to, encourage a wide. range of.,community input; and-directed staff to prepare a:letter..for the Chair's signature to invite individuals, agencies and groups to participate in the:• workshops. Commissioners felt that at the beginning of the workshops there was a need to clarify the purpose of the update and to stress the importance of maintaining a positive and productive meeting atmosphere. In essence, the Commission said;it.would; function as its own "task force" by soliciting public and expert opinions and generating.. ideas for the update. Results of the visioning would be compared with the Draft update and help guide changes or additions. As follow-up; staff was to e-mail a.:list;of, stakeholders to Commissioners fior possible additions, to prepare a draft letter for the Chair's signature, and to publicize the COSE update process on the City's website. Commission members Miller and Vice-Chairperson Boswell agreed to join staff in making presentations on the update to community groups. Vice-Chairperson Boswell suggested that the Commission and staff also focus on these items to address in the upcoming October 6t'workshop: 1) Describe changes in how the federal government handles wetland management, and whether this responsibility was being shifted to local governments; and 2 � � Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2004 Page 3 2) Outline new topics and/or issues to be addressed in.the Energy Conservation portion of the update, and possible sources of expert information, e.g. the "LEEDS Program." He also suggested that the Commission invite experts in the fields of air quality, conservation, water management, etc. to participate in the workshop. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff- A. Agenda Forecast: Staff gave a brief forecast of upcoming agenda items. B. Budget Goals Staff reminded the Commission that they would be discussing the.budget goals at their October 13"' meeting. 3. - 'Commission- None. ADJOURMENT• With no further business before the Commission,,the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for September 22, 2004, at.7:00' p:m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by' Irene Pierce Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The .San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson James Caruso Absent: Commrs. Jim Aiken and Alice Loh Staff: Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Community Development Director of Long Range Planning Michael Draze, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and recording secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of October 13, 2004, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, .,expressed her opinion on the public's concerns being heard. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC.HEARING ITEMS: 1. 215 Bridge Street. GP/PD, TR,. and ER 64-03: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning from Manufacturing (M) and Conservation Open Space (C/OS) to Medium Density Residential (R-2-PD) and M; Tentative Tract Map for a 16 lot residential planned development subdivision and an 8-,unit commerciaC_, condominium; and 'environmental review; M .and C%08-5 zone; Bridge Street Corporation, applicant. (Phi!Dunsmore) Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that the' City Council: (1) amend the General Plan Land Use Element map tochange the land Planning Commission Minutes ' October 27, 2004 Page 2 use designation from Services and Manufacturing to Medium-Density Residential and adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour and approving a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) change the zoning on the subject property below the 185-foot elevation contour from Manufacturing and Conservation Open Space to Medium Density Residential Planned Development and Manufacturing with a Planned Development Overlay; (3) approve a subdivision with 16 residential lots and a remainder parcel, and a commercial condominium with eight commercial airspace units, including a creek exception to allow the replacement of the vehicular bridge with a clear span design. George Garcia, Garcia Architect and Design, presented an outline of the proposed project and discussed the Flood Impact and Hydrology Analysis. Keith Crowe, Hydrology Engineer, Atascadero, discussed the dynamics of the hydrology for the proposed project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, noted this area has always been. subject to flooding, and opposed this development. Michael Sullivan, SLO, commented on the mitigation measures and suggested adding*a paragraph that restricts any further development, protecting the area indefinitely. He. also suggested determining whether or not the proposed easements are located in an area that is designated for open space. Marjorie Baiter, Avila Beach, Work Force Housing Coalition, and League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo, mentioned they did a study on work force housing and felt is important to support a project like this one because of the affordable units that are proposed. Andrew Carter, Woodridge Drive, SLO, noted that he supported the original project and that all of the concerns that were mentioned then have been addressed.- Scott ddressed:Scott Menskirt, 2585 Exposition Court, SLO, expressed his opinion that the whole premise of this project was on affordable housing and noted this has been the element that has made this project more viable. He liked the design of the units but'dinot d support the project in this location. David Booker, SLO, expressed support for the project. Judy Neilson, Exposition Court, SLO, asked what.body is responsible for designating the types of spaces; and questioned if more commercial spaces are needed. She expressed concern with encroachment on the open space. Stemer Smith, Higuera Street, SLO, Owner of Cemetery, noted this area floods and questioned how they plan to address this when it backs.all the way to tth.�e c' emetery. Planning Commission Mirn October 27, 2004 Page 3 Largina Savante, Project Architect, addressed some concerns mentioned by the public and explained there is no net loss of Open Space. She discussed the hydrology and noted they have met the standards of building in a flood zone. Helene Finger, 473 Woodridge Drive, SLO, noted items in the resolution about reserving the Open Space and offered some language. She requested the project be modified to fit the site. Jody Bennet, South Higuera Street, SLO, noted that ECO SLO fully supports the project. Andy Mutsgur, Santa Maria, commented that he believes in the hydrology review and mitigation that addressed the hydrology issues. He felt this project is helping the housing.imbalance and expressed support for the project. Bob Crotzer, project architect, addressed some of the concerns from the public and noted the open space will be maintained and the retaining wall will not be an eyesore. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Conimr. Christianson moved staff recommendation. Seconded by Commr-:Osborne Vice-Chair Boswell requested an amendment that the open space shall be.protected indefinitely. The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendment. AYES,: Commrs. Christianson, Osborne, Miller, Boswell, and Caruso NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken and Loh ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. City Wide GPA 149-98: Update and. combine Conservation and Open Space; Elements, and amend several other General Plan elements; City of SLO, applicant. (Jeff Hook) Associate Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report and, requested-continuation,;of discussion from the November 17"' meeting. Staff outlined a meeting strategy and suggested the, Commission refine the goals developed at :.the October. 6 ` "brainstorming"-workshop: PUBLIC COMMENTS: V �g Planning Commission Minutes ' October 27, 2004 Page 4 Pam Heatherington, Executive Director of Environmental Center, expressed disappointment that a task force has not been formed to aid the Commission in this process. She requested the City-owned adobe on Dana Street (by the Odd Fellows Hall) be included; that base line testing for creeks and boundaries within SLO City boundaries be added under Water and Air Quality, and that youths be included in environmental stewardship activities. Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed her opinion that the public.is not being heard. Don Dollar, SLO, noted that he was unable to attend the workshop and offered some comments to the Commission: (1) be a leader and use proactive conservation and open space policies so other communities will strive to follow their example; (2) be a very good steward of these natural resources as part of their goals in updating the element; (3) use natural resources to priming staff and clarify roles and responsibility; (4) respect professional biological and land management opinions,-(5) make policies with long-term objectives, not short-term political purposes; {6) follow through with policies and see that" they are implemented; (7) use quantifiable measurements; (8) check on policies as they are implemented; (9) viewshed management might be needed (10) incorporate the City Open Space Guidelines that were adopted in the fall of 2002 as part of the Conservation and Open Space Element; (11) create a Conservation and'Open Space Committee Advisory Body for the City; (12) review potential cultural sites on open space lands by going through the Cultural-Heritage Committee; (13) be decisive; (14) ensure that City land purchases do contain conditions that might be controversial to the City or unacceptable to its residents; (15)and clarify land that is zoned private open space. -He encouraged the Commission to have as many public workshops as possible. Jody Bennett, SLO, expressed concerns about the weakening of any language that is') contained in the present Open Space Element in the process of it being combined,with the Conservation Element and losing some of the protections that the community has.. She urged the commission to have more public workshops. Michael Sullivan, SLO, concurred with Mr. Dollar, and expressed his view that the pubfic participation/update process is flawed. He noted a lack of input from the public and offered some options to help bring the community out' and give some input. He suggested the goals be distinguishable from policies and be compared to the existipg Conservation Open Space Element in the goal section. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr Boswell concurred with the public comments that Mote public input is needed' and encouraged the public and the Commission to submit all their"ideas to staff so they will have as much information as possible to work from. Commr. Miller commented that she supports the idea of protecting privately-owned open spaces through City conservation/open space zoning. She offered a list off the- Planning Commission Mine October 27, 2004 Page 5 most important goals and suggested that the Energy and Materials section address pedestrian and walking, which would reduce cars on the road and help with air quality. Commr. Christianson noted there are a number:of points in this list of draft "goals" from the October 6"' public workshop that are in the wrong place, such as things.. about cultural resources that are in open space, and issues on open space that are in cultural resources, and felt these need to be addressed. She suggested there be new bench marking criteria in the element; that the language that was worked out carefully .when,. the first Open Space Element was written be looked at carefully and not just be thrown away. She pointed number 8 under Cultural Resources and Visual Quality that states, "City should more carefully consider the effect of new development on views and .visual.. quality." She noted this is a very nice goal, but it does not tell the Commission, the public, or the developer anything, and suggested these types of statements be more helpful and more in tune to what the community seems to want. Commr. Osbome commented on Energy and Materials number 11, and requested a restatement that states, "consider long-term costs, including the operating cost and not. just construction cost," and keep #12 specific but change it to read, "establish a community-wide goal of 100% recycling of bottles and cans in 2005." Commr. Boswell requested there are two ideas under Energy and Materials that were discussed but need to be more clear; (1) encourage businesses or non-profits to come into the community and provide them local capacity to do the types of recycling or source reduction, that has an environmental benefit and a jobs benefit 'for the community; (2) the notion that the community seek to create local capacity in alternative . energy production and in energy reduction technology; (3) under Cultural Resources, define the diversity of cultures as a preservation goal. Commissioners suggested adding several new goals dealing primarily with open space and natural communities, energy and materials, water quality and cultural resources. On a unanimous vote, Commissioners continued the item to the December 1, 2004 meeting with direction to,staff to prepare revised draft goals in light of the goals in the 2002 draft plan, public and Commission comments in the two workshops, and to provide , a matrix which shows how General Plan goals and policies would be combined and updated to produce the Conservation and Open Space Element (LOSE). At the December 1n workshop, Committee members would also seek public comments on the draft goals, and review and"brainstorm" policy ideas for the COSE. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 6 ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 3,2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene Pierce Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, .in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Carlyn Christianson, and Jim Aiken Absent: Chairperson James Caruso Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik; Recording.Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of October 27, 2004, were accepted as amended, and November 3, 2004, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC-COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Pam Heatherington, SLO, commented that she was unaware that the meeting At the public library was canceled and questioned whether proper notice of cancellation wase given. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:. 1. 1636 Woodland Drive. GPC 171-04: General Plan Conformity Report for uridib06e 1- 'h interest in 180-acre parcel for property located outside city limits; R-1-S zoheT•, . City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik) Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik presented the staff report requesting:that tfa Planning Commission determine and report to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. He presented_a map on.the overhead to show the location of the proposed property. Planning Commission Minutes ) December 1,2004 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jodi Bennett, SLO, expressed support for this request and suggested it move along as quickly as possible. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh moved to determine and report to the City Council that the proposed Property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Miller, Osborne, Aiken, Christianson, and Vice-Chair Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carred on a 6:0 vote. 2. 485 Buckley Road. GPC 198-04: Acquisition of an agricultural conservation easement over a 159-acre portion of the Brughelli Ranch; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Nell Hadk) Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik presented the staff report requesting that the Planning Commission determine and report to the City Council that the. proposed acquisition conforms to the General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pam Heatherington, SLO, supported these types ofprojects and encouraged the Commission to add these properties to the Green Belt. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Aiken moved the staff recommendation to determine and, report to the City Council that the proposed conservation easement acquisition conforms to the General Plan. Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Comrrirs.-Aiken, Loh, Miller, Osborne, Christianson, and Vice-Chair Boswell NOES: None ABSENT:. Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. -- 3 3 Planning Commission Mini December 1, 2004 Page 3 3. City Wide. GPA and ER 149-98: Public workshop to consider a draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space, Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and Wastewater Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jodi Bennet, Board of Trustee member for ECOSLO, requested that the Dana Street Adobe be included along with the Lizzie Street Adobe for rehabilitation. She commented on the matrix and expressed a concern on the need to balance water protection. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission discussed creating a program that directs the CHC to review all the adobes in the City. The Commission discussed the revised draft goals and policies, and made several changes. Commr. Aiken moved this item to be continued to February 23, 2005, with direction that staff prepare a revised draft Conservation and Open Space Element update. Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, Miller, Osborne, Christianson, and Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. It was the consensus of the Commission to cancel the meeting of December 15, 2004: B. Advisory Body Recruitment Ideas V 4- Planning Commission Minutes / December 1,2004 Page 4 The Commission agreed that the application form and process worked fine. They encouraged the City to survey current Planning Commissioners on how many hours of preparation and hearing time they averaged per month so candidates have a realistic idea of the commitment. Several ideas on how to attract candidates were proposed. C. Possible Joint ARC and Planning Commission Meeting on Form Based Codes There was no discussion on this item. 4. . Commission: ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to a special meeting scheduled for December 8, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene Pierce Recording Secretary C" -�� SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 23, 2005 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Cadyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, and Chairperson James Caruso Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director John-Mandeville, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Citywide. GPA 149-98; Update and combine 'Conservation and Open Space Elements, amend several other GP elements, and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) Senior Planner Jeff Hook along with Deputy Director Michael Draze gave a presentation on the draft Conservation and Open Space Element. , PUBLIC COMMENTS: - Jodee Bennet, ECOSLO, expressed concerns with the definition of. green,space vs: . open space, the need for clarification of policies for passive and active-recreation, and asked that clarification be made concerning wildlife corridors; Pamela Heatherington, ECOSLO expressed that changes need to be made to clarify open space and greenbelt policies. She rioted the terms "passive and.active-recreation." needed clarification. Wendy Dish, San Luis Obispo, supported the draftdocumentbut felt that-Section 2.30.6 regarding Cal Poly and Cuesta alternative transportation should be changed to.avoid Com^ � Planning Commission Minutes March 23,2005 Page 2 penalizing those who live out of town due to San Luis Obispo's high housing costs. She expressed concerns with water conservation, flood plains, and zones and state that they provide major benefits to the community and should not be developed. Michael Sullivan expressed his concerns with the open space and greenbelt areas, how changes would affect the community, and the effects of the erosion and pollution. He suggested the Commission set more clear guidelines and goals. Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo, expressed his support for what the City has accomplished so far and suggested the Commission review portions of the document at several meetings due to the amount of information to be covered. Alex Rothenberg, San Luis Obispo, supported the document and noted the need to have has much open space as possible. Kurt Kupper, former Environmental Quality Task Force member, noted concerns with the draft document and suggested the policies stated on the issues be more non- specific or general. Bret Cross, San Luis Obispo, suggested using caution when changing language about Laguna Lake. He also suggested clarification of passive and active recreation. Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, commended the Commission on the March 2005 draft, noting his desire to see or compare the changes dn`each draft. He expressed concerns with water supply, growth management if the population of the community was to increase, and requested clarification of policies and procedures regarding open space and roadways. Mike[ Robertson and Kenneth Haggard, of SLO Green Build, presented the Commission with information on sustainable plaices for San Luis Obispo county. Frank Cullen, San Luis Obispo, expressed his support-of the greenbelt, noting he would like to see as much greenbelt as possible. Jeanette Dummit, San Luis Obispo, expressed her discontent with the Citys handicapped parking and locked doors to City facilities. She also expressed concerns with increased traffic and wants the Commission to stay"low tech" and people friendly. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Miller felt the wording "Cal Poly and Cuesta College" should be removed from, Section 2.30.6. Commr. Christiansomsuggested the Draft be reviewed in sections, and that the Policies be rewritten and updated. She noted concerns with the clarity of the Draft regarding policies and procedures, and disagreed with removing reference to "Cal Poly and Cuesta Students". Planning Commission Minu , March 23,2005 Page 3 Commr. Boswell supported reviewing the document in .two or three meetings and suggested the meeting to be.specific to those items. Commr. Boswell,suggested three meetings; .the:first meeting to:cover land use issues and proposed changes, including clarification to existing language; the second meeting to cover open space issues; and the third meeting to cover all other items. Commr. Loh agreed that policies and terms need clarification. Commr. Boswell suggested three;meetings; The first.meeting,to cover Open Space, the second meeting to cover energy and materials, and the third meeting to cover all.other items. Commr. Christianson moved to divide the discussion into three meetings: the first-t6 be held on April 27n at 7:00 p.m. to address Chapters 2, 3. 6. 7 and 10 and clarification to: existinq text.; the second meeting to discuss Chapters 4 and 5; and the third meeting. to; discuss Chapters 8 and 9. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, Cooper, Christianson and Osborne NOES: Commr. Loh ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:1 vote. Commr. Osborne moved to continue this item to April 27, 2005. Seconded by Commr. Boswell. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, Cooper, Loh, Christianson and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 2. Staff A. Agenda forecast Mike Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items. 3. Commission Planning Commission Minutes J March 23,2005 Page 4 Commr. Caruso gave a special thanks to Irene Pierce for her hard work, noting this was her last meeting, and presented her with a certificate of appreciation. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation and thanked Chairman Caruso for his service. ADJOURMENT• With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for April 13, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully.submitted by Kim'Main Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 2005 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Alice Loh, Carlyn Christianson, Vice-Chair Jim Aiken, and Chairperson Michael Boswell Absent: None Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was modified to hear agenda item 2 before agenda item 1. PUBLIC COMMENT.ON NON—AGENDA ITEMS Jodee Bennet, ECOSLO representative, commented on- the outcome .of, the- Marketplace project, and thanked the Commission for their position on open space and green belt areas. PUBLIC.HEARINGS ITEMS: 1. City Wide.. GPA '149-98: Update and combine Conservation and Open Space: Elements, and amend several other-GP Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from March 23, 2005) (Jeff Hook) Deputy Director Michael:Draze and Senior Planner Jeff Hook gave a brief update on the Conservation and Open Space Element and consolidation of resource conservation , polices, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space, Land Use, Energy Conservation,- Safety, Housing, Circulation, Water and Wastewater Elements of the General Plan. They recommended that the Commission consider public.comments; review the chapters in the March 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element. pertaining to Air, Culturat-Heritage, Native Minerals, Natural: Communities and Water;' provide. direction on changes or additions to goals, policies -and programs, -as appropriate; and continue the item to the regular Planning Commission meeting on June 22, 2005. PUBLICCOMMENTS: Jodee Bennet, ECOSLO, expressed concerns with tracking the changes of the policies. �:. .OILa Planning Commission Minutes J J April 27,2005 Page 2 She suggested that the wording on page 9 be changed from "Community Resources" to "Natural Resources", that the language on page 10 not be weakened; the need for clarification of the policy regarding how findings of archeological sites are dealt with; and noted a typing error the in the Water Section. Greg Bettencourt, San Luis Obispo, asked to be notified of changes in the clarification process. Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, expressed concems with the implementation process; suggested the Commission adopt criteria or guidelines for changes in the General Plan; requested clarification on the preservation of archeological sites; and suggested that the Water Policy language be changed to include water saving devices such as toilets etc. Patricia Wilmore, SLO Chamber of Commerce, expressed concerns with the Cultural Heritage preservation ordinance. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Miller suggested keeping both the wording "Community and Natural Resources. Commr. Carter suggested taking out all examples and incentives din .the Air Quality, section, expressed concerns that pedestrians and bicycles are not addressed, and noted that this section of the policy only addresses transportation. Commr. Christianson suggested adding pedestrians and bicycles to the plan; expressed concerns with the wording in Section 2.2.1 and suggested changing the word "survival" to "health and safety"; requested a report on Section- 2.21.3; suggested adding wording in Section 2.21.4 to encourage the use of alternative fuels and promote good air quality; and suggested that language be added to the Water Policy:to include the use and encouragement of drought tolerant.landscaping. Commr. Boswell suggested leaving the names Cal Poly and Cuesta in Policy Section 2.30.6. in the Policy. He asked staff to provide the Commission with a copy of the. White Paper. Commr. Osborne questioned the procedures for repreating the policy on. findings..for Archeology.and Cultural Heritage. Commr. .L-oh suggested that more guidelines be implemented in the Cultural Heritage, Policy. She expressed concerns with the wording in the lasti sentence of-Section 3:22:1': Commr. Aiken suggested adding language to include leak control for the City, water system. � 1 Planning Commission Mi= April 27, 2005 Page 3 Commr. Boswell recommended that the following items be addressed: 1) The City shall require post-construction runoff controls for all new development; 2) The City shall develop a strategy for improving the quality and reducing the quantity of storm water runoff in existing urban areas; 3) The City shall upgrade and retrofit storm water facilities with roadway reconstruction whenever feasible; 4) The City shall insure that storm water runoff is adequately controlled to reduce flood and environmental damage from new development or redevelopment projects; 5) The City shall utilize natural fertilizers and biological controls for pest and weeds whenever possible; and 6) The City shall identify and protect groundwater quality for existing and potential municipal water sources. Commr. Osborne moved to continue this item to June 22, 2005. Seconded by.Commr.' Aiken. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 2. Open Space. GPC 47-05: Review of a proposed conservation easement, on a 30 acre portion of the Boysen Ranch property, on Foothill Boulevard between Los. Osos Valley Road and O'Connor Way, and its conformity with the City's General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik) Natural Resources Manger Neil Havlik presented the staff report for the proposed dedication of a conservation easement on a 23-acre portion of the Boysen Ranch property, recommending the Commission determine and report to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Miller moved to determine and report to the City Council that the proposed Property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. Seconded by Commr. Loh . AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. C Z. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2005 Page 4 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff Deputy Director Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. 4. Commission Commr. Miller commented on the Sustainable Communities meeting she attended and encouraged the Commission look at the site. Commr. Boswell commented on the voting for the Marketplace project. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m., to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday May 11, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2005 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning .Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Orval Osborne, Alice Loh, Andrew Carter, Cariyn Christianson, Vice-Chair Jim Aiken, and Chairperson Michael Boswell Absent: Commr. Andrea Miller Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Community, Development Director Mike Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik and Recording Secretary Km Main. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 36 West Foothill Boulevard. GP/R, ANNX, TR, and ER 124-03: Annexation, General Plan Amendment and prezoning request to R-1-PD and Conservation/. Open Space (C/OS) for approximately 10 acres of land at the western edge of the City, tentative map review for proposed 11-lot subdivision, and environmental . ,review, Jay Poindexter, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) _ Associate .Planner. Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the annexation, General Plan map Amendment and Tract Map. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Edwards, applicant's representative, gave a slide presentation of the proposed project, noting that this project conforms with the City's General Plan Map. He.asked that the Commission continue this project to a date certain, and direct staff to reconsider their recommendation. Com. �- ¢- Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2005 Page 2 Dan Zweifel, 1215 Vista Del Lago, noted that he owns the property adjacent to this project and will not grant an easement. Pam Zweifel, 1215 Vista Del Lago, expressed her concerns and opposed the project. John Ashbaugh, 1818 Vista Del Lago, expressed concerns with the entrance location and spoke against this project. Joan Lobos 193 Los Cerros, expressed her concerns with the entrance location and spoke against the project. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on neighborhood connections, open space trails, affordable housing, and the City's Urban Reserve Line. Cornmr. Aiken asked for clarification of the 25 foot buffer. He supported development of this property, noting that the applicant should not be required to provide public access. He asked for clarification of frontage areas, and recommend a 30400t buffer be required. Commr. Loh asked for clarification on the lot size, and asked if the applicants would be willing to work with staff to change the access to Bishop Peak. She suggested that the Commission continue this project. Commr. Carter expressed his concern with the lack of access or connection to adjoining neighborhoods, noting the importance for children to have access from the neighborhoods. Commr. Christianson supported continuing the project, noting that she does not support the secondary dwelling.units for affordable housing. On motion by Commr. Loh to continue this item to a date uncertain, with the following direction: 1. Establish a trail that allows pedestrian access into the proposed on-site open space areas with the potential for linking to off-site open space areas in the future. 2. Revise the affordable housing proposal to not include the use of secondary dwelling units. 3. Provide an easement within the project area from the proposed new street to.a logical connection to the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood: Seconded by Commr. Aiken AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 :0 vote _ Of's Planning Commission Mint L July 27, 2005 Page 3 2. City-Wide. GPA, ER 149-98: Update and combine Conservation and Open Space Elements, and amend several other GP elements; and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. ( Continued from June 29, 2005 ) (Jeff Hook) Jeff Hook, Senior Planner, presented the staff report with the following recommendation to the Commission: 1) Consider public comments, 2) Review chapters on Natural Communities, Open Space, and Views in the March 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE), 3) provide direction on changes or additions to goals, policies and programs„ as appropriate, 4) review and consider the initial environmental impact study and determination (ER 149-98) and recommend Council approval of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Draft COSE update, and 5) direct staff to prepare a Planning Commission Draft COSE incorporating changes and additions from the previous meetings and forward the Commission's recommended Draft COSE to the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jody Bennett, San Luis Obispo, asked that the Commission take their time when reviewing this Item. Andrew Christie, ECOSLO, stated his belief that the .Open Space Element (OSE) wording is getting "blurry" and that some of the text is being completely eliminated in the draft COSE. Patrcia Wilmore, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, presented a letter to the Commission on comments regarding Chapters 8 and 9. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioners received the staff report, took public testimony and reviewed the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element (March 2005) Chapters 7 and a portion of Chapter 8, through Goal 8.22. Commr. Carter said he has no desire to ruin the City's Open Space. He stated his primary goals are to preserve open space and riot lose any and keep language from the OSE. He agrees with preserving the AG in the greenbelt Commr. Christianson asked for codification of Neil Havlik's position with the City. Commr. Osborne stated he would like the City's policies on open space to be more - consistent. Commr. Loh stated she wants to preserve as much farm land as possible. Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 27, 2005 Page 4 Commr. Boswell commented that the chapters on recreation, viewshed and Agricultural resources need additional language. He asked if there is a need for clarification of "Open Space" and "Green Belt". Commr. Christianson felt that Policy 7.22.3 should not be moved to a different section. She suggested that changes be made in the last sentence in section 7.2.1 to clarify wording, and to add the definition of"corridors"for wildlife in Section 7.20.1.3 Commr. Boswell suggested changes to the following: Remove all "City will" wording , throughout; Section 7.21.3 change wording to read `"'appropriate for wildlife"; Section 7.22 add "trees and other plants"; Section 7.22.4 to include language from Jody Bennett; Section 7.23 add "synthetic or organic"; Section 7.30.2 add "project litigation," remove "resources allow", and add "replant in California native species"; Section 8.1.0 add "environmental quality" wording; Section 8.21.1 should retain the word "passive"; the Glossary needs to match all terms; and Section 8.22 add wording "diverse", "F' using Jody Bennett's suggested language. On motion by Commr. Christianson, to continue this oroiect to the meeting of August 10, 2005. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 :0 vote. 3. Staff Deputy Director Mike Draze provided the agenda forecast of upcoming items and projects. 4. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday August 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Kim Main Recording Secretary Cz '�` SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2005 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Alice Loh, Carlyn Christianson, Vice-Chair Jim Aiken, and Chairperson Michael Boswell Absent: Commr. Andrew Carter Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Ronald Whisenand and Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff'Hook, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Associate Planner Tyler Corey, Natural Resources Manager.Neil Havlik, and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made.from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. .3071, 3075 & 3085 South Higuera Street. U 12-05; Request to:allow a mixed use project;,C-S-M zone; People's Self Help Housing, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Associate Planner_Tyler Corey, presented the staff report recommending approval of . the Use Permit, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements, PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lauren Luker, R2L Architects, 444 Higuera Street, described the project design. Scott Smith, applicant's representative, further described the project and its use. Doris Cleverly 3057 South Higuera Street, expressed concern about potential noise impacts generated by the project. . There were,.no further public comments. 4C Planning Commission Minutes J August 10, 2005 Page 2 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on project compatibility with adjacent residential uses, appropriate uses for the commercial space to ensure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential tenants, and noise mitigation requirements for the residential component of the project. Commr. Miller questioned whether there would be an increase in noise levels associated with the project. Commr. Christianson suggested modifying Condition 5 of the draft resolution to provide some flexibility to the forced air requirement. On motion by Commr. Aiken to approve the Use Permit, based on findings, and subiect to conditions and code requirements recommended by staff with Condition No. 5 modified to provide some flexibility to the forced-air requirement included in the Noise Study provided by the applicant. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Carter ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 2. Citywide. GPA and ER 149-98: Update and combine Conservation and Open Space Elements, and amend several other GP elements; and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from July 27, 2005) (Jeff Hook) Senior Planner Jeff Hook, recommended the Commission 1) Consider public comments, 2) Continue reviewing the chapters on Natural Communities, Open Space, and Views in the March 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element, 3) provide direction on changes or additions to goals, policies and programs, as appropriate, and 4) direct staff to prepare a Planning Commission Draft LOSE incorporating Commission changes and- additions and return to the Commission for Jinal review and . recommendation to the City Council. . PUBLIC COMMENTS- Cydney Holcomb,' RQN Chairperson, presented the Commission with a letter expressing the concerns with the definition of "Open Space Uses" in Section 8.24.1. She noted that Section 8.24,4 weakens existing standards. Phillip Ruggles, 724 Patricia Drive., presented the Commission with a letter expressing concerns with keeping the 1994 Open Space Element; deleting -the proposed section 8.24.1 Open Space Uses; noted that the existing 1994 standard that open space uses should "not result in environmental degradation" should be retained. He expressed that Planning Commission Minut__ August 10, 2005 Page 3 it is imperative that open space areas remain as unspoiled as possible and not subject to commercial ventures. . Joan Collier 1720 San Luis Drive Apt # A, felt that page 43 should be retained and the urban trail plans should not be changed. She noted the proposed language is much weaker that the existing, and that the Draft Conservation Open Space Element is not "user" friendly Jodie Bennett, ECOSLO, stated that she does not want any language to weaken the EIR. She stated that Section 8.2.1 of the staff report has been left out. Adele Stem, adjacent property owner, expressed her concerns with the update of the ` EIR, with the explanation of "Open Space" and the removal of the word "passive" from the uses for recreation on open space land. She stated that she does not want the public on her property. Norman Brooksmith, 1920 San Luis Drive, stated that he does not want a trail by the creek. Jean Goldsmith 1890 San Luis Drive, stated he does not want a trail by the creek. Bob Tedone 1415 Cazadero, stated that he does not want a trail by the creek. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: On motion by Comm. Aiken to approve changes made .by staff to change .the term "green belt" to"open space"; Section 8.22.2 Change word in first sentence to "require"; Section 8.23.2 Change the word in the first and last sentences from "should" to "shall". ' Section 8.24.3 Add wildland fire prevention, per staff recommendation: Section 8.24.4 Approve staffs suggested changes. Replace the word "compatible".with "does not degrade the resource.": Insert policy 8.24.8.25.1 Change language to "permanently deprive. landowner". Change The City"will" to "may': . Section 8.25.3 Change on page #44 (g-3) to read. "create no new parcels" Section 8.30.1 Approve staff changes on B. Change Strike language E bicycle pedestrian and J in open space areas in iudsdiction boundarys and G change.wording suggested by staff. Section 8.30.2 Approve staff changes and additions. Sections 9.21, 9.21.1, and 9.21.4 Approve staff changes; Section 9.21.4 Add (f) as suggested by staff; Section 9.22.1 Change A,B,C, from "should" to "shaU"; Section 9.222 Change wording from "should"to "shall"; Section 9.22.3 Strike wording "skyward" Section 9.30 add "monitoring of viewsheds": Planning Commission Minutes f August 10, 2005 Page 4 Page 64 move #1 to # 2. Direct staff to bring a revised Draft to the next available meeting once the Draft is ready. Continue this item to a date uncertain. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, and Christianson NOES: Commr. Osborne ABSENT: Commr. Carter ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5 :1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Ronald Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming agenda items and projects. 4. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday August 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City-Hall, 990 Palm Street Respectfully submitted by Kim Main Recording Secretary CZQ -�� .SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2005 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at ,7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Alice Lott, Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Chairperson Michael Boswell (and one vacancy) ' Absent: Commr. Osborne Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand; Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, ,Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretaries Raquel Rodriguez and Jill Francis MINUTES: The minutes of October 12, 2005 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 36 W. Foothill Boulevard. ANNX, GP/R, TR, and ER 124-03; Request to annex approximately 10 acres of land into the City; prezone thepropertyto.,R-1 (low-. density residential); consideration.of a tentative tract map to create-11 lots from one lot; and environmental review; Jay Poindexter, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending that tfid Commission recommend that the City Council approve the annexation, General Plan Map Amendment and Tract Map, based on findings and subject. to,conditions,. code requirements, and mitigation measures. PUBLIC.COMMENTS: Public testimony generally opposed the project and adjacent property,owners strongly opposed the use of eminent domain to allow a path through private vacant lots. Jeff Edwards, applicant's representative explained the issue of cost versus.,benefit. He felt that public use of the trail could devalue property. David Foote, 49 Monterey Street, felt the City should look at both sides. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2005 Page 2 Larry Parker, 1396 Diablo Drive, noted he owns a vacant lot in the area (lot 4) and expressed concern that a new pedestrian path to La Loma Court might affect his ability to build a home on that property. Richard Zweifel, 1218 Vista del Lago, expressed that a pathway is redundant and unnecessary, and asked that the walkway at Foothill Boulevard be extended instead. He voiced concern with liability, parking and traffic issues, as well as a financial impact on him as a homeowner of Lot 5. Pam Zweifel, 1218 Vista del Lago, felt Foothill Boulevard usage should be primary. Connie Framberger, 82 La Loma, voiced concern with proposed changes as they relate to property usage since property was purchased back in 1986. Horst ? —Lot #13- had concerns with the potential for imminent domain. Michael Framberger, 82 La Loma, noted concerns with potential water and traffic problems. Michael Sullivan noted concerns with open spaces. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Following extensive discussion and public testimony regarding a proposed pedestrian path to the existing neighborhood at Tract 1313, the Planning Commission supported approval of the annexation and tract map. The Commission discussed the neighborhood connection concerns raised by the staff report and agreed that Foothill Blvd provided sufficient connectivity given the location and small size of the project to meet General Plan requirements. They also discussed the option presented by staff of eminent domain proceedings and specifically rejected that option. On, motion by Commr. Loh to recommend the City Council approve the proiect with removal'of staff recommended conditions that require a pedestrian path to connect the proposed neighborhood to existing neighborhoods, removal of conditions that required an urban reserve line buffer of 50 feet, and the addition of findings to support. they subdivision without the path and without a 50-foot setback from the Urban Reserve Line. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Miller, Christianson, Carter and Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. �- S3 Planning Commission Minus,.. November 9,2005 Page 3 On motion by Commr. Carter to require the three Inclusionary housing units be for low- income families. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. 2. 2975 Rockview Place. TR 167-05; Consideration of a tentative tract map to convert 20 apartments into 20 condominium units with one common area parcel R-2-S zone; Holly Weatherford, applicant. (Phil Dunmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pamela Jardini, applicants representative expressed agreement with the staff report; noting that the water meter and waterline locations needs to be determined. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Since this project had been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, there was no significant Commission discussion and no public testimony. The approval did not include any changes to staff recommended findings and conditions. On motion by Commr. Carter to recommend the City Council approve the tract map. Seconded by Commr. Loh AYES: Commrs. Carter, Loh, Miller, Boswell and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 3. _1213 and 1221 Nipomo Street; 577 and 597 Marsh Street. GP/R and ER 160-.05; _ Request to amend the General Plan Land Use. Map. at 1221 Nipomo Street from High-Density Residential to General Retail and rezone the property from R-4 (High- Density Residential) to C-D-MU (Downtown Commercial with a mixed use overlay zone); and. rezone 1213 Nipoma, 577 & 597 Marsh Street from C-D (Downtown:. Commercial) to C-D-MU (Downtown Commercial with a mixed use overlay zone); . and modification of the Parking Space In-Lieu Fee area; Bermant Homes, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that.the Commission recommend that the City Council 1) adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 160-05) and amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land C9 —5�- Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2005 Page 4 use designation of 1221 Nipomo from High-Density Residential to General Retail; 2) Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning at 1221 Nipomo from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Downtown Commercial with the Mixed-Use overlay (C-D-MU), and changing the zoning of 1213 Nipomo, 577 and 579 Marsh from.Downtown Commercial (C-D) to Downtown Commercial with the Mixed-Use overlay (C-D-MU); and 3) Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 4.30, Section 4.30.015 of the City of San Luis Obispo's Municipal Code modifying the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee Area to include 1221 Nipomo. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bruce Buckingham, applicant's representative, agreed with the staff report and recommendation. He also provided the Commission with details of the project including how parking would function. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: There was discussion of commercial zoning and agreement from the Commission that the new commercial zoning would allow a greater residential density.than. the existing- residential zoning. The Commission concurred with the adjustment of the parking in lieu fee area. Commr. Christianson strongly supported construction of homes on the property. Commr. Miller had questions regarding the mixed use, and supported the project. Commr. Carter expressed support for redevelopment. Commr. Boswell also expressed support for redevelopment. Commr. Miller moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council 1) adonta Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 160-05) and amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of 1221 Nipomo from High-Density Residential .to General Retail, 2) Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning at 1221 Nipomo from High-Density Residential (R-4)'to Downtown Commercial with the Mixed- Use overlay (C-D-MU), and changing the zoning of.1213-Nipomo, 577 and 579., Marsh from Downtown Commercial ( -D) to Downtown. Commercial with the Mixed-Use overlay (C-D-MU): and 3) Adopt,an ordinance.amending'Chapter 4.30. Section 4.30.015 of-the City of San Luis Obispo's Municipal Code modifying the Downtown Parkiwlh Lieu Fee Area to include 1221 Nipomo. 'Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Loh, Carter, Christianson and Miller NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne ABSTAIN: None Cp'"�� Planning Commission Minus.... November 9, 2005 Page 5 The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 4. 620 California Boulevard. U 164-05; Review of a wireless telecommunications facility camouflaged as a pine tree, and reduced side yard from 10-feet to 5-feet; O- S zone; Cingular Wireless, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Commr. Carter stepped down from participation due to a potential conflict of interest because he is employed by a wireless telecommunications company. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending approval of the use permit, based on findings and subject to conditions and one code requirement. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gordon Bell, agent for Cingular Wireless, was supportive of staffs recommendation and noted that the height of the facility is in relationship to the height of, the trees on property. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission agreed with the findings supported by the ARC and believed that the setback reduction and Use Permit were appropriate. Chairperson Boswell questioned whether this height of the facility has been approved and supported the proposed setbacks. Commr. Miller supported the camouflaged design. On motion by Commr. Millerto approve the use permit as recommended by staff.. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Christianson, Loh and Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne ABSTAIN: Commr. Carter The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. 5. Citvwide. GPA and ER 149-98; Review. of the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space; Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and Wastewater .Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) Senior Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending.that the Commission recommend that the City Council ,approve a negative declaratig@ of environmental Cap r- �� Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 6 impact, adopt the proposed October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element with the recommended changes, and amend other elements for internal consistency and policy consolidation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mark Alonzo, 1740 San Luis Drive noted that the creekside trail along the drive (through backyards) improves public access to the private property of this neighborhood. He presented a petition signed by San Luis Drive Neighborhood Homeowners opposing any wording changes to the Urban Trails Plan. Michael Devitt, 1690 San Luis Drive, felt the plan should remain as written in 1994. Dale Jones, 1894 San Luis Drive, noted concerns with wildlife in the area. Ron Tilly, 1780 San Luis Drive, voiced concern with privacy issues and the potential for lowering property values. Jodee Bennett, San Luis Obispo, felt the language in the Open Space and Land Use Elements should be added back in. Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, expressed his opinion that the environmental review process for this project was defective. Patricia Wilmar, Chamber of Commerce asked about requirements for energy-saving changes such as solar equipment. Ken Haggard, Santa Margarita, questioned the energy efficiency and modification to part A. He provided commission with two handouts. Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric of San Luis Obispo, noted there are changes needed to make the document more realistic. Victor Montgomery, American Institute of Architects, asked if LEEDS will apply to all City agencies. Mikell Robinson, SLO Green Build, felt all commercial projects should turn in forms for green buildings, and that guidelines should be written for residential as well. Richard Beller, local architect, noted he was involved in two LEEDS projects in SLO. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on policies in the October Draft Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) regarding "green building" energy conservation design standards (Policy 4.21.6), and 'public creek access and trails (Policy 8.24:1). In -response to differing recommendations from the public regarding green build' , the Commission Planning Commission Minu4,� L November 9,2005 Page 7 suggested that representatives from SLO Green Build, American Institute of Architects and SLO Chamber of Commerce meet to reconcile their differences. The Commission revised Policy 8.24.1 to resolve San Luis Drive residents' concerns regarding the feasibility of public trails along San Luis Obispo Creek between Highway 101 and California Boulevard. Commr. Osborne arrived during discussion of this item at approximately 9:20 p.m. Commr. Carter suggested the wording be strengthened regarding Creekside Trails. Commr. Christianson agreed that language should be added back in. Commr. Loh felt the current language is sufficient but could be updated. Chairperson Boswell felt the language should be updated but not changed back to old language. Commr. Carter suggested that 8.24.1 be amended to read as follows (changes in italics. Open space uses, line 3: "Creekside trails shall not be established in or across from existing, substantially developed residential areas of the City (such as the San Luis Drive area) where such trails could create a compatibility or privacy conflict with surrounding land uses." On motion by Commr. Boswell to continue discussion on the item to November 30 2005, with an early start time of 6 p.m. and the this item to begin no later than 7.00 p.m. Seconded by Commr. Miller . AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Miller, Osborne, Loh, Carter and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 6. - Staff A. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Mike Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. 7. Commission ADJOURNMENT: Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 8 With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday, November 30, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis/Raquel Rodrigiez Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 30, 2005 ROLL CALL: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Alice Loh,. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, and Chairperson Michael Boswell (with one vacancy) ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. It was reiterated that discussion on Public Hearing Item 3 will begin no later than 7:00 p.m. On motion by Commr. Miller to elect Commr. Osborne as Interim Vice-Chairperson. Seconded by Commr. Boswell. Ayes: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Carter, Christianson Noes: None Absent: Cornmr. Loh Abstain: None MINUTES: The minutes of November 9, 2005,were returned to staff to include specific discussion, to return to the Commission for approval. a PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public BUSINESS ITEM: 1. Update on possible Revenue Ballot Measure — Presentation by Finance Director`Bill Statler Bill Statler discussed the fiscal challenges facing the City. He explained that the City has had to close annual budget gaps for three straight fiscal years by means of service'. cuts. One of the service areas that has been deleted is the neighborhood paving program. Calls for Fire and paramedic services have increased -over the Iast.,.10. years indicating a need for increased funds/revenue,measures. Funding.is also needed for - protecting senior services and city improvements. . City Administrator Ken.Hampian explained our partnership with Cal Poly in.funding for Fire and Police services. Commission Comments: . Commr. Miller questioned excess funds available and the different funds for commercial versus residential paving programs: . Commr. Christianson had suggestions for Mr. Statler on future presentations. Planning Commission Minutes November 30,2005 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2. 2178 Johnson Avenue. U 162-05; Review of a wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of an existing building (former General Hospital); PF zone; Cingular Wireless, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Tyler Corey, Associate Planner presented the staff report; recommending approval of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. - Commr. Carter stepped down from participation due to a potential conflict of interest because he works for a wireless company. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gordon Bell, applicant, explained his proposal. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boswell commented that he did not support the facility's design and wanted reassurance that approval of the Use Permit would.not "lock in" the facility design or constrain the ARC during their review of the project. On motion by Commr. Osbome-to approve theyroiect as presented: Seconded by Commr. Christianson AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Boswell, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh ABSTAIN: Commr. Carter The motion carried on a 4 : 0 vote. 3. Citywide. GPA and ER 149-98; Review of'the October 2005 'draft;Conservation' and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments-'to the Conservation, Open Space; Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and - Wastewater Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant., (continued from November 9, 2005) (Jeff Hook) Natural Resources Manager Neal Havlik gave a presentation regarding tris effects.:of_; the Open Space Element. Senior Planner Jeff Hook discussed green building standards and policies' and' explained how the October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) strengthens current environmental programs, recommending' the Commission review.- COSE and proposed General Plan amendments; resolve issues and make final • Planning Commission Min November 30,2005 Page 3 changes; consider the environmental study; and forward their recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ken Haggard, Santa Margarita (SLO Green Build) spoke in favor of the proposed revisions to 4.21.6 regarding "green building" standards. Jodie Bennett, San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO) expressed concern with Section 8.24, Open Space versus Greenbelt. She felt the wording should be updated in the draft regarding open spaces and should follow the State of California definition. Bill Thoma, SLO Chamber of Commerce and design consultant, spoke in,favor of changes to Section 4.21.6 regarding green building standards, expressing his full support of that proposal. He personally agreed with staffs recommendation-that the. solar energy component and green utility be deleted. Leonard Grant, 330 James Way, Pismo Beach, agreed with Mr. Thoma, and-spoke in support of green building and LEEDS standards, He agreed that the General Plan proposal should remain voluntary and incentive-based systems. Andrew Christie, San.Luis Obispo (Sierra Club), provided,staff with handouts showing how, in his view, the current plan weakens.the elements set by the 1994 draft. Jan Marx, 265 Albert Drive, felt the language previously deleted should be added back in, and objected to the dedication to Bill Roman. Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, felt that the new- language weakens, prior environmental plans. Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, agreed with the comments madeby.Ms. Marx and by members of ECOSLO and Sierra Club. Jodie Bennett was returned to the podium to discuss the definition of open spaces. There were no further comments made from the public. . . COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Carter felt staff should accept the proposed revised language.on green building. standards as agreed to by the AIA, SLO GreenBuild, and Chamber of Commerce. Commr. Boswell felt a provision should .be included that :the , policy for, large. buildings/structures over 60,000 feet be updated. Commr. Carter supported Commr. Boswell's recommendation...-- —G Z— Planning Commission Minutes November 30,2005 Page 4 Commr. Osbome also supported Commr. Boswell's recommendation, and suggested exploring other ways to encourage more language on the subject and agreed that staff should accept the language regarding green building. Commr. Christianson felt the language on Utility —4.30.16 should be changed to "may" or"should". Commr. Miller agreed with Commr. Christianson. Commr. Osborne felt the word 'green' should be deleted and keep the language broad. Staff acknowledged the change of adding "may" and striking "green" from the language. Commr. Osborne agreed with the goal set in Section 5.22.2. Commr. Carter does not totally agree that this goal is realistic. Commr. Miller agreed with Commr. Osborne as well as with keeping proposed language. Commr. Boswell also agreed with keeping the goal. Commr. Osborne felt the timeline for the year 2010 could be eliminated. Staff acknowledged the change of keeping language with 100% goal. Commr. Osbome felt the language in F should be retained in Section 10.22.2 and add' "consistent with State guidelines". Staff acknowledged the change of adding this language. Chair Boswell had no comments or new changes on the Housing Element. Commr. Christianson felt the wording in the Circulation Element should include ARC review for developed, designated scenic view areas (sensitive sites). Section 14:3.A should be added to the Conservation/Open Space Element and Section 14.4A should be reflected in the sign ordinance. Jeff Hook responded that he will review specific language. Regarding Land Use Element Section 1.7 Greenbelt, Commr. Osbome proposed 8.24.1 and 8.24.2 be replaced with current Land Use Element Section 6.1.1. Chairman Boswell observed that there are several definitions of open space, and that the COSE needs to be clear which meaning is intended wherever it says "open space". Planning Commission MinL November 30,2005 Page 5 Deputy Director Michael Draze indicated he would bring a more complete description of open spaces to the next meeting. On motion by Commr. Osborne to continue discussion on this item to December 14, 2005. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Carter, Christianson and Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Michael Draze gave an agenda forecast including continued discussion on Open Spaces. 5. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission. the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m- to ..mto the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday December 14, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. q Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 2005. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Alice Loh, Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, and Chairperson Michael Boswell, Jason McCoy Absent: Commr. Christianson - Staff: Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Directors Ronald Whisenand and Michael Draze, Community Development Director John Mandeville and Recording Secretary Jill Francis OATH OF OFFICE: Jason McCoy was sworn in as a new Commissioner. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The order of the agenda was accepted as presented, with Item 3 being continued to January 11, 2005 without discussion. MINUTES: Minutes of November 9 and November 30, 2005. The minutes of November 9, 2005 were approved as submitted; .the minutes of November 30, 2005 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NOWAGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 1105 Oceanaire Drive. PD and MS .99-05. Request to amend the existing residential planned development to allow an additional unit in place of the existing recreation room; and tentative parcel map to create a single airspace condominium unit. Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending denial of the project due to inconsistency with General Plan density standards PUBLIC COMMENTS.• Cindy Lewis, applicant's representative, spoke in support of the project and expressed concerns with vandalism and other problems associated with recreation building. She agreed to withdraw the current application and submit an application to rezone the properly as well as submitting landscape plans for the project. In response to a question from Commr. Loh, Ms. Lewis noted there is open space connected to each unit , as wellas a common open space area. �G S Planning Commission Minl December 14, 2005 Page 2 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commrs. Carter and Loh questioned the density standards. Commr. Miller questioned the amount of outdoor recreation area in relation to the loss of indoor recreation area. Commr. McCoy could support an additional unit but expressed concem with eliminating the existing.recreation facility. The Commission offered direction to applicant too apply for a General Plan map amendment and rezone to modify the land use designation from R-2 to R-3 to allow additional residential density that would support the additional residential unit. Commissioners also offered feedback on the appropriate scale of required replacement recreational amenities for the project. On motion by Commr. Loh to deny the proiect, with direction as noted above. Seconded by Commr. Carter. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Loh, and Carter NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote. 2. 3210, 3212, 3220, 3230, 3240 Broad Street. GP/R and ER 78-05. Request to amend the General Plan and zoning maps for the Village Marketplace from Neighborhood-Commercial with a special considerations overlay zone (C-WS) to Community-Commercial with a special considerations overlay zone (C-C-S) Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend that the City Council..approve-amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Neighborhood-Commercial to Community-Commercial; approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental lmpact;'approve.the rezoning from C-N-S to C- CS, and adopt a Master Use Permit to allow a refined land use list for the site. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dan Lundberg, applicant, 3212 Broad.St #200 SLO, requests uses be open to include retail, office, professional on second floor and possibly a wine bar. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Osborne questioned the parking and traffic problems associatedwi'tth project. Jr Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2005 Page 3 Commr. McCoy asked if total office use would be possible above ground floor. Commr. Loh suggested that certain uses. not be approved for ground floor without Director's approval. Commr. Carter would like to see schools and fitness, classes be allowed with Director's approval. On motion by Commr. Miller to recommend approval of the General Plan map amendment and rezone from C-N-S to C-C-S. Seconded by Commr. Osborne: A friendly amendment was made to move three land uses to the Administrative Use Permit Category (Fitness/Health facility. School and Specialized education/training, and Studio-Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc). 'A second amendment was introduced. by Commr. Loh to allow office uses above the ground floor. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Miller, Boswell, Loh, and Carter NOES: Commr. Osborne ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. A follow-up motion was made by Commr. Loh to allow Business and Service Offices. Production and Administrative Offices and Professional offices on the second floor.. Seconded by Commr. McCoy. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Boswell, Loh, and Carter NOES: Commrs. Osborne and Miller ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:2 vote. 3: Citywide. TA and ER 153=04; Comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. This item was continued to the January 11, 2006 meeting without discussion: 4. Citwide. GPA and ER 149-98. Review of the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and 'consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space; Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation; and Water and Wastewater Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Continued from November 30, 2005. Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Director, presented the staff report recommending further review of the proposed .General Plan Amendments, with emphasis on the Open Space and Land'Use Elements. G' Planning Commission Mim December 14,2005 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jan Marx, 265 Albert Drive (Save SLO) asked the Commission to wait before making a specific recommendation to the Council. Jodie Bennett, ECOSLO, also felt the Commission should wait before voting on the amendments. She felt that definitions need to be added back in and that more public comments and input are needed. Ira Winn, 3346 Barranca Court, spoke against changes to the existing language regarding open space. Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, agreed with previous speakers on the need for preservation of open space. Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, felt the Commission should be careful in deliberation and expressed concerns with the language of open space zoning. He noted that he had submitted an eight page report to the Commission detailing his concems. John Mandeville, Community Development Director, clarified that some ianguage is being changed from the Land Use Element to the. Open Space Element, but that no changes are proposed for the definition of Open Space. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION.COMMENTS: Commission discussion focused on proposed changes to. the, October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) policies on "open space definitions and standards (Section 8.0), and on proposed General Plan amendments, with particular emphasis on changes to the Land Use Element. The Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and made several changes to ensure that open space and conservation policies in the Land Use Element are either carried forward in the new element or preserved in the existing Land Use Element. Commr. McCoy noted that although he is up to date with the issue of open space, he would like to have time to read the new material presented. Commr. Loh questioned the issue of structures in open space and asked if size would make a difference or would no structures be allowed. Comair. Osborne asked about the difference in the open space purpose definition. He was told it was to better define what sort of open space we are dealing with. Commr. Boswell felt they should leave the section on Land ,Use in the Land Use Element. /_,,.,_ 4 19r Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 5 Commr. Carter discussed the needed correction of capitals versus non-capitals when dealing with open space. On motion by Commr. Carter to continue discussion to a special meeting on January 18. 2006. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Loh, and Carter. NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Whisenand provided a forecast of projects expected on the January 2006 meetings 6. Commission ADJOURMENT• With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjoumed at 10:45 pari: to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday January 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m: in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of January 18, 2006 ROLL CALL: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, and Chairperson Michael Boswell Absent: Commr. Alice Loh Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis .ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The order of the agenda was accepted as written. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Jan Manx, 265 Albert Dr., SLO, comments to follow. There were no further comments made from the public PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Citywide. GPA and , ER 149-98; Review of the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space, Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and Wastewater Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from December 14, 2005.) Jeff Hook, Senior Planner, presented the :staff report, recommending the Commission. review .the remaining proposed General Plan amendments (balance of the Land Use element, Parks and Recreation Element, Safety and Water and Wastewater Management Elements) and review changes to the Open.Space section of the October. 2005 Draft COSE. Upon completion of that review,. recommend that the.City Council approve a negative declaration of environmental impact,.adopt the proposed October 2005 Draft COSE as amended, and amend other General Plan Elements for internal consistency and policy consolidation. . Neil Havlik, Natural Resource Manager, discussed buffers for activities close to Open Space resources. The concept versus the success of mitigation banking was discussed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jodee Bennett, SLO, ECOSLO, reiterated her previous comments from December 14, 2005, as well as her comments from July on the executive summary. Planning Commission Minutes J Special Meeting of January 18,2006 Page 2 Randy Dettmer, 663 Hill Street, SLO, representing the architecture community, spoke in support of the "energy efficiency and re-using materials" language in Land Use Element. Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, SLO, presented the staff and Commission with five pages of comments. Jan Marx, 265 Albert Drive, SLO, felt the Open Space Element language regarding grants and City funds should be left in. She agreed with Commr. Boswell on adding numericlobjective standards. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commissioners took public testimony and resumed their discussion from December 14, 2005 on proposed changes to the October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) and on proposed General Plan amendments, with particular emphasis on changes to the Land Use Element. They reviewed changes to COSE made since last meeting in response to Commission direction, and began reviewing proposed amendments to the Land Use Element starting at section 6.1.2. The Commission made several changes to ensure that open space and conservation. policies in the Land Use Element Were either carried forward in the new element or' preserved in the existing LUE. The Commission then reviewed the proposed Amendments to the Parks and Recreation, Safety, Water and Wastewater Management Elements and approved the minor amendments as recommended. They then reviewed the proposed Open Space Element changes in detail to ensure that its policies and programs were addressed in the COSE, and made several changes accordingly. The Commission completed its review of the October 2005 Draft COSE and proposed General Plan amendments. Commr. Boswell commented on the language of converting prime agriculture land (825.1 D); suggested adding LEED standards as recommended by AIA, Chamber of' Commerce, and SLO Green Build, and explained State solar programs; agreed to the 20 dwelling units or greater language; would like to see language added on pg. 29 (7.10); discussed performance standards or numeric standards for natural resources (buffer zones). Commr. Osborne agreed to the 20 dwelling units or greater language; requested a clearer understanding of the location of items struck from the 1994 edition and combined into the current edition; and agreed with the Commission to review the. revised draft one final time before forwarding to the City Council. Commr. Miller felt the language should remain at 20 dwelling units or'greater, -and encouraged all residents/business owners to use energy efficient measures and not.just encourage it in new projects. Commr. Carter felt language on funding is appropriate; agreed with Commr. Miller on 20 dwelling units or greater, discussed establishing standards for new projects not in line ate • Planning Commission Mim Special Meeting of January 18,2006 Page 3 with standards on current/existing projects; and agreed it was necessary:to review draft changes once more before sending it to the City Council. Commr. Christianson discussed creekside language in Section 6.4.6 A be added to the COSE; concurred with Commr. Carter that the document with changes should be- reviewed before sending to the City Council. Commr. McCoy suggested that pg. 21, Green Building Standards be changed from "encouragement for energy efficient design" to "make use of energy efficient design in new proposals'; felt requiring numeric standards would be limiting but agreed to performance standards; and agreed to review the document before sending it to Council. On motion by Commr. Christianson to continue the item to the February 8, 2006, with. staff to incorporate the Commission's changes into a final draft for review by the Commission. Seconded by Commr. Carter. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Christianson and Carter NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Director reviewed Agenda for January 25, 2006. The City is in process of hiring two directors. 3: Commission Chairperson Boswell announced that he had submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission and that this would be his last meeting. Although his term was expiring in March, he resigned early due to professional commitments out of town that would have made attending the remaining meetings difficult. He thanked the Council, Commission and staff and complemented them on the quality and integrity of their work; particularly the Commission's ability to work in a positive and courteous manner. The Commission agreed that Commissioner Osborne would now serve as Chairperson and that the Commission would elect an "interim Vice-Chair" at its next meeting, both to serve until the Commission's upcoming regular elections in April. �" 7 Z- Planning Commission Minutes — Special Meeting of January 18, 2006 Page 4 ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday January 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary liane Stuart:-Revised comments-to City! 'LO Planning Commission,-hearing of 09 '"ry 2005 item 5 Pa e 1 From: Michael Sullivan<mcsgday@yahoo.com> To: Diane Stuart<dstuart@slocity.org> Date: 11/9/051:36PM Subject: Revised comments-to City of SLO Planning Commission-hearing of 09 Nov 2005, item 5 NOTE TO DIANE STUART, City of SLO-The comments which „- 1 e-mailed to you today(09 Nov 2005)at noon had some 1N1W013A10 nlliv i 4` errors of spelling and punctuation. The corrections have been made and are reflected in the revised document below. Would you please copy this revised 6 AON document, rather than the earlier one, for distribution to Planning Commission. Thank you. MIN SIM NVS j0 UO Michael Sullivan (09 Nov 2005- 13;30) - - - »»»»»»»>»»»»»»»»» 09 Nov 2005 To: City of San Luis Obispo (for Diane Stuart, Planning Department, and for the Planning Commission for hearing of 09 Nov 2005, item 5, GPA and ER 149-98. Draft Conservation and Open Space element of Oct 2005) From: Michael Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)545-9614(home) (805)441-6981 (cell) SUBJECT; Comments from Michael Sullivan regarding City of SLO GPA and ER 149-98. Draft Conservation and Open Space element of Oct 2005. Planning Commission hearing of 09 Nov 2005, agenda item 5. .ABBREVIATIONS CEQA=Califomia Environmental Quality Act POSE=Conservation and Open Space element(of General Plan) ER= Environmental Review GPA=General Plan Amendment SLO=San Luis Obispo Please ensure that the following comments are . copied to paper and distributed to the Planning Commission for their hearing of 09 Nov 2005. e-mailed on 09 Nov 2005 to: dstuart@slocfty.org (Diane Stuart, Community Development Dept.) Telephone (805)781-7170(Community Devel. Dept.) Diane Stuart-Revised comments-to CAX of SLO Planning Commission-hearing r`ng Nov 2005, item 5 Page 2 1. The Environmental Review("Negative Declaration") is inadequate and inconsistent with CEQA. At a MINIMUM, there should be a a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Since these proposed revisions to the General Plan have potentially wide-ranging impacts, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) is probably required. The planning staff have given no explanations as to why there are no impacts. The"sources"simply list the existing General Plan and the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space element as justifications for the logic of"no impact" This makes no sense. Note that the Initial Study in Section 18. (Earlier analyses)states that"This initial study does not rely on earlier analysis." Thus, all of the reasons and justifications for findings of"no impact" arise solely from the"Source references"given in Section 19. But these"source references"provide no rationales for the decision of"No Impact" -These sources give no mitigation information(except for the limited mitigation information for certain specific sections, such as Policy 8.25.3). There is no listing or discussion of mitigation for the modification or omission of the earlier goals or policies or programs. -These sources give no scientific or technical information which clearly and explicitly explains why each of the impact types is listed as"No Impact" -These sources are simply the existing General Plan and the Oct 2005 Draft COSE. In other words, these sources are the same thing as"the project"as defined . in CEQA. In this case, the"project" is the proposed amendments to the General Plan. Simply listing those „ proposed and existing policies gives no clear information or rationale pertaining to the.logic for a finding of"No Impact" " -These sources do not adequately address curfiulative impacts. , »»»»»»»»»»»»»> 2. The City refused to use an advisory body of concerned citizens and specialists to help draft the = . revised Conservation.and Open Space.element This was,,.. a mistake. This weakens public input. This also does not allow the input of a special committee which is devoted to studying in detail all the nuances and possibilities for goals, policies and programs. This )'rane Stuart-Revised comments-to City iLO PlanningCommission-hearing of 0r )v 2005 item 5 Pae 3 effort could have strengthened the final product Such advisory panels have been valuable in the past, for example for the last updates of the Land Use element and for the 1994 revisions of the Open Space element 3. The planning staff have repeatedly told the community that the earlier policies and programs(from the older Open Space element and Conservation element) would not be weakened or deleted. However, various policies and programs HAVE been WEAKENED or DELETED. A FEW EXAMPLES: (a) "The....City should seek the advice of(the Sbil � Conservation Service)particularly where land use and evaluation of development projects is concerned." J Cs21/ifsC�� (1973 Conservation element) This policy is omitted in Oct 2005 draft COSE. (b) "Urban development on prime agricultural land should be avoided,with agricultural zoning applied to worthy lands to insure their preservation." (1973 Conservation element) This policy is weakened in Oct 2005 draft COSE. For example, policy 8.25.1 C allows the loss of prime agricultural land when "the resource is prime agricultural soil on a small parcel essentially surrounded by urban development.." (c) Proposals for required bicycle paths are weakened and/or omitted: Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1:3.6. "Bicycle paths will be incorporated in new streets and street widening projects. Where sufficient right of way is available and bicycle and motor traffic volume warrant, such paths will be separate from the roadway. In other cases, they will be within the roadway but dearly striped or denoted by different pavement color, and.adjacent parking will be removed or limited to off-peak hours." (with references to Housing element 7.2.4, Circulation element 3.3, 3.7.) This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. Housing element(12-2004) policy 7.2.4-'Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood,with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas." This"should"language is weaker than the"will" Diane Stuart-Revised comments-to r'v of SLO Planning Commission-hearing! `9 Nov 2005 item 5 Pa e 4 language of EC 1.3.6. Circulation element(11/1994, updated 02/2001) policy 3.3-'The City shall complete a continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and with county routes as specified by t eh Bicycle Transportation Plan." A"network"of bikeways is a good idea, but this policy does not necessarily guarantee that bike lanes and paths would be required in all new streets and street widening projects, as the older program (EC 1.3.6)required. The Bicycle Transportation Plan(052002) states its objectives in general terms such as "Complete a network of Class 11 bicycle lanes and Class III routes within San Luis Obispo...and extend the system to serve new growth areas, connect with County bicycle routes, and improve linkages to Cal Poly State University." "Construct a network of Class I bicycle paths within the City's urban reserve to connect with paths in surrounding county areas." These objectives do not have the specific mandatory language seen in the existing Program EC 1.3.6... "Bicycle paths will be incorporated in new streets and street widening projects." (d) Energy Conservation element(1981) Program 1.3.7 -"Parking for bikes, mopeds, and motorcycles. Bicycle, moped, and motorcycle parking space will be provided at City parks and buildings." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. (e) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3.14-Hydropower generation. 'The City will proceed with plans for hydropower generation on the Salinas Reservoir conduit" This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. (f) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3.16-Wind powered generation. 'The City will investigate the feasibility of wind-powered generation for its own facilities which are suitably located, such as the sewage treatment plant or water treatment plant,where prevailing winds and relatively low visibility are conducive to tower installations." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. /4 o4- Bane Stuart-Revised comments-12 City LO Planning Commission-hearing of 09 v 2005 item 5 Pae 5 Program 4.30.16 in the draft COSE of Oct 2005 states, 'The City shall examine the potential to create a city-owned, green energy utility." (This does not specify whether it would use wind generation or solar panels or both.) However, the Staff report (09 Nov 2005) recommends against a city owned energy utility. New(2005)Program 4.30.3 states, "Incorporate conservation and sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities." However, this language is very weak and has no hint of how it would be implemented, and does not specifically mention the use of wind generated power. (g) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3.36-Individual wind powered generators. 'The City's regulations will not prevent the location of individual wind-powered generators, but they will be discouraged in favor of optimally located generators of greater capacity, designed to serve major facilities, neighborhoods, or the community as a whole." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. Presumably this program would have applied to both existing and new residences or other land uses(commercial, industrial). (h) Energy Conservation element(1981). EC 1.3.40- 'Home occupations. "Zoning regulations will provide for home occupations which are compatible with residential neighborhoods and which will reduce residence-to-work trips." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. 4. Lads of a legislative draft(to compare older and newer versions of General Plan language as proposed) must be provided so Planning Commissioners, the public, and the Council can make sense of the proposed changes. The format given in the Staff Report.for Planning Commission (09 Nov 2005) is inadequate and confusing and tedious to comprehend. .5.The proposed Oct 2005,Draft Conservation and Open Space element does not conform to state laws in various ways. A few examples follow. (a) The Initial Study is not supported by substantial evidence or facts. This violates CEQA. Every single statement of NO IMPACT is simply justified by Diane Stuart-Revised comments-to ;i of SLO Planning Commission-hearing :j 9 Nov 2005 item 5 Pa e 6 . .. reference to the existing General Plan and its proposed amendments. This(The General Plan and its amendments) IS the"project"mentioned in CEQA. Reiteration of the"project"does not provide any meaningful analysis of potential environmental impacts. (b) Pre-zoning to C/OS is illegal when Conservation or Open Space is not the intended use of the property! The draft COSE of Oct 2005 proposes language for parts of the Land Use element which does not conform to state laws. Land Use element program 6.1.3(formerly program 6.1.4 in Land Use element of Sep 2004)allows certain lands to be designated (i.e. pre-zoned) Interim Open Space, indicating that they will be suitable for urban development when certain conditions are satisfied. 'The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is approved."(Program 6.1.3 of Draft COSE, Oct 2005). Normally, interim land use designations are used only in certain situations, for example, "to protect the public safety, health, and welfare"..... a city may "adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposar... See Govt Code 65858. The City has abused this program (6.1.3, formerly 6.1.4) in the past,for example, with the annexation of Froom Ranch to allow construction of the Home Depot The 1997 and 1999 versions of Land Use element had specified this land area(Irish Hills)for commercial use and residential use. Under Govt Code 56375(e), LAFCO was authorized to "approve the annexation of unincorporated territory consistent with the planned and probable use of the property based upon the review of general plan and pre-zoning designations. No subsequent change may be made to the general plan for the annexed territory or zoning that is not in conformance to the pre-zoning designations for a period of two years after the completion of the annexation, unless the legislative body for the city makes a finding at a public nearing that a substantial change has occurred in circumstances that necessitate a departure from the pre-zoning in the application to the commission." Govt Code 56375. So, LAFCO was authorized to approve annexation of Froom Ranch for its intended, planned use as retail commercial. The City used the interim open space" designation for Froom Ranch to avoid complications Bane Stuart-Revised comments-to City LO Planning Commission-hearing of 09 v 2005 item 5 Pa e 7 with the LAFCO approval process, stating to LAFCO in the annexation application that"no development is proposed at this time"at Froom Ranch,which was a false statement. This interim open space designation made it easier for environmental review(open space has no environmental impacts)and could avoid inquiries from LAFCO about infrastructure capacities (open space requires no infrastructure).. The pre-zoning designation of interim open space should not have been changed to commercial use for at least two years. Govt Code 56375(e). However, promptly after annexation, the land use designation for Froom Ranch was changed from interim open space to commercial retail, in defiance of the state law. (c) The proposed Draft Conservation and Open Space element(Oct 2005)creates some internal inconsistencies and conflicts, in violation of certain sections of the Government Code. Some examples: (1) COSE Draft(Oct 2005)-4.30.15(Adopt green building standards)states that the City"will adopt an ordinance containing requirements.and incentives for innovative, environmentally friendly... building projects." Which kinds of projects would this ordinance address? Residential? Commercial? Industrial? Institutional(schools, hospitals, etc.)? Some of these requirements may cause increased costs for housing. For example, the program states that "Examples of projects that may qualify for such incentives may include....A-Those incorporating innovative, technologically advanced energy efficient design concepts significantly exceeding State of California Title 24 standards." Such advanced design measures are likely to be costly. This has a. potential conflict with Housing element Goal 2.1, Affordability (2) COSE Draft(Oct 2005)-4.30.18-"Require solar power for new dwellings. Residential projects greater than 5 units shall construct 5%of homes with solar power beginning in 2008; this will increase 4%each year until 2020." Implementation of program 4.30.18 means that by 2020, 53%of homes (in projects with more than 5 units)must have solar power. Although in the long run solar power can save money for.energy costs, in the short term such solar installations could add significant costs to new housing construction. This could conflict with Housing element goal 2.1, Affordability. (3) COSE Draft(Oct 2005) The permitted open space uses(proposed in Policy Diane Stuart-Revised.comrrients-to rify.of SLO Planning Commission-hearing r`a9 Nov 2005 item 5 Pa e8 8.24.1)include"home sites surrounded by land of sufficient size and appropriately located with respect to topography and vegetation to maintain the open character." This definition of uses is in conflict with policy 8.21.1 that defines open space as"any land or water area that remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state and which is generally free of structures." A"home site"as permitted in 8.24.1 includes structures(on home sites)and does not fit the definition of 8.21.1 (a home site is not "generally free of structures."). An open space as a home site is also incompatible with Govt Code 65560(b) which states that open space land is"essentially unimproved"which would indicate that improvements such as structures, homes, roads, etc would not be permitted. Also, the use as a"home site is not one of the open space uses listed in Govt Code 65560(b). SUMMARY The proposed Draft COSE has many flaws and weaknesses. It is not legally adequate.Ats implementation scheme is weak and poorly laid out and poorly organized. The information in the staff report does not give a dear picture of comparisons between old and new language in comparison of the existing and proposed General Plan. The City can do a much better job. Please improve our Conservation and Open Space element before sending it to City Council. Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614(home) Yahool FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one dick. http://farechase.yahoo.com CC: Michael Sullivan<mcsgday@yahoo.com>' 3�h To City of San Luis Obispo fns Michael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission l._ .ng of 09 Nov 2005 - ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 1 of 11 29 Nov 2005 To: City of San Luis Obispo, CA-including Planning Commission and City Council From: Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614 SUBJECT: Planning Commission hearing of 30 Nov 2005 -Public hearing 3 Citywide: GPA and ER 149-98. Review of the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space element of the , General Plan to update and consolidate resource.conservation policies, including amendments to-the Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and Wastewater Management Elements (continued from 09 Nov 2005). Abbreviations CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act 10-2005 COSE-.Conservation and Open Space element(draft)of Oct.2005 ER Environmental review GPA-General Plan amendment 1994 OSE-Open Space element(Jan 1994) PC -Planning Commission of City of SLO SLO - San Luis Obispo 1. The environmental determination (Negative Declaration) is inadequate and illegal because the project (General Plan amendments) could have harmful environmental consequences that:have not been adequately analyzed or adequately mitigated. At a MINIMUK.there should be. Mitigated Negative Declaration:. Since these proposed revisions to.the General Plan have potentially wide-ranging impacts, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is probably required. APPENDIX A(Critique of Environmental "Initial Study") is attached. The information in APPENDIX A shows that the City has not complied with CEQA or CEQA Guidelines in its ' analysis'of potential environmental impacts in the Initial Study(as given in Planning Commission staff report for hearing of 30 Nov 2005). For example: (1) "All phases of project planning, implementation, and_operation must be considered in the Initial Study of the project. (CEQA Guidelines(09-2004), 15063(a)(1). The proposed COSE would- . amend various elements of the General Plan. Staff report(PC 30 Nov 2005) states that the proposed.amendments "are attached: Only.those,sections to be amended.are included."..(Staff report.PC-30 Nov 2004.at'p. 6) This is misleading, The deletions or modifications:of goals or policies or programs in the older documents have not.been presented for environmental review.. For example,Staffreport,.PC 30 Nov 2005 states,.".The Conservation Element, adopted July. 1973, is hereby updated andwholly inggWorated into the October 2005 Draft Conservation and: • ; 'Open Space Element_" This implies that all the 1973 Conservation Element goals, policies,-;and_ -:: . 3� �-0 To City of San Luis Obispo from Nfichael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing. 09 Nov 2005'- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 2 of I1 programs are wholly incorporated in the 10-2005 COSE. This is false. Some of the older language has been weakened or omitted in the 10-2005 COSE. Examples: (a) "The ...City should seek the advice of(the Soil conservation service) particularly where land use and evaluation of development projects is concerned." (1973 Conservation element, Chap.A). This policy is omitted in 10-2005 COSE. (b) "Urban development on prime agricultural land should be avoided, with agricultural zoning applied to worthy lands to insure their preservation." (1973 Conservation element, Chap. 4). This policy is weakened in 10-2005 COSE. Policy 8.25.1C allows the loss of prime agricultural land when"the resource is prime agricultural soil essentially surrounded by urban development..." This is weaker than the ori ing al language and brings up the question of cumulative impacts(loss of prime agricultural land)that can arise because of the newer language. The staff report does not present a side-by-side comparison(as in a legislative draft)to exactly show what parts of the 1973 Conservation element will be modified or deleted. So,the City has failed to analyze potential environmental impacts arising from these changes in language. Similarly, various parts of the older(198 1)Energy Conservation Element were weakened or' omitted in the 10-2005 COSE while the PC 30 Nov 2005 staff report incorrectly claims that "The .Energy Conservation Element, adopted in April 1981, is hereby updated and wholly incorporated into the October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open Space Element." But not all parts of the Energy Conservation element(198 1)were incorporated in the 10-2005 COSE. Examples: (a) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3.14 -Hydropower generation. "The City will proceed with plans for hydropower generation on the Salinas Reservoir conduit." This program has been omitted in the 10-2005 COSE. (b) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3.16 Wind powered generation. "The. City will investigate the feasibility of wind-powered generation for its own facilities which are suitably located, such as the sewage.treatment plant or water treatment.plant, where prevailing winds and.relatively low visibility are conducive to tower installations." This program has been omitted in the 10-2005 draft COSE. Again,the City has failed to adequately analyze potential'environmental impacts caused by these changes in language. (2) "An initial study may rely upon expert opinion supported.by facts, technical studies or other substantial evidence to document its findings. However, an-initial study is neither intended nor required to include-the level of detail included in an EIM CEQA Guidelines(09-2004) 15063(a)(3). If the city uses,an environmental checklist for its Initial Study,it must explain the reasons for the answers to-the questions. CEQA Guidelines15063(d)(3). "The brief explanation may lie either through a narrative:or a reference to another information source such as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR or negative declaration. A reference to another document should . include, where appropriate, a citation to the page'or pages where the information is found." CEQX Guidelmes15063(d)(3). The city has failed to fulfill these requirements. The city's,"narrative" tW'r To City of San Luis Obispo froomFichael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission h�_mg of 09 Nov 2005- ER J GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan- Page 3 of 11 explain the finding of"No Impact" in most cases asserts that there would be no substantial change to existing General Plan goals or policies or programs. As APPENDIX A explains, such assertions are false. Note that the Initial Study(staff report PC 30 Nov 2005) in Section 18 (Earlier analyses) states that "This initial study does not rely on earlier analysis." Thus, all of the reasons and justifications for findings of"no impact" arise solely from the "Source references" given in Section 19 of the Initial Study and CEQA Determination dated 28 Oct 2005. The City has-failed to support its Initial Study with any facts,technical studies,or other substantial evidence." The "Source references" only refer to these documents: . 1 - October 2005 Planning Commission Draft Conservation and Open Space Element 2 -March 2005 Planning commission Review Draft Conservation and Open Space element 3 - General Plan, San Luis Obispo, and included Elements (various adoption dates) 4 2005 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines. For every single question in the Initial Study, the finding of"No Impact" is substantiated only by reference to the above documents, without any explanation at all of how these documents support the finding of No Impact. In contrast, APPENDIX A of this letter presents substantial evidence showing that potential environmentalimpacts do exist. Potential environmental impacts exist because (a) proposed goals, policies or programs are in some cases either made weaker or omitted altogether, compared to the older goals, policies or programs, yet adequate discussion has not been provided and adequate mitigation has not been provided; (b) the 10-2005 COSE contains provisions that conflict with state law,'such as the definition of open space in the proposed General Plan amendments, the illegality of pre-zoning to Conservation Open Space land use when that land use isnot actually intended, and various internal inconsistencies in the 10-2005 COSE. See additional-explanation below. (c) cumulative impacts are not adequately addressed. Examples: (1) The cumulative loss of farmland is inadequately addressed. (2) Cumulative impacts on air pollution and traffic are not addressed. (d) -The Initial-Study-"source references"provide no mitigation information(except for-the limited mitigation information for.certaiq specific sections, such as Policy 8.25:3). There is no listing or discussion of pertinent facts or technical information in the source references which might justify a finding of"No Impact" in the Initial Study. There is-no listing or discussion of mitigation forthe-' modification or omission of the earlier goals or policies or programs. (e) The Initial Study(PG-staff teport.30 Nov 2005) contains no references to any input from publio agencies other than the City The Ciity's.environmental review(Initial Study) has a"California Fish" and Game;Fees Determination".that states that there is no evidence for adverse effects on fish an& wildlife resources or habitat,but there is no documentation provided for this determination. CEQA Guidelines(09=2004)15063(g)(Consultation)requires the following. "As soon as a Lead Agency has.determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project,*the Lead Agency shall consul informallywith all Responsible Agencies and all Trustee Agencies responsible for resources To City of San Luis Obispo from N ictucl Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing oiL 09 Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 4 of 11 affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared." CEQA Guidelines(09-2004) 15063(g). But it appears that the City has not met this requirement, because no documentation of such consultation is provided. Part I 1 of the Initial Study(staff report PC 30 Nov 2005) states: "Other public agencies whose approval is required: None." The City's omission of consultation with Responsible and Trustee agencies seems to be in conflict with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. »»»»»»»»»»»»»> 2. The City refused to use an advisory body of concerned citizens and.specialists to.help draft the revised Conservation and Open Space element .This was a mistake. This weakens public input. This also does not-allow the input of a special committee which is devoted.to studying in . detail all the nuances and possibilities for goals, policies and.programs, This effort could have strengthened the final product. Such advisory panels have been valuable in the past, for example for the last updates of the Land Use element and for the 1994 revisions of the Open Space element. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» 3._The_planning.staff have repeatedly told the community that the earlier.policies and programs (from the older Open Space element and Conservation element)would not be weakened or deleted. However, various policies and programs HAVE BEEN WEAKENED or DELETED. A FEW EXAMPLES: (also, see other examples in APPENDIX A, Critique of Initial Study.) (a) "The....City should seek the advice of(the Soil Conservation Service) particularly where land use and evaluation of development projects is concerned." (1973, Conservation element, Chapter=4,.: Soil Conservation, Summary and recommendations,paragraph.L) This policy is omitted in Oct 2005 draft COSE. (b) "Urban development on prime agricultural land should be ayoided,with.agricultural zoning; .applied to worthy lands to insure their preservation." . (1973 Conservation element, Chapter 4;Soil conservation, Summary and recommendations,.paragraph 2) This policy is weakened in Oct 2005 draft COSE. For example, policy 8.25.1C allows the loss of grime agricultural land when "the resource is prime agricultural sail on a srhall•parcel=essentially. surrounded by urban development..." There is no clear definition of What-a"small" agricultural parcel is.. There is no environmental analysis of potential cumulative impacts(loss of.f xmland),that might be caused by implementation of this policy. (c) Noise pollution was deemed an aesthetic impact in Chapter 8 (Esthetic Conservation)of the 1973,Conservation element. Five actions were recommended;including.preparation-ofa Noise element of the General plan and other actions to control noise. Staffreport.PC 30 Nov 2005 states, "The.Conservation.Element, adopted July 1973, is hereby updated and wholly incorporated'into the, October 2005 Draft Conservation and Open space Element:" Thisstatemen is incorrect,becans&". certain parts of the 1973 Conservation element have not been incorporated info the 10-2005:COSE Chapter 8,Esthetic Conservation, of the 1973 Conservation has not been incorporated into the 10-: r 2005 COSE. The 1973 Conservation element recommended 5 actions.in Chap-8 t6.deal,with: To City of San Luis Obispo fi Achael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission._wring of 09 Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98_ Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 5 of 11 excessive noise. None of these is mentioned in the 10-2005 COSE. Some of the issues might have been addressed in the Noise Element of the General Plan. If so, this has not been noted or discussed in the staff report PC 30 Nov 2005. (d) Proposals for required bicycle paths are weakened and/or omitted: Energy Conservation element (1981). Program EC 13.6. "Bicycle paths will be incorporated in new streets and street widening projects. Where sufficient right of way is available and bicycle and motor traffic volume warrant, such paths will be separate from the roadway. In other cases, they will be within the roadway but clearly striped or denoted by different pavement color, and adjacent parking will be removed or limited to off-peak hours." (with references to Housing element 72.4, Circulation element 3-3, 3.7.) This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. Housing element(12-2004)policy 7.2.4 - "Within expansion areas, new,residential development should be.an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that;provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas." This "should" language is weaker than the "will" language of EC 1.3.6. Circulation element(11/1994, updated 02/2001) policy 3.3 - "The City shall complete a continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways that-connect I neighborhoods with major activity centers and with county routes as specified,by the Bicycle Transportation Plan." A"network" of bikeways is a good idea, but this policy does not necessarily guarantee that bike lanes and paths would be required in all new streets and street widening projects, as:the older.. . program(EC 1.3.6)required: The Bicycle Transportation Plan(05/2002) states its objectives in general terms such as "Complete a network of Class II bicycle lanes and Class III routes within San Luis Obispo... and extend the system to serve new growth areas, connect with County bicycle routes, and improve linkages xo. A Poly State University." "Construct.a network of Class i bicycle.paths,within the City's urban reserve ta:connect;with ~ . paths in surrounding county areas." These objectives do not have the specific mandatory language seen in the existing Program,EC . 1.3.6... "Bicycle paths will be incorporated in new streets and street,widening projects." (e) Energy Conservation element (1981)Program 1.3.7- "Parking for bikes, mopeds;and motorcycles. Bicycle;.moped,,.and,motorcycle parking.space will:be provided-at City parks:and. .' buildings:" This. ro .. has been omitted.in the.Oct 2005 draft LOSE. (f) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program.EC.1-3.14-Hydropowergeneration. ."The City, will proceed with plans for hydropower generation on the Salinas Reservoir conduit." To City of San Luis Obispo from Nfichael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing or09 Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 6 of 11 This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. (g) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3.16 -Wind powered generation. "The City will investigate the feasibility of wind-powered generation for its own facilities which are suitably located, such as the sewage treatment plant or water treatment plant, where prevailing winds and relatively low visibility are conducive to tower installations." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. Program 4.30.16 in the draft COSE of Oct 2005 states; "The City shall examine the potential to create a city-owned, green energy utility." (This does not specify whether it would use wind generation or solar panels or both.) However, the.Staff report(09 Nov 200-5)recommends against a city owned energy utility. New(2005) Program 4.30.3 states, "Incorporate conservation and sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities." However, this language is very weak and has no hint of how it would be implemented, and does not specifically mention the use of wind generated power. (h) Energy Conservation element(1981). Program EC 1.3:36-Individual wind powered generators. "The City's regulations will not prevent the location of individual wind-poweied generators, but they will be discouraged-n.favor of'optimally located generators of greater capacity, designed to serve major facilities, neighborhoods, or the community as a whole." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft LOSE. Piesumably tlus,program'would have applied to both existing and new residences or other land uses(commercial, industrial).` ' (i) Energy Conservation element-(1981). EC I.3-40.-Home'occupations. "Zoning'regulatiotls will provide for home occupations which are compatible with residential neighborhoods and whiclh wi11' reduce residence-to-work trips." This program has been omitted in the Oct 2005 draft COSE. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» 4. A legislative draft(to compare older and newer versions of General Plan language4 existuig and proposed) must be provided so that the Planning Commission, the public, and the Council can make sense of the proposed changes. The format given in the Staff geport'forPlannirig Commission(09 Nov 2005 and 30 Nov 2005)is inadequate and confirsing,and tedious to comprehend. To try to comprehend the existing and proposed language for comparison, one must - have at one's disposal ' —a complete set of current General Plan'elements; —the complete Draft Conservation and Open Space element of Oct 2005; —a copy of-the current Zoning`Ordinance; —the staff report for Planning Commission hearings(09 Nov2045, 30-Nov.,2005) Then, one must try to identify the specific language propose in revisions of the various G=eneral.' Plan elements. The process is doubly confusing and tedious because the staff have in some cases (e.g.,the Initial Study)stated that."no substantial changes" harre.occi&6d between old and-new; To City of San Luis Obispo fie achael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission L ag of 09 Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan Page 7 of 11 when such an assertion is inaccurate in many cases and one must sift through all the information to discover the truth. »»»»»»»»»» 5. The aronosed Oct 2005 Draft Conservation and Oven Space element does not conform to state laws in various ways. A few examples follow. (a) The Initial Study is not supported by substantial evidence or facts. This violates CEQA. Every single statement of NO IMPACT is simply justified by reference to the existing General Plan and its proposed amendments. This(The General Plan and its amendments) IS the "project" mentioned in CEQA Reiteration of.the"project" does not provide any meaningful analysis ofpotential environmental impacts. Please seeAPPENDIX A, Critique of Initial•Study. (b) Pre-zoning to C/OS is illegal when Conservation or Open Space is not the intended rue-of the property! The draft COSE of Oct 2005 proposes language for parts of the Land Use element which does not conform to state laws. Land Use element program 6.1.3(formerly program 6.1.4 in Land Use-element of Sep 200'4).. allows certain lands:to be designated (ie. pre-zoned)Interim Open Space, indicating that theywill be suitable for urban development when certain conditions are.satisfied. "The;interim.Open Space designation is to be.changed to an urban classification,only when:the conditions necessaryfor :.. . development can be satisfied and a certain type of developments approved."(Program " 6.1.3 of Draft COSE, Oct 2005). Normally, interim land use designations are used only.in.certain:: situations, for example, "to protect the public safety, health, and welfare"..... a city may "adopt as an urgency measurean interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a.. contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal". ..:-•See Govt Cbdej65858. The City has abused this program(6.1:3, formerly 6.1.4) in the past,for example;witkthe° annexation of Froom Ranch to.allow construction of the Home Drepot. The 1997•and 1999 versions' of Land Use element had specified this-land area(Irish Hills) for commercial use and residential. use. Under Govt Code 56375(e), LAFCO was authorized.to "approve the annexation of unincorporated territory consistent with the planned and probable-use ofthe ptopeity based upon the review of general plan and,pre-zoning designations. No subsequent change.may',lie IIiade to the general plan for the annexed territory or zoning that is not in conformanceto the p x-toning':' designations for a period of two years after the completion ofthe.annexation,unless the ftislative body for the city makes a finding at a public hearing that a substantial change has occurred in circumstances that necessitate a departure from the pre-zoning in the application to the commission." Govt Code 56375. So,LAFCO was authorized to approve annexation of Froom Ranch,for,its intended,planned:use:as retailrnmerciai; TheCity,.used4h6 . "interim open space".:•designation for Froom Ranch-ta avoid-complications with-theLAFCCO -�.: approval process, stating to LAFCO in the annexation application that.'no development-is'.. proposed.at this time" at Froom Ranch, which was a false statement. This interim open space designation made it easier for environmental_review(open space_has no envirenmenWi inipacts)and' could avoid-inquiries from LAFCO about.infrastmcture capacities(open space.requirw no infrastructure). The pre-zoningdesignation of interim open space should not:have beep=changed td . commercial use for at.least two years. Govt Cod06375(e): However,promptly.•after annexation; the land use designation for Froom Ranch was changed by the.City from imerim',open spaceto commercial rets.in defiance of the state law: To City of San Luis Obispo from I&L .Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing A Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 8 of 11 (c) The proposed Draft Conservation and Open Space element (Oct 2005) creates some internal inconsistencies and conflicts, in violation of certain sections of the Government Code. Some examples: (1) COSE Draft(Oct 2005)-4.30.15 (Adopt green building standards) states that the City"will adopt an ordinance containing requirements and incentives for innovative, environmentally friendly.,. building projects_" Which kinds of projects would this ordinance address? Residential?: Commercial? Industrial? Institutional(schools,hospitals, etc.)?Some of these requirements.may - cause increased costs for housing. For example,,the program states that "Examples of projects that may qualify for such incentives may include....A- Those incorporating innovative;technologically- advanced echnologicallyadvanced energy efficient design.concepts significantly-exceeding State of California Title 24 standards." Such advanced design measures are likely to be costly. This has a potential conflict with Housing element Goal 2.1, Affordability (2) COSE Draft (Oct 2005)-4.30.18 - "Require solar power for new dwellings. Residential projects greater than 5 units shall construct 5%of homes with solar power beginning in 2008; this Will increase 4% each year until 2020." Implementation of program 4.30.18 means:that by- 2020, 53%of homes(in projects with more than 5 units) must have solar power. Although•in-the . long run solar power can save money for energy costs; in the short term such,solar installations could add significant costs to new housing.construction. Tbis could-conflict with.Housing:elernenC goal 2.1, Affordability. _. . (3) COSE Draft(Oct 2005) The permitted open space.uses(proposed in Policy:8.24.1).include "home sites surrounded by land of sufficient size and appropriately located with respect to topography and vegetation to maintain the open character. This definition of-uses is in conflict with policy 8:21.1 that defines open space as "any land or water areathat remains in a'- ., 1 predominantly natural or undeveloped state and which is.generally free of structures." A"home site" as permitted in 8.24.1. includes structures(on home sites)'and does not fit the definition-of 8.21.1 (a home site is not."generally free of structures."). An open space as a home site lis—also incompatible with Govt Code 65560(b)which states that,open,space land is"essentially unimproved" which would indicate that improvements such.,as structures;:homes, roads,etc would not be permitted.-Also, the use as a"home site isnot one of the open space:uses listed in_Govt Code 65560(b). 6. Proposed "Programs" (implementation measures)acre often weak,•vagueala unenforceable. They do not follow."best practices",for General Plans.- "Best.practices":for implementation programs do the following: i= (a) Inglu&implementation programs for-each policy. .Where no implementaticin measurE'is: -: proposed;so:state, and explain why. (In certain instances,'the policy:itself contains sufficient-. specific uffcient- specific guidance to effectuate the implementation.,.If that is.the.casef•so state:<-However;�in MosC cases,,a specific implementation program, or set of programs,is:required to implement the policy.) The 10-2005 COSE has its implementation progtams.at the end of each chapter'rather than following each policy, so it is often unclear which of these belongs with which policy. This is poor: -� A �—V' . To City of San Luis Obispo fr< lidiael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission 1, ig of 09 Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/con` solidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Pian. Page 9 of 11 practice. APPENDIX B shows a better way, for example, in the City of Ventura.General Plan elements for Open Space and Conservation(APPENDIX B-1 through B-15). In the Ventura plan, the "Actions" (implementation programs) are listed directly below the policies. This provides better clarity of organization and puipose, and allows forbetter implementation and monitoring of implementation achievement, compared to the way the City of SIA proposes.to organize implementation programs in the 10-2005 COSE, with implementation programs added on as a sort of randomly arranged appendix atthe end of each chapter, divorced from the policies. (b) Implementation programs should be specifically stated Vague and uncertain terms like "encourage" and "promote" seldom get set into concrete actions. Who does the "encouraging" and how is it done? How is it.implemented? Nobody knows (or` cares?). The persons or agencies or City divisions or departments responsible for the implementation' "� should,be identified. The timefi-ame for implementation should be identified(e.g. shorvterm;' ' medium term, long term) Example: See APPENDIX B-14-B-15(City of Ventr raIrriplementatiod scheme) and B-16-B-19 (City of Santa Paula implementation scheme). The 10-2005 COSE fails to follow these common-sense ideas for better implementation. Another problem with some of the 10-2005 LOSE implementation language is that,it tuay contain circular logic which is meaningless and ineffectual. Example: 7.30'(P r*ogra*m s for natt7i' l communities). Program 7.30.1: Protect natural,communities.A. "Implement t'lie' Nafiital " Communities-policies above." In other words,the implementatiomolan which'tellS us how to' implement the policy, is to "implement the policies above." How? This-isweak, arid•this-ii evidence that the staff have not thought this through very carefully when they-proposed the implementation schemes. (c) Explain the General Plan process to the users of the plan The City of Carlsbad has done agoodjob of informing the users ofthe General alai ho*d=the plan works, and how the plan•creation°and amendment process works.'`See APPENDIX G I C=4. Please refer to the entire City of Carlsbad document(Guidebook to the Carlsbad GeiieW-Plan, Aug' 1994) at the City of Carlsbad, CA website. 7. Recommendations regardine Auuendix`B.Acquisition of Open Space 1Au&in A0-2005 COSE and Policv 9.25.1.Loss ofOnerl'Saace (a) "6. A site that meets the criteria in parts 2 through 4 above should generally not be acquired,by. the City•as open space if(A)-The site is developed with facilities or structures,and thus w6uld not be consistent with the open space'definition." (10-2005 COSE at Appondig B,Acquisition of Open Space Lands) ir Comment: A parcel of land should be not ignored as open space simply because ii'is'afr developed. For example, in some cases old "brownfield" sites can be converted into small urban . open spaces. An example of this is the former auto repair shop at Marsh and Santa Rosa stress, adjacent to the creek The land was cleared and converted to open space. Sometimes, similar conversions can occur as offers from a developer. This language should be deleted. Instead,the policy should be amended to provide for acquisition of already-developed lands for open space in certain cases. To City of San Luis Obispo from Mr— .Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing _J9 Nov 2005- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan- Page 10 of 11 (b) "8. The City will sell, exchange, or transfer an interest in open space lands, or relinquish a . permanent open space easement, only by approval of the City Council following a public hearing, and only after a 6Q-day period in which the decision can be suspended pending reversal by referendum." (1,072005 COSE at Appendix B; Acquisition of Open Space Lands) Comment: This policy in antithetical to the idea of permanent open space protections. Using.this policy, the City(three council members) could convert any"permanent" open space easement by Council action at any time, apparently without a GeneralPlan amendment and,perhaps without, environmental review. This policy would conflict with various goals,and policies related to acquisition,.preservation, and maintenance of open space outside and inside the urban area,.e.g. Goal 8.21, Policy 8.21.1, Goal 8.22, Policy 8.22.1 in 10-2005 COSE. This policy sets a dangerous precedent,.,is inconsistent with the rest.of the Open.Space element and should be deleted. (c) Policy 8.25.1, Loss of open space, (10-2005 COSE) lists three conditions in which the.City may permit loss of an open space resource as described in Goals 8..21 and 8.22: only when. A- Preserving the resource would permanently deprive.the landowner of all reasonable use; and, - .- acquisition by the City,or a conservation organization is not feasible;or B. There is a demonstrated need, based on.public health, safety, or welfare f,and thtpe is.no practical alternative to loss of the resource,. or, ;:•r; C. The resource is prime agricultural soil on a small parcel.essentiallyssurrounded by-Arban..,. development. Comments: A. Who decides if a landowner is.permanently deprived of all,reasonable use? The City?, the Landowner? How is "reasonable use"defined?.What if a.landowner dedicates.a,permanent.open space easement and then decides later he wants to.use the land for development...Could he•do.so.,; under this policy? These questions need:to be answered. B. Aland can remain in open space designation and still be used for public purposes in :. many cases, e.g. for flood control. The policy should be reworded to reflect this. < C. What is the definition of"small" parcel? How many acres? (I would s.Wpsk,'•srpal) means less than 5 acres.) What is the definition of"essen;tially surrounded" by urban_ AdvetopWent?, These must be specified and better explained. (d) .The Appendix B,Acquisition of.Open Space Lands,should include a broader discussion Qf ; ways.to acquire and conserve open space. Various ideas are presented in APPENDIX D,."P.uttm ? Action into the Open Space Element" (Calif. OPR 1997)and in Press,Daniel(2002). Saving open-.>. space. The politics of local preservation in California. Berkeley, CA-USA University of California:Press. To City of San Luis Obispo fro._ .Gchael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission htti arg of 09 Nov 2005 - ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan Page 11 of 11 SUMMARY The proposed Draft COSE has many flaws and weaknesses. It is not legally adequate. Its environmental review(Initial Study) is based on false statements that assert that there no significant changes in the proposed General Plan amendments, but actually the new language either weakens or deletes the older language. in numerous instances The information in the staff report does not give a clear picture of comparisons between old and.new language in comparison of the existing and proposed General Plan .The proposed implementation programs are weak and poorly laid out and poorly organized. The City can do a much better job. .Please improve our Conservation and Open Space element_before sending it to City Council. Please allow time to further revieuv and more carefully consider and refine this major General Plan amendment which will be with us.for years to come. If we don't get it right now, we are acting irresponsibly. G Michael C. Sullivan 1127'Seaward St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614 (home) References; (1) Press, Daniel (2002): Saving open space. The politics of local preservation in California. Berkeley, CA-USA. University of California Press. (2) State-of California(2003). General Plan Guidelines. . downl6aded,'05_Nov 2005 at http:f/v?ww.opr.ca.goy/planning/PDFs/Gen6til_Plan�Gtiidelines .2003.0df (3) State of California(1997). Putting action.into.the open_space element Governor's 6ffice ofOil ' Planning and Researcg downl6aded.05 Nov 2005 at http://cires.ca.gov/planning/open_space%open_space.html (4) City of Ventura, CA (2005). General Plan(adopted Aug 2005). (5) City of Carlsbad,CA. (2004). Guide to the Genoral Plan. (6) City of Camarillo, CA (2005). General Plan.'Conservation and Open Space element.. . httpJ/www.ci.camarillo:ca.ustgovt/PtanGenPlanPDFlwebtover.pdf (downloaded 17Nev2005). (7) City of Santa Paula, CA(2004). .Vision implementation. (Part of the General Plan): (8) City of Ventura, CA(2005). Summaryof Actions (to•implement the General Plan). . `j as �� v_ N w l.. t.• N fa '0 4) N s a9i A a) - N N ° 3 aAi 3 p m w ti O a o 0 c aNi o =cu " to Pi. AcOi cU A mo4) >o _S C. . n�ai W.0 � c'7 a.'~d�Coloo .o N ao ^ aa w Q bO o •Cl) C-cl m ° d" ar. Ea N Ix 7 U 10 � T '� a �•5 O ON o m ? a s S g5r eo 1:6 e°oa v 2 .. UO2 .00 y q �.y y q to �t P. 3 � N a . ,�>, � t tj 0- (4 aNi p 4) A o0 00 wa cTR. Q � � � y •N a F•� p Ix co U a¢ �''�•• lA. y� �+ a nvr O N .� ° A . AO z+ PO d Cn 3 m ° .. ai q a? o vi op °' Q R421 'n IV O a d o w q o ° a3i ° T Q �i` G- abiv `g d offq. aoi v a m w `� o p c o..N -� p Yi J 'O UQ U N w d �' 'd , mpN p OR do, cc o a a 9° N6A ' a : O O O w V � �C d O abi O O U O vA � tq.1'Q • >..�. O .-+ on b y u ..r W F+ Q b l� ��' 0 O o .�� U W cam) .d . �. v E .� • . O ° i7 OCD U .N �_=A '1� t� O g.y O g g O O N Ow m ar 10. .-O. Caad�• Nb0''3' •.� Ad • �• U � Vl V a3 S�. � X q� 63x •0 C3 p m .".'.emsggo 3 ` ) • O � °� +'� . CD PCy V1 '.�q+' 3°o �m om � � .. o��.oQ � � .x�na•9 vm coqoca N � vi � 3 ON . ao a o ° o� .IA . e, E ani CLO 0 cn ° a rn vto � a 0 ° O U vvx aui 9 0 0o � ; ;; y v d - CS d C4 r.G N A ... 7 'O O oc O' � w 0. 0 H .50O �❑ v O' w c +°°, e � 1� m CS m C q V 5 w N O _ �'+ N N u O q O..0 0 w <R u b ai m "Q Gy„ 'o 00Y O m,r y ca 3 N E L1. a 0 o O o a cOi.U 9 'iy '� 0 .� 0 c d c+ m vCc 0 6 N O G v o > ° ^y m `o a[i .. m y as ai CD 0 �-m M O m b 8 ' O O opo 'O G `� O .Q . Nci e0 qb" ad _ �.+ CL A, c+ c cd m v �:0 63 o a O o ° o 6w ie m G o y' api G � m Mm ca Ji O w 0o 3 y V ai A ci wo cc! A. o UC14 m 21 om 616 �p �..... c ar Oi.. c Z d m 9 m p v v ° y30 cis + Z+ G ,HJT' O Q' •«� V" q M m C N y WI �` ..O ^ .OQ a+:N •Ci:0. V m vl `r .tq� b�' o �'•3 -;i �+ «. �i a N (�a�t 0.... f1. 'O 9 N v tr =.. .. . w�?.3 0 o d o 0 U '�.w-w.C7 r?� q cit.~ o > 0 D m $ Rl d '3' y �: p, CL i 19 .2 166 O M O V V.•�"' 0. tC SA.'a >_-N:O w OO Q O p U .wr O 0 aG7 °� jy C� �: �. '"" at 4 }.L iR �•....EO,•O o� m -O 7",. N p H O N•a ,' a7 Fi,.7 'a�u W.. T 00��e� M O C7 r, a a� Qc caOiQ oiU � � ^, Qo -1a0i: pq_ a�i pyy� v °DL"`p� �prnVw. Goa +7 ..�eond ' y 0 �ca�'y.• '+N. .Q o *�- '1i- ,J$y�.O:07 00 o'� m a> r. meq, b ••a" .moo:p.'O ° C �._ EA .� 8' > O . of > ..3 .FF O o, ` a 'tab y c o ..° N �v £' 0Q v aOiv0 v ' b m rA o O .O avv ca 0 o U 00 M ca �y U ID Q Ga oP, �, Qui O .Ua' a3i " ooU ,°q ,. SOd �, w ►—+ epist � � � 39m � 3w .r T N O d N m'0 11 O u. N ♦r p « •� OC N m -tom •� QO, qm (T1 ,^O acr. �OD,tp C7 O�W(^� Z � o g .7 S 4ID a . cn ° a 04"\ T0 $02. c.�� 0 _0 m cc� RA EM7 ad� 00. > aa OONS S ON c PC q X U ^n O a7 7+^ ani � a �' a' � iNiz U m ac >"ac, � 3 �P.A .. 6 a.as �•0 cc s 06 .•' 3. 4-4 > w � •O � � w CL CV GO A ZZ lz ID. cr C4, o. 4). O"N Q .� •� O ... O 4 CL SI, cc Q ea z Its ca 7 _ PS f yd •yq,�' . AnN.omu � C hl p 402' - cct wl t7.n a: .fl o ° a• a U02 A o ID ti Vi.• C - w 0 09 lb .d. coo . c 77 6 m Cos.", .. d 4i 0 y w a O O O O 701 3U � • cad '�,•�'•' � � a � � . - "d a -ted CD' ca .9 .A3+. p j �Oy �;,.r� y meq'�qf a� a0 0 ..CA °�•-; 37 b Q y1 p0,',g Jj a~C b0 4; p" o � �, . i7 a r aq� a'..o. .. ?�a .. a a - � > w dl N O m Cc O O ,w- ti C O i d arZ s U un w a .� ^ y 'Z'.a E a i° m v ui o = p m a v n cd cc aniee o • nL a � � a°'i «�'. o03o E 3ord °' o w ,. �. 0 m :3 2: 0 a. a a m o .° a a 3 �' :i y w � � s . - sa ca Ch Q p rA .. a «. U u ai :a .. a.. N.: 7 rte. cn ea .a' m odd c a 3 N � >, . C3 0 a N CD O p .d _ � o �0 CIS as�•. o w O . iii �, w m -a . N V 4� �i p N N q .. p N 3 12 o as ,w^ � oo � � r; o •� w o -zs P o, 3 a q 0cn 03 co a 0002 E a a p C3 y:. a� ai.w w C m N W L7 C •q O .. y.q q a 0 O `• l 0 cdO .U.. '"� • :� � q0.. N � _ o 0 0 -0 .ti0 U Q mlu 16 '3 p .q.. a a: o o � o pax w 'cw a �N IS LD w vg a, Q a� ari y Q m o o U o mCD om " p m o a � o +. viri •o ,� o -�� a C . m oa p 0 Wca .q ,,., '-• y a 42 v � o, � aS a�- a:c"�. fix,o o £- o, �• ai: a� p x� . y`-' r pL off •�o '0 �, is "i.i 0 •• .� +- a'v:'� m. '� . . o � � o •� Q'd .r., � .�,.a - � :; o � °�' •o .c.,o ami n.:�� w •o.^;� � �'�. ,; V4 0 v a �3 -S�,' '� Q` . ry �t s .. m . ... w 13 N �`� 7U td U N L, _ •O M > 0 ,� as � 44 C O ,0 ,O• r- •�. � ��• m U U .� ate+ O 4) cd cc •« W im^.. v ] a Oyi_ter a°s. .� O O 0 > E` O •� a 'C U43 9 ❑ ti y m " CA V o f U o ai Q- m vd, ° ,,; C o o .T o Do ry $ o w a 0 .0 0 0 0 W 3 m m ao 0 10 .+ 0 NO p : O . v C C rA ! .0 A. C O'•p L7 V ay40, v .� w o a mCWi� . a� ati, � off CUO flNW.9 3 an o0 � ?' � 0 0 � ob � _ a 0 3a = a N0 oA oO a. c �. d o Gn 03 � a m a0 0 0 03 J2 8= 03 � c o •moa moo ' 0 a. '• �o p 0 o'Lrj u.as 0 ?±, o y 0 .9 m a 4 m 03:ow S o = a � 00q 0 o. 0 > .Gm4f.; 0 �; — 0 0 +r �+ cR 00O�� aUp _Q vl 3 .N!aa" Vas C! bQO N �•• as .r O -i N w fi +ya•. v•. .�+.Q O ) N U y o -0 Cd > 0 CL -00 •_ 0U. 00 V2 C%i 5o db • v 0 _ V O at eopC* o � yv. 0 206ip °�' � p � o � o g 40) . o04 oa y m.0o.o 0 M 4 ad CS �� a g U. cd m m 00 r� . .-i C NU w+ m y •:. ��... yC � .b �y0O cd 9 0 9 xOm � : Wm ' . C 'O O d ?E V G .9 - dm:tiC p �.y. y 4. y _ b A `S� � o.. .: A= .y.y 0~ .ooq, . o d 00Eca o o 0 0cc .cx m o ° ' . 4) %0 o, 0 p0 O p ^� cp 'O b C y to w Go, 0g ;.. � ctio ;�.. a> o `. �09 o009m � = m m.o -S a __. CD V > � � Mo16 In as �. : ej °; 'Si0 a�i'� 3 � : .n 0 oU a 40 ca O a'i°s 4 m w "�' •• `� .'� _ p+ H .y ' .d,, '� �'. N ca 4; p N .�. In cn Q d 0q of ai L r.C4 W bD E Vyi 1.7 4r fL b •'.:.' fir.GQ .-r ... b qi .� Q m . .'3 .•� •O F•� b ca N oo .. fe o > > . cd ai•'Q > -02 ca •c, m , v >.' ' o 0 .r 0'•^' as s° Is , •L� «. _as, U ,q '� • : m a c o ..> 0w -coo C64- a :o � ' "". Q:• �`� �- c 0 "a� a q •v •0 u a ani � � 4Y.. o 0 �' a.e�� o ams. .osa be > lEb W VL tx ,0'F� �. >s •O..Ci�.'�, •G . o a3 � aa. O � w �:d �.�•� . d sx�o.C9 v o E,' '/p- �' wGnS. o 03 d w ai O. Q .- lu ca.-P� (� w -0 w aooy� po °� m aiyam - ]� L) C.)N 7 , > N ;R n O Ea 19 CYA C4 Q E >, o a� ::off ' �o � _E m coin_ o C N �.'dU O. N -Xl.�s..�- 0 Imw « O .cC .d �O. Ej U A 0 03 GO- Qy 'O p �q.dj ..tip U l� ALO'' O. .�' y^+rA c� yO 'rd UO....�..•omT•.�oLl. O>O> N N . . m a> v of 0 00 44 9Cq, Fir N.m yj'.y W .q ,F - A :.ra •a � 7 -- o � 0 "' °' �. o '�d as a >, Q 'o -40 �,'So s p Q N a" 'o 4) o o NU.�,,, ..... .[� U C?i t'r. rnn Li O ) V ' a+ �ro O off; N;-yy':.. ,p.•,7 ��'.'�. X ..Ur � �'+�.' �•+ �. ti :d "f"'•..9:° 'ate v oa' a� -- o a Vl tn 41) 134 M you `' g�m v� L'�',o a"i 1 Q o �, O." $ 0 . o; eoa 0 - CA ' v 10 vi q « YA �. ' � eo � 9' c A .� -m X) m EO. , u. U y. N o g y cd p'm:ii . A j •d �' a °ti a Cd Domss• cs cs .-., �.,..i O N •, ,rr: �; g:w itcm * ,d O Q O'as er ?� cd o Yom+' O 'it m t°7i U cl Cl Aw Ga y� PCs, at o` o q bc10 3� ` � M w ap+ y G f, OQ O .O O CQ vi a o � 0 'a a > o _ 0, 3toW d "C o o0 t9 00 19 af run ca � .0 a � � vW1o'° �:Yo a' o , 034 4. w . o wo °' i gopi • °° 04 0 p ., o b pp . a ami = �? .� 00 Op •b V2rn `�° y +"•; : vWi. 0C4 0 o ani a� Q QU 4 U c U ofa > o o U vi U `'" .. "3 0 v> o °` o 30 8 34 Ilion .. oho 3 p :G. Q3 ; i Pte., .rc��� �`•o ID 00 as W ej c .000 o a� off._. 5 g� M. 0:_� as CC): . .. .N v r. vii O a'pi.. O o, O p;ae o . p O . CIS 0 m� OI. f!..0._. �- .r~i1 l�Y�f1, � � ,_ 4• � p• of .. -0, 03 03 -`. Oml � . � 4, 3 . Q. as � �� • A;ff IIIIIIIII ow I Q y. o o .. � m CIS") V - c � M y jj J w 1r1�+ y ca 0 N ~ d Q O ° ti CC Ae C Q) q .0 .., U tl. «NS \, C33 CA C4 C3 0 3 zs a �t-v U 000 ° 5a � oo ^ � U W 78 C9 0 �n 3 ao.N >.• 0 y w m Q 10 0 p K V U m m 0 orAw m c a a, a ° a cq a� m rig U bA y p o°, 0 11) vi m W Q.. •-+ U . U m d 3 Gr, tg O ami � � fA .U�. •y U v A H 0 ffi ° Cb - O N CLQ. ° •O W mca t/ w m f m O . C> p. m 0C14 0 to v -r- >� o � 3mm+ o m +.+ mo ooc� .$ O\ m m w 00 QS -- m U y vi •--. �y• O ti .O O O `.'.S 0 ai 1 3� ° "ZS m m ',tea •y C [it•'•'''+� _ A i Q t'N1I1I1II1I1I o s. Q o 0 0 O O "j ami 7� G m 'O _ aw � � 3. 3 US :. 00 w� mw axb � c ° ' :d O •ti U 0 a 8 N y O y m ' m � CC,� m 9' ai O .p. y c' p rA o O 0 v U b tr . .. an v w 1'.� I '� v N W C/] 0 O CD 10 79 al ;wl � m qa .02a cc 0 0 0 M O C6 CC - � d O .r .r PC PC a> >!C a N 0 f/1 _ � - Vccj V 0 0 w r w cis a 16, CD w N '- .p-. w O D :. .> es rA tu Ax O` O Q "y"'• - "� �- .o 'er !=J ^d '� .V• ': is .aJ- GAO �;• a an n yi .'O. �i Pei : .i C a M .a CJ' q r X w rn - o ° c _O ob ° -� °� v� voo b Ei � °' mac ¢, q �o r. .� C S O bcd CL p 0 0 0 Q rn ba oq 0'.0is W 03 Go .r N N u y co 3 abc a4 00 cd cd 24 O' � «+ 4O U as ai G d a O p :- ZD q A p+ C❑❑ h = VS C m s0.. OR N p. y 0 0 Gap - -0 Cd 0 y.. :3 yob t. . O .•j . lul 03 tu 0 al .a' � UOLa m'O O . . O c? -- � °' � wo � �• 0. 30 u.ca m.w... d C 0 6, rA w to rCL te° as Cj w .o:o do W ' ° 0 o a a. �>* N. 40. '1i G V b m> 0c ° o oar a . .. Cd o t� . .O " a C3 G O .� C ... .�,,N;. OZ�C14 4Z O �+ N O vi b '#', ': q 'O . _ '� act. y b ' Z pt q s~. O d Cd to N, 45: m c� q O a> >, Ad- N� b d C-G °'o o 'o r cn QO CS b 4) 0 y:, Cr g .~�.v Iz be 0 • .°. A .�° t,r :,V o ¢'w. a ani o: o::-• O is y C V .e4+ n o C . `'-' kt' .`a...W`O .'�. - v o m 3 84. off > .� o o ao oo� G `° a0 U as o a aoi d >' a o dPC 02 to V1 pp d 4, 0> curio ' 01 W �••� b ° m ;; .fid a o .., C- o {i1sj+ ,ir+" a U .o a+ U m ^— L D v o w w y � w o a q �' 0 > m $ 0 0 0 0 0 a «:' 00im 0 .c 3 C� N Y N a) •aVi _� .CQ.•fn .N •� ice• U U aorai .a. _ w ma• aoCo q o, Ia q WU T N O of .r N C6 U CLtC. .•� «: Ile 0 of > 0 ca C- 0 ° L�oo to G a = •C 03'�, .a9 c`d m T b x.= [�- C 3 = .g m ao C m E ... a� o 0 -3 .o q c 3 a ' v Q ZI f7,. 0 u c4 / 3 v � O Q i�J 4.1 a-• �' ,O 'a) as y N O m O. o. m 0 ;?E .. a g q w a ccpa;, U. cT N, p. >� _ d,A::.�"� . p, U m O 4) �� t'�i U of m •C' � �' b0-gym,. V .,,:.�".:C .0 C: � 3 O �O �•. a rA o cAcai �� � ax0c" -*°'a.� w � �� g ° arms Iz: "r=u. °p -B Q "' Uoa:,q.,m ..a '� 'ca o3a1 q � � `� �' 0 ,0 ..ire 'fir 8 m .: O a«.' 01 o q as tea" Q += a) i .°a "W.0,0 00 w N U �+ vi �+ m _ Q . . r U cn }� N.•.`7' ..a .a y ��•' M.C3 S' `m a bo b Q 41 U .0 2 O C .n ami o '; a a: a_>,3«. , •=- m • ..a2 �. o a� e „•, o, ai O Q.w o. , a. o �. 91 . ar �. �-. la 4wwcC: Can ' (1 00 0 ' q. 0 oma > v prn' n ' 5mxfl 41 a o;mm 400, aaUaa•` '��+. C. W O` 0. o.. �pJ, �'m.,w 3 « - a>. bq'-p pb fy►•� �+ M 1. pm V_I,C�>+1 a .cG'�'�O" OadI .�5+-�pU+,' 1i--QO� N: >: W.-�. LfUpC".L..•mp�+,''.ad� .'.0� "q" qCN q Yqi O.,^>O.'Qa� v.va •�an •Cm «rA Cn $ � O .a 0, C7 m.. O y 00 Ou « . Q0'/1 U-N N q 0 l� O �� q an 0,YcW m C/m� .: ... in'V gyi..Nty' a• 'C . - 49 0 0 ca �' D a w� Oca p, a4 P,Yo 0vO , 0 .� c OU QJ` •. CD .as. .f.'>>: o >:' .: �, C7. •_..... •a) :� q .0 c� Cal! oa a�v. . .O ! o, a 3 ' a� o • v, � . p. • 7A CJ p �y 0 ,0/ •00 6, h +r U .. gyp! _.:•b. �'.. L7' N ,0 O vr'••, i; tti4.y_ co, Cq .. m' O im 'm a: '� y,• C7 .. 'a �• t? ~ i OF i :L-"1 N`U.N O'O •'" ! F"� Q Q 3 1. q• p a) 03 �Lq � �_CL .. � oo ..n 1.•.. om . ro . ; o U m c � w N M to 0 v a a700 t � a) 0 ooaa_ E W a o0 v Y o 9 > F. p .0 oN • m 3 0 . a a a aor. � b mCi 0 o a «. FA 'C m . 0 �= UCD U N p S7 a) V Uy ca ° �. V] '�.'yC�.• •O +x1' N a) lu w a C o a) y N N O y V .0 W _Ca v..- 5 o 0 m a SO .ca o o.., c� = as 3v a vv� 0 >, mv a' 3 a o 'Q. Z, a 'w, p u a m a 0k4 fl,•3 - d 0 o a d o � b a, a aai c �.y p.,oa a> a O m w 0cx n> cu Cdp « y ` a ° ° U 0� � �o sz °° 6 � a > otz E 8) S cea 8 � m iso 0 .►. a o .� 0 $ n p a � � o � 3 � CD 0 U - .� w° v a c L: •� > m = . .mi 'd �' a� U N W U C,4 Lu- N .� y U y a) aa. ma as mmoa.::. o $ 0a � a .� a � � as aC)N a' �n q o m o e a a m a 'C.- m..=_0 Ch m Mtn ' Calm w °.� . 0 0 ¢ � -ao � � ar ..r~ia aaia o5 aCD o � � el .01 �.� o w Uo o p a ai''p o m W U o �. a 44 .a '�,p ,°a, z a°i '� "' ° ` o N ' N w �+-� U m ¢° U p—°.01 m p'.'C cn F 'ay 0 , ?Op 'O ° 0 v1 ao � °voFi o ` 9o a -0oC m > CD,'m gy°'' a ° o a. 9 } � - tn .A as w Ga a �G Ad U CiW Gm a O s - *. a' n 3 o - 0 0 6�n � °� . ,a 0 AR .Z°'V m Nr 93 "" 0 0Itt Q s a.U� °i R1 C/I C U Si CH o A F Q: R1 -� F •o oU, -. Ri .0 a o� .� .3 .•�. . .a F+ 'O'CdR: w N oo m O C/I U cis a � V W W au ,g'9 tU O o.•� Al O" u m: C to A C14 0CL c6 O O 4t Q y� c O. WN.. ", N 03 �+ 0 42A cu OL 79 Vic. ^.,•�'•�.U^: y,'O �. m •?. m ;;o as .5 S O ...- O-.•-s a) .O O O. �'a ...-SU N ia�-•fit -'O � �00..> •C�j N Y O^J p .. CCF C) 03 ^x ui a0 � gc4- � C �.� a7 �•1]� �'O Ste.'. 15� O ' CE ol qt w` ION Grp v .'U w d £ - V _ 14 3a . J r D m .J i 4 O Q " O ~ L Oc ca m m cm LZ C m C _ 3tu arr Z a s m m c aE` mm C3 (D mr- m r Irmo� � :° � mP? 3w �,, m m m o, .a m o > O zamam m mr p co m m m W C 'Q m m ,.� s . .�;. m V m C N r U ZCJ m i' - in+ a^d4 •a i#`dwr" c > d C C CA `p m W mmE C ', k • '' '�,n'�,�„°';r j/}y CID ID ti Y 03 -0 cm m ac o. ~' � a m m m c w w c m pL W m c m P * . m •a •a CL cc to m o c °q Z cL o` �.� m.m-ma m c m m G C m c> 00 mmCO-.C lO m a vmi .O. y =a w X a rn�' m pa Ew m Crr =.C _ p = O ' — m C o E m o m 0-10 mt m ms ,o.o a : m cw m Ea3:. co 8 : W m E m m ga = a � ~ rn5' m— N a a } M v 3 O Q ma c af�.c �w O y m ... � 2 m R 0—..rY Z � .`3 c m c i m�� a m -d-d Q� ar ate~ m m >_� m, m .. 'o m ma WE E aZZ 1l6.V O c c a C c CL~ 0Oi p -1 1. O'EO � m « °°a � mmc = aom � mw r- 12t- C) .. = mt m p m c c p m.m m> p W .mQ o a m C =:E = `• O m m l6 �.t E m « m �. .a at a . 0a• C L O N � .x.0�.0'a « mm � mm ` w"' p $ a.1° m ECfmcom� mC'.Oa. ,.� � ocE Yc 'ma- 3mnc'a=o.Lm cpi_am� ca > awCL o•cros 'm= Q m m ` = m O p p'. o c U >. �: �lC.I - CO -40— M �n =M p Ca m m t c'. = m 3 �.� m g ;4 .4 ca OCCC V m �CV.m� ONm0Oatm, �O E �:� QrtlC) cmQMj �'C:"O" mm Ir N � Ear� « gym > � °° mm �a CL 0 °D �:w? ae 13t',.mn2 ; ago 7 .O> o mm Baum mm a CQ:N. p ®team.:7, = 7 o � o cna �cQ mr— oa.- o �°r :.�- U n= Z > 0 ct 0 is o� � m w E Q p E 'm o�3F= 5 o SSU 2 ¢ �l j tttti(J 41 .t' Q N ZN t'7_Y. N � - �_ l'•r4iJ{'�.,•Il H Lry r�.yv�J rS��_ '. ,. ( l� Y V Co m V m O .ww'fi. ` rf m V Ccc U (d L r 1L'�.'rip LZ 4. O d k�# f U OL m n Co c u m , m e W M .W CC _ OCo O O ' Co a 4) Ca L m mUm" a �kc .� Ca (D `m1 —mm U t " .ro�tt4��iJ+rk1.4mwQk . Mav 40 cgO � J : wOFAi O CD 0.0 mG y OD+. OM m O m c .m O m 0 d .—Or 0- c m O .. m �. 9 L y ... m y m y W 7 = m �q U m pmp 3 L c Ca Co C S a.� m 0 Z m m N 0 > y C m� O mz m c c aim CO LU. 6. ELMay8«�WA L CmD' Wc � m� E m e c vm . O _ .r. V �.m. cW 40 m E c m ;' cco Er 3�«n - W _ C7 } y a x 1 J 511, I +:.iv✓ 1 se. �i N- V a E lira . � YxT rhyaM �", I 3sN1 � A y �li EE� '3 xc:.� Jti m "m 'O M E c C m c m V M � "m m C" m a.a°�'m�-0 L C m a c wm .O cq �L OL' c nt .a o c O>r C -CA O N CA 00 .m >, C O L .O .. O .., m V d... G 4 - W c CO—. mCL V .m m' a� Z ¢`.. i'= B.v - Ml mG .nZ'y=L— re �a «. m mm. . — - mm ma o � �— sEow OcNaCpm 0 jW 0 w.'O c> -p .0- ontomt@ maV , lC O = CL— — w "L f0 M.-:i v. —.L >LO � comtcm = o � :' � m = fir= 9) 4) ID c:. o a tpNp Cir C W CL to ow'�.0 E m U m .p> 'O m L O > 'O m EF CL d C �. �, c,. _ - _ 2 - oQ CL L v, C7 .. CL•. CL EyE AyLY`E`G';'m O.. m E_ iEESCL W L Q.� MI �Q T L C m N 0 L OI M c C� G, �+ O'w1� L 7 m r W Vl i r v m C:. 'C" Vv:m. e, m '6_� m 7 V a. m — E .a^4df'� p�d, �.Q'�t,�, to O ;C >d H d C T .r C m W m O .r m C m t''1—c.E.4ti .1••`_ p�`� C;' N A O` a r �'C L -r 0 L.mC O m +'� m Q. m d rCLFuYwgl LD L TY W ED.L E E. w a� c C � W m l6 Memo S F— ®.aL > 0M00O0M F3cg -0CtJ m 3E2Qco 'v p .CYQ-QQ 2 d '? a w a `- N) a CO a m o m U C = a C G 0) 0) W m m m c — Cmmc cC WCooCco a m `y W O w W Z W 0 m 3 .-. 77m W a j:,a, Y ICE U s �iA ari W m ..bv. 3 F]f �` C m Wmwc .ml� mmc4omru'. 3 m 31t- m v u-`m `m,m ,m pWW.a. m'.CL 7cS:W C �,Y C~7 .�" . u . ca O` m C w a1S•,+�y':3`$' W +oF +* *-�`i:. e C..a'. O . m- v m C <Za-.V. •. N c E c v °q. ;3 m "m m cmc? W o:�� cm�mairsa �av;m , m ow c ,,:.c a° t- •c Er y, a�tn ,oc � v 3 a w m o U o m c VIO «� cmiQ. C3 co Ci o w t ....m r.. as ,.CO-46. c WWc Cc c �t � ra �? '' mcc. a > ao n,. ; t m w mG u o c) �` p� m LWa) w m v C c '` `�"r '•F'G � S.`t(f'p".r � o r a) d CO o c W c o 2 vQ cym M O a W 0 o Cl) m> t 2 0 75 coo W 9��4 7Cr' CL Z W 3 W �� •-"r,`� ��.. �'howl?''yy t s:. �y lvx ��-.•:� .:. C 3Wrr. � CmWm oW V Wal � Wq . 0r C C C d W U ami 0 c �". ` '� ;; � r?r` .�<+ ,`��''.. O j E c m mIM o �.chC + i 3`' "at.'q , jQl' `py„d �i mG'�7 o C a7 E W o r m 3 f4 m 5•" � 4 j1t�•�l`�s i.� i�� � `, tW " W^'Z g}-. Y.,.^ W—yv., m m w D1 m W 3 'm c a c: 3 o msm. m c W O Wo atya--�u" s' W ` mCF eJal�,C'u' w m o m 7 m a7 m CO Or— m m m �C) �' as m >t m W Wt m m m « Q C 0 m C mm m m > T Q W "d. P: W m — _ m W m om W amours > m m'`—�'a3m mccoCL mE3m `m W .0 n W s s C m m m c o �— t W g o c m ca� �' is .m m m mm W r- 3 € m m o m o W E W� >0 0 .0 1Qccnm m m � 0co 0Z ` 3r v Wim— a wa 3a�a0cm Wtr £ ym � W «�.� � 0483= ' _ ..ia meds ; m co -0 W . co a cv�m.� � �s �mac oma' .- � � :ca.«VcmOL > -0gm4) S`m. mW � Lm �o.c- .? mmm � t mnr., cmm .' me � oaa 'a) � E � nt .} � .r ca.ti tr � ami, � � cs 7,C c .� > m m c w c "y L°) c_`ao m © �s m .. .a.I 'S—p R'�c m n'Q Z..0 co W W o L.n c m S L c '4 C. m,-+- O m �m.i'mm < mp t- O u3=a 3 C .. .- a7 .m W a m a.tA.0 L° .0 amp U .. m Y Q la 7y� Ru i C a .o T . - N� 3 _ �i z a v� � m O Q - N Q y L U a w.G a O «. a m EL W., Z r m m .. o w in . w _� v a o c. — _ a a. c m .m .oi " c .. a Ili ca mm Wca m m > m may cr� 30 m mq. s a ` a o 0a.-y � 4as c'ca 3 �; 3 ' wZ, . `° a :m m: o. o 0E vcm.. - 0CL c oyoP Lica- - a •p.w in 0 � 0 Q co 3 0 .0 ao C* 0 m o o m 0 r m � " mm m = - m " n c m m 0Ui co C3 _ m om to m 0 ti m m m a c m �° m e o c c a Ya � a`rn mE CoO.U� 00;� 0.�'cm . waai � o mm 0.t d,ac0"' mm w=a m o CL a' m' G), 0. -� E o w. c � �� m e ww a .. as CO Ca CD a . •'tom o`'m �= c. o,.cogo �;. ,? L m'� ca ca fA 4M cam- c.10 m _ a. a"0 c lu (O • � m m `- 'mO .. D'c ye•- m .>. �O.O _ QC C.4,0 o m E 0 E CMO Oo � m oo_EComv a� O,cmDon 0tm oa 0 Q — Wis =3vraQ r � o oc Qa, Qa = Q �-0 � Q3g i .. CL 0 m rr't m W 'C mj� •~ m. �• • � rr. w a m M 0 co t Coa LZ am4� N• 0 , cc .. rel. 0 .6 0'0 m .. C 0. 0-•' 3 :v. C,a Q w "� EL 2 CL= a 0 r m� C ::m m ��.Clw a m •" O Co. CL a c� aff « E D:c �- m; c t :� : �': 0. e 0 _. .07 v .0.. •c•0 c 3 ISO � ';,C .Q: C" _ _ as m "� � m > W4) ohm Uon'0 .000 � cm u; = a s oo .o w 0- m m m a>i fo Lv m 2 .. to M— a m to n¢ mNmmmmO > n ma .-.E m � 0 Ec 0 0 m — a o W m 0w t c m a � " Z 0 = O m a m o ama7a > ao °a°o-=U � G,co �oo � 4t _ 0.09 m . lou ca 09 oE m N 'namv �cmEm o m a m <,2 a c z,— W m 40.2 EmcaQ mc u a` 0 � > c oaac 0 a ; Ca cg uv umt smom ccc n �. yEC vtZt .0 mcv osW �o0 m0 0 o -0ga aoc a mm0rmcoc mo Qc0) o0o Q. $ 0 � a oa ncm m a. Ca ca cD as c ¢ a c ¢ Q a O O) m N E m a a 3 O m W m c cc c � r- (D «- v_ ai io W O) ca L U o C (q v Co C C p 0 V M y U p O) O LL n m � O` C N t00 m 0 m n m = V W C ECL m E N E OW m G mm cri ma L mto p -O m CL > •m > O E 0> O41 7 N W n m O. -O m W N WaE W W — c o� vca E npa 40 CU m m m o W n w Y L m W .L.. C m m m O L co C p Yjo 'O Um Co C O W 7 3 m ` .�„ Em C 3 ai n 3 CL Com o m c o o > vi: mo m y m °° m e c aiaEc o co m = m aro - -a 3 � vmo = `- - Qon W4) o Em c •- r- J a 3W .� mcm W ` C tu U L 0 c.O Y C m C m m m � C L C 0 CL m .. sa 3U c E`® a 3 W � L c ami® a m W a CL aWi •O NCNC E rmCW NCVOZ .0.. C4 o Uc _ NWO N W > N Nm . C.co m W E c C m = Q Op DO d O QO' dd O c Oay O W,' �O V E O m Ea Wm co U C. OQwLU w O ¢ oL ctC OC - mmo � •rn � w oE. c -Osc 'Ac o � � �;<� aw •. atm c .W m o c 3 "' m « E;.. c t � . Ehm o W ma a F Z c a.o_CrAD M, CL 0' � W Q- w3o -n (a w �'.. � moWwm.. two Amo E' Ta. . ... L. m n �. a s •• �.a 3 C �fp W a C 3 _E > 0. t '� C (D 0:0 - TOS 03 U �;'o .�''w ,:p.`3 a .m OB D .. r=_ m . 3 cLi m t+a:m W m 3 'E `-a o m c c oti L V L o 7 E m _ C)t >p. R t0-m CO r .m,' v W @.; m Stip a mL O 3-C a1 W.� M O m 7 .00 a m �1..0 CL EL °6. � cm m0 > ncnWEwc® 'a 0 � co `.c E °° m oNm � ` O Em - W.� mm aaagi aoW a v, m c �. .. ` w r o �... m.o — cw O c= a W O- U O C. W O +- Z` > — O mo N E' a+ Qm EE. V ocmmyw0, a'o �,. 47 CL c� sm'.. o- r o m, rn -- oL c m m. m 3.� m W:m a. 'm"oi m 'p. C ao C' -7 �... W m L a' w ... co ai, 40a -0' ai. .tTD ig ` ao 3 " c m ...34 c o +•-.._e- m. C ; ,0 U -m W G �.. t- 7 tm m - L ar .. .p,a5 m m 'WO r m n3:, Q�cy ca o cam O w O W•m. Of ,•'. o o c dCL LD.: ooot-Co o m >:. _ �. •, ' W CD • Q S o a CP m y I y a O W m m:?m s. `m- Colo v „o y c. Q E o o m m 'o-M. .., ca .10 ,. 7CL 0 � 80 • -N —S�'a @ X44 c; co > � - c co ° rte - O W 1L M c ca .. ��Qe cmc W:W �, o Zw E 4m a CL U axa01. W c w E.� mU c ° aia « 0 cCM m v a �,.� ; o.m— m W cr °i' nt m ao m -m , _ W m , � X� 'm E M. � m � � mm � 8m �� -o O C* c � m Y `> • c'mc CLI—3; 0)0 mai ct3 o s � ,: ssQ a'Ea .- o ao �,,o ' or ED " u7 U a .s� �'r p a� ' Qi. o 'C4r cam. N w _ c. ;e�,3 L `�,� a—..' Q o:WAD' �:.o 'M Er V) vi:�: 40 W ".• @ 1p :e- O::m - .3' W Q.•�t,,.G a N w ;rN"O: cm c93mm.. mo«w cZ c _ .. �= c- O o °II-c`W` mcC 3 C .. W ;o 5.= o o E� a c. '( m L' o Ta 'o , uro' aoi � iQ �aa> �m 2'icc�� c 'is� : 3 W -Q, h' m Cr 4 i( I's` ..Q d :U,C?. ea-�a' Q:� as 0 k{ y Wat tt. yr 03 � l•, Sty '.�ti�" a LO lz yi c � IL o Z N O c m L�, o.m C) m >. m C m � m Qj C U ;_ . W C 7 m c C W .L.. �... O .... N > ... e O m m m E M c�p� m—p m m m cmm o 3 c 3 OWDcY a >. m cm m Qm c E 3 c 3 cc m a � a o `m n Z n m o m c oQ Qm v m ai 0 3 o m LL tll m -L m m O S > E tq N M C m �-• m �. m ... f0 c •� E •C c "m C.co m «• = m a? 0t m o m E E �- c 0 3 0 c m ¢ 3 .n E E ° ° V •C —O m C �. a m w LL.. w m w as co m m mm E am nm c c m = 3 m xc nca co v m c c ;g `o O..m-. 40 m COw (13 C C O L 17 m 'C 3� m m 3 mym� _cmmaTa cmo c 'omy m = � c mo CE •Con.^c.. mV_ 2"wmNm •aoU N ? C m3 C U w O. Um m m c 0 N L m O N amo ` m n m Z 3 °`m O L O m U m O r cm y n 0 ca 0U m m W mmt � >. > 0 7 w C m OC'. : � m 0 m m 0 3m mmE � �. c vo a OacE� m2 - 2 m CM a- W c _w ... m mU m o meCL a moo a3 02• M acv m m me o . 7L o C c — �, o c m — r C m m— 'E L`m = ia ° m car c o0o y o fan mv -- U m ca o c c U E � ' > aUi 4U �a m U nw c EY cL U > ai � OQu) m v m t a� .r m E c A m m c m m m � . m E 2 c V o (A 'C'S c ava H > w .�. w •O . . . . o ►L— m 'a.': m' O w 0 C , :'I m l.ai<.;., •a' c m= m— C &C t!! 3m a-w3E ccs. Y ;° m,:m m mtLE �o m c;_ «,� m ° m� E, : �N �� E X cn is 3 LD 0 m E �m mw H $ c co In —te p to m m w. w E R.>' m U m � . 3 m c W mNr2` mr« E Wt m1' w..v c m o:m m c E �. E .:.= m m_CL;lmn3 m L° m m E a .m CL m' E"Er m ao o o m - 'Cr _o m L a m o m cp�aq 0 m o`m':E 9 m o r " m mn .a.o ZI l6 ?► �.. c. *. L w.w .y T. o m r3:�A m is Qc .. � m 'm.-C «z.mm . m.m :° F m �Qo3: ?J V ` ma 'E---O= L >.m-0'5 c e ` " ca. Yo.rm•.'m0 m= W.= cc CD amm O `o3mEr2 Em � a 02 00 _ Z � a� �. ' �'.. G F��ccab > - zc_'Z^: Cm3 caa3..� m o � ca ca Cma DQE cm� m.E w� ° mis �sv. ao--°'` , � c o � C �- [} �.w, - 04) tiGw—.mr IV RR ,.CLQ^..`'@��• . E«Y.� c ` rca� m CL:ICL CIA VU a�� �i� Go m` O t c;—; 3 mres''.E° � �� Lmm m ca O;C-m• m, 'o W:m`� c'� t..�E.� Q`im - .3 ei O �:Ena W ca>.w•avca Err F- 3a 'S � 3C07 0a CL Co .2 ¢ o Amom cbm �m ,rvm V `�N Nt.7 Nmmc7 b W Nr OV Obm�Ab W W l7 bA W eQ� mp N W m W Wm O' m O)O O NQN C 0 0 0 N e- N N e N N N N N 0 f sa` C E m m 0 _O m A N O W W A W W m m O O o O C 0 LL m r O O N m m^m m �{ O O O o m N OOOOa�00.0 C ?N'-r��-tee- s Q C G m Q d m m E 9 0 C o m m N b m A�b o o m .- m a C m f7 N PJ O A b Pl A m w moCD o mmvoo aoaoWb �nama � ro 0Ts m m m m W O ad m W W O -"i (D o NNN W m 3 n` ° 3? 3 a W mAbO mbNm 030cc ao coC� �j W W W 0 003 0 C m a V Coco O o O C 0 0 0 O O O G m 3 iV 7 o AM W movma7A.N In cG4i m C A Vb, mW�NOlbmm mAQSm ' m G� A m mY OmNNe- NA tr A O b>N .m 'PSin N N 3 E 7 Z A W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O L p C mnVJ �.- •- Z,•7N .� co UJ 0-o l CL m Eoo �o mow.' a Io'm o S N lV R .44 O O a� It a. <. w x �` . m U N C C -c `. "'�..3rj 'i�rYv,' m t m m .O rj r W _> O W to ��`..0 G CD'��' N O W w m .LO.r�. >''�k'm S xC i! �'^ ,k�"vd W.Rx N C OZ a O 3 O'i wlf. . tl v....,a 5 •((J � y� .� Y r r.^,� L7. .C`'O 'uYQ:� N` L 7 O a Of'O 'cO m Co .r U IR "" m O LM WC .-m.� C W O~ O 0 -2 m W 3 E,Co O m G. 0 C O m V C' C m-CO 3 m C 7 .� a o �� ao �`� Qs m o .. co c� U c o m a CL +-..L'C �. O N � a 0 () 0 P .. m o m v a 2NO a 4C- � .. o c = � � W -0o E – ov� asmy3 LO mm 0m. c m « � r U m >,v� O 3Zr-::am. wwYCIO = cta so � o >. mt > � sE � � `w: � w' ; a�, 0at163a :-� C .. Cca 3t7 3`m rymj j — a uj �`" mY .aO: 'o c= 3 �3,m � 3 °D �o m L cairoe ami ` c m cr. `xc� � IVg vim – mom.. .. o arc ? a� ad-Q o m > > o -o m m� m a v c ro.V Z o u f–'1 c .6E ¢� c E m`.� :arc 3cm � Lr c. m.arT, .°mE $a `° �` :c °° o: £'km �..�.m-.� C £ .O a,..0 Q'-10 L o L 0_3�. t vF-a to .3� co � . 2� — ea � U v.a .. v v-S:. c w ca W :R ` Eu � �M Ix v � � m La cz as a Z N O m 01 caN m o W-0 Om C. O••O 0. cc 40 0 0.IV m Co CL m F- o o.: a- Qf 4S (O O aC m �(D V E � � It #s •. m m O C a t L r 0 aWm -00 ; = (° 3 L 3 2 -03 ct . . .A ` ? . . m t° (Dmmm ovmacc > maamE ' moasmcc � w Q mmb o o m « as Lft 0 co 0 CL arD we p e .ca I �— m . . c.n, , Cor_ «CD a p.n O mN=� � T�{ ~a m Q °4 om c$ cq;� c - _00 of—V �N�Q= m M E Z 902 �p Np Etc � a+ = o v � og c� co wtmmmew SID € ca W « m3 �c � ma`rocma`oc m mW W v W z na C momCD �tmw 'mm as cc (D W _Lrn � m go r � � m 13mmm3c '- t � � a W 2:10 �3E to comEoE 0 jr0 (a "uommemmmm = o >Sm omE arm m�om� N � 3� 3L > — c� air Lo 2ny �. mZ m CmCL � �O �~ mt � 3 @� �aW� �� azc�$��> �� � cm 0Ef r- 0 F- m1bW c � EWtoa 0 °oWLS5 m > 3 « t E. $Z �a >�LL ��_So. v�oaOvs�- w 3 6 -- J L 0 0 N C6 W 7 OI 7 ' = as �,- w_ o L 3:,.=. p m m �'','W . .w t@ m @per mem;—...0 � 3 Qe = a, ,�, ca a6 = s > C @..y. . > t)''o1;m j, c : mc= > mvl m:�..._- 7 c@i.. c�'a,. O. d 7._.� � Opc�"'m6— - c_. � m Ww fid•,.- CL — _ _ 42 A A @ p L dU o f .- W 5.W " MO, p = 4@1.:. m O Par 0 0 -. W > F-= +' 3 O U ". @ 'Q m m = « E6 C @.� M 0 3W �'" $ m mc3 c m .W0 = 0 > W - s as eax•m _.. c `o cWa m t c m €�"m c O a 082 m d0 « c0 � cwmas = mo.'oEm vAc oW � w m,pt' V L -m m.?. y. i+-=. p �. G 9 C C +L.+,' W 3 UW - E W Esc m@ W' � �, m O-0 m arc :m w ct 003 y p o Z` 0 �`ma — L —s L@F- fl' W W Or j � n- 3� � `oU E o c �° VD � _ `~° O O .0 0 m. �.�L t@..�tiOm.t � E � r:L;m0C« 3 W� O'C.0 r. -m. m , N p m = Q m W't W m '@ W :p W W, W — - C $-,,m•�' L 'T`r S' - �A rM Y O).0: :m a_..,= �_ oo W 6A mu'Q W C O.U m w @ = mID .@"U = Oco w .0...�i Q U.@.� Z` W'-.,.Q.-0 ca WT p C.>.'N5 aS L O;�OL..0 C 7 to t!l.. tAU 4> tg• �`3.W.� c� �3 p — ..v�.Z E W,s43 N � c @ c r� Yi- - S TCO ' T W d' v � m a c9 w Q j LL p Z N 4) � CL 0 U c CL= W m N mlm N0mo = 3 = Q. L3N: mumi C N w m0€ GoE 02 X m E o .2 € 3m ®m > mV m . Q M w CL 0 m N + m mm ° 0 CL r-CL 0 -r- 0 wO mN V cE T mR0 3c � 3 -- m °= ° a Ecm E mm .m " a a � m nm m E N N =- c>i` a° O° >' am m m CD m o. m CD 2 o m m c U N d ->. O .. N m = tm w S W Go m c c O > E � wv o ODS .=c m Qv c ni N c c ° m > m c CrE E m 0 X = = m cL n 3 L C .0 m N N m O O m '° m 7 'Q j V F.m m m . � O'CM0 co C7 _«� U°T3 � mt 3wm m '.4 c , mo 3r o ox ar m , a mCL 0 > m > O o 3: mQ ` . . Fm-� : N _ o`i. c mm�� mac.' z sry 10 N �$ m v0 , ,Q otm & � v° —m J v� O m = c.a .:. "L' C .m m r• iq C - l6 C .. =Cy. m O GC 'O 3 'O m AL3 m o- m _!n �.O ar r•.'C]� •- Oj V ems* IW � m m'• E.2 co 0 ui c= r E > n e e..a..."? �• ui _ m m_Q- !d .o CD C m � : Cm O _= E co cmE cn ccs' c o >.w > mc0 o'mU, a o � :. oacm o w w3W .0 c o > _ QS_ m— m .8 ¢ v 3 m.L'.4 as o c :Q d.aco Q c Q w Q �i 3 Q ,� °` 'd ccl` m m C m of •O ID m m G N� ar •W. O r:w m mn A 0 0 O — •ar m�- .,, ,U C m : .PWW m mm U " ar 3"n -!r U ©: N �'ar - t' fGrC t to Y ar L 7 w s .�:, r .:E W 5i N'tC, />i� m 7•r p` r u' y +'•W". me mss = mom °'.mom ' �, cr m0_ O 'E c10,u ��'o p C T m i ii c, E].cm, ID C . )cm06 Co. �;tiZ,.�r'. mC C. Q m'VAmMcIQ m @ 04D m CL o E y E .'..jd t m � . ^I Com-� �*`• ;`Q °° m mri C ° w m 0 � n0`W m Co E .- C .. 0 E m E m o m o CLO c— > m � o sv m 0' o ceN n•0 EE D m m0 o � cr 'o Qc yLLa � m3t � o 0o co � Co We am ho c ��0 a'- - 0 7- .. n m e _ CL w 'Qm � Z,43 v3 i+i � :go n' mCO ° Em mvQ mN �- °° 3 m c is 0 3.� c > o b � r m ar� a N m �Q c �` c �6 �.— m i� m e N 3 N to m E .N > 'b Ip w 1A Y C {D r y O/ QL O' m mtC �� � 0 U U U7 .,,. C .0 N— m C C — C w '— . c v ns ao 0 2s= o coL �� °..' a a u 'US v n�'�c m o p v c v > o p v v 0 m .. m c E G m c c� ..', d 0 Q m`- m m 4 n V Q ? 2 Q2 Q 0 C. arovt 0 CD N m N 7 .r � COo, 3 E m. .m a— °6 m ,m :c CD,=�>_ -, 4 Mc c. m 3 Er 3 ,�m� o n� CL .-' , as 0 EM r- IV Gy 0.0 m lF: Q .y GI. p'00... CL m a. m W_ 0 CL .? C �Q 3 .m. " Af" 7: S O_ 3 (a (a.gyp•'. �' c o o 15,w.W.2 -> a$ o-m . . c c c m 3 a m. m. a%. m d-> J5 M, w m � E � ao;� c o `o o v, ma m 45 axt= m 6 `� i C id a`r uJ a �o inn 3 Q a �.M opo c m � o c p E �:.�, 2 .was °° c m"Ts Y, cm Oo3m .o,WQi� o= � aa.m , Q� mrmoa •Ecpaj ,d..tirca iu naa ► w 1 1 In it L O C T1 L. N�?' C �- mmmo Q o �am m r o m gaoV 0 0 0 0 0 0 c� Nuc _ c a �o _ LL r Ww 5 o o a 31- o k,. U U a U w a U OC.rn a 'D =0 = m a oda :,, c e � 3. ``'• m m O a y ovw `°ic to co m $ mn m � � � oE o o > •o _o � wEom a m .cm. �Tmi �co 0 �emo CfDma � [a �J" -U. a 3 o d q. m a .+: Om. o ,a. G cc Go w 'o naa�uLxo oV:m cit. t et CLtt o'ba,. o .44 Z Col .40 10 Cd cf IV m col- CL m at t� . a> 'tea a ID � 7 . C c cE ¢ m Zm m maw os � .o F' c �0p 9 F� o a � � aEa 'O O 4ca Ob C a R. &-a g� —omsQ� o cm c a, d Qa` o � + 9 aaJ tg ra 7 m me .� mm �m`c� Eom_ m � E. m�°amEaEE�e $�mo-fE co a m �' $ =E �� 8gac =eE= Ov a a n ' 11 a —a ,oc�razoaovvid�� a .r ra eh q %n Io a; co It Y¢aVUVUUUUUUUUVU � $ � ' `m m c a .0CM ro c CS N w •O p 7 ti r Y u V Gobe ba CIDa Co 3 am ¢ am J E E et .� ? -j w T m vl pero' X 0 O U N o! o, c Q . p +-� .. ,� at M m «. q N N p . 75 E tie 2 O C H m m p3 m m •� gp qq� n .5 ~w E o m m'L m. c G� 34 q .4 'k t •as 'Q 03, as o m aco a m U—m �mm. ocma o 7 43 a° e a uwM G p d ; o q T mmmocxo 3 3 > o `d 3 `0 q � UUULL�xa�a��a � W.. 3 n �_Wo � c 4� u o. .. o 91 � q � Ncos 1 . AS CD 0 m chi::ar -a o x C414 c°r C'" m . U N oil . o A c m �' m`o � t!: m t�:. .:Sg' ,p m .0: «X"J,'• " m `• . ZG cc =cooi3 .0,��' cot MEO IL E 0 ID Q � m o m osp o.n [3 as X m mECEE "agEcoowta �E c [6 m' = Eos$ mINK m.� SEE La o Ova- ° �e ° 2 HQ�oc�..aa coUUEr Y ° oaf° ■ oc0000 <t?d�d�IM ° Lt Y°�¢UUUUUUUUUUUtaSt oN a N Q Q W. DIVERSE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIE9 ]tzaouires w.: ST Q tp 2 Cross Q• hff 7itsrefe�encc a widen Test .., , B. Protect and expand the affordability of housing for Santa Paula residents. 1. Encourage Community Land Trusts to preserve affordability of housing units ST C,D,G2 and/or land 2 Pursue a Resident Preference Policy for new affordable housing developed in ST Cl,C8 Santa Paula. 3. Initiate a home ownership education progiam/campaign targeted at existing ST C,G residents. C. Enoourage rehabilitation of and improvements to emdsting neighborhoods. 1. Establish zcha(rilitation loans,grants,and other incentives to assist homeowners Ongoing C improve their Properlim 2 Establish infill incentives to encourage new housing in existing neighborhoods. ST. C th ,t x •G ��` t�..t tg4+�r�4 iro f, f - •�„ "�.. t w h�a Yr 64`+e'1 x�.'w,..4t �! t y " S. ,� e., A Preserve naturalresources and e:Rhance environmental sustainability. 1., Encourage projects that utilize alternative energy sources, such as solar,wind - MT .D29,D30, eta �G22,1116 2 Use natural .indigenous plant ruatedals in new projects. Ongoing C3,C8, G22,H. 3. Enhance river and creek corridors for the enjoyment of the community. IT C3,C8, G22 4. Expand the Crap's recycling program. Mr C 5. Support organic farming. ST D7,D8, G19 H B. Protect surrounding landscapes and agricukpad lands 1. Pursue Open Space Districts, conservation easements, land trusts and other ST D29,D30, policies to preserve hnds. G25 2 Work with regional and national oigaaystions such as the American Farmland MT D29,D30, Tnut,Nature Conservancy,and National Pkls and Cmetrways'Founda&n to G19,G22, help purchase undeveloped lands ' the G25 3. Establish a view preservation ovdwanee. ST C2,C8 4. Continue to apply htTsrde/adgehne developtaeaY gtndeline& Ongoing C2,Co. . D29,D30, 025 C.Strengthen community understanding of surroundIpdscapes and waterways. 1. Develop a-strong environmental edmaffioml program'at all gra&-levels that MT D29,D30, instills personal resPonsibilky, for attitude and behavior toward the::6C21 environment... 2 Utilize local print an&decnunic rnnd6 as a axeans to cdamf a the eat tmmnity:av= MT G22;lM, Lawabout die local and envaomu& t ME I Saota Paula Citywide Min Plaki 'age 15 CoMMuhity IMPlemehtation Resources The following list provides just the beginping of the many resources available to help midi implementing the Vision for Santa Paula The list should be continually refined and added to as appropriate. The resources are cross- reftreaced in die Vision Implementation Matrix. A. Citywide Vision Advisory 9• Optimists Board 10. Santa Paula Association of Skaters B. Community Members Sarnicc/Social Clxbr° 11. iciwanis Club 1. Neighborhood Councils 12. Rotary Club 2 Santa Paula Seniors 13. Odd Fellows 14. American Association-of Retired C. City Government Persons(AARP) (Santa Paula 1. City Council Chapter#2022) 2. Planning Commission 15. The Arc of the United States 3. Public Works Department(Parks 16. Knights of Columbus &Facilities) 17. League of United Latin American 4. Building and Safety Department Citizens 5. Economic Development 18. Santa Paula Laiino'Town Hall Department . . 19. Lions Chili of Sinta Paula 6. FinanceDeparhneut. 20• LoyalOrderofMoose - 7. Community services Department 21. Women of rhekooke- 8. . Planning Department 22 Masbnic Lodge#291 , 9. Fre and Police Departments 23. A.LM`USA(MealsodWheels 10. Blanchard Community Library and GASP) . 11. Community Center. - 24. Mercy Charities 12. Anti-Grtf tti Co25.=McdcanAmei=n Cliimih r of 13. Santa Paula ,.Redevelopment Commerce' Agency 26. Santa Clam VaIley'Hospice 14. Santa Paula Horsing Authority, 27. 'Somptomuts 15. City Manager . 28. St Vincent de Paul Soidetp 29. Nature Conservancy . 30. Sier6.C1ub . , . .'. D. Organizations; Clubs,•.aad 31, TheEbellClub,: Groups 32. S.P:Y.R.T..~;..b Youth 33. Santa Paula Beautiful ; 1. Boy Scouts 34. The Spirit of Santa Paula 2. Girl Scouts 35. Habitat for Humanity pf vim. 3. Sauta.PaulalitdeLeague r qty' 4. Santa Paula Boys and Lids Chib 36. Chamber of Cotumetce 5, American Youth .37. Vetrraus of Pomp-Wan;(VF's :Organisation(AYSO): ; 38. Casadd• ao;. , 6. 4 Squac�s'c'Dct=Youth Group 39- O�of ,_- (e-g Briggs,Mnpa) OddEellloovs .... 7. 4-H Clubs B & Sang Paula I•Ggh School Future Crrltrrre/Hirtary/Artr,.; , . Farmworkers of America 40. Aviation g s t s. 41. California Oil Museum 9. Asamblea Apostolic 42. Murals of Santa Paula- 10. Calvary Baptist Church 43. Santa Paula Historical Society 11. Calvary Chapel of Santa Paula 44. Santa Paula Theatre Club 12. Canons Regular of the 45. A.I.A.(American Institute of Immaculate Conception Architects) 13. Centro Cristiano.Elispano 46. ARTSPACE.COM 14. Chapel of Praise-Church of 47. VCCF(Ventura County God Community Foundation) 15. Church of Christ 48_ Ventura County Museum of 16. Church of Christ Scientist History&Art 17. Emmanuel Lutheran Church 49. Ventura County Frim 18. First Baptist Church Commission 19. Fust United Methodist Church 50. The Arts Alliance of.Ventura 20. rehovah's Witnesses County 21. Missionaries of St.Dominic 51. Ventura Music Festival 22. Presbyterian Church 52 New West Symphony,, 23. St.Paul's Episcopal Church 24. United Methodist Church Services / Otber 25. St Sebastian Catholic Church 53. I-teritage Villey Vision' G. Public Agencies E. Schools 1. Job and Career Centers of 1. BarbaraWebstec;Elementary Ventura County Z .Blanchard Ekatehtary Z Cabrillo Economic Development 3. Glen.i ity Elementary Corporation 4. Isbell Middle School 3. Ventura County 5. Grace Tht71e Elementary 4. Caltrans' 6._ Thelma.Bedell Elementary 5. County Health Department 7. Santa Clara Elementary School 6. Ventura County Sheriffs 8. Briggs Elementary.School Department . 9. Olivelands.Elementary School 7. Greyhouud'Transportation 10. Mupu Elementary School8. Southern Pacific Rasilmad 11.-,Santa Paula Er School 9. City of Ventura 12. Renaissance FBgl4 School 10. City of Camarillo IS.,AL,emative.Progtam 11. City of Fillmore 14. Ventura-.College ; 12. City of Moorpark, 15. Thomas Aquinas College 13. City of Ojai 16. College.Eatensi on East Campus 14. City.of Oxnard 17. Osnatd College Cooking 15. City of Port Hueneme.., prngmm 16. City of Simi Valley 17. City of Thousand Oaks 18. City of San Buemaveativa F. Religions Yngtitutt'oas 19. AG Futures Alliance I. Ministerial Association 20. Veatura County Comlmimity Z PastidtaiAssociation Foundation 3. Universalist 21. Heritage Valley Visitors Bureau 4. The Pres �li6irh 22. Friends'6f Santa Clara River .bY�. 5. The First Chn§tiaii Cfliibch 23:.Santa Paula Commission on; 6. Our Lady of Guadabipe' 7. Abundant Life'. . '1.% 25. SOAR(Savo Our Opetr Space) 8 Adult Fait} Development. d'r.Xy . ........ :Pb'.•r.....--ar. .. .- 26^ VCTC(Ventura County Transportation Commission) H. Private Sector L Local small businesses 2- Ventura Coastal Association of Realtors 3^ Limoneira Associates 4. Santa Paula Memorial Hospital 5. DW Burhoe Construction,Inc G. Harmony Constrwdon,.o€,. California 7. Kmart Corporation 8 Pool Company 9. Twyford Plant Laboratories 10^ Wamaco Olga,Inc 11. Wyerhaeuser Company 12 The Vons Compapies Inc y . 13. HtTbaven Corporation 14. Downtown Merchants Assoc 15. Hansen Trost 16. Southern California Edison 17. Santa Paula Airport 18. Glen Tavern Inn 19. Santa Paula Inn Hotel 20. Ocean Gateway Hotel 21. Local Stables 22. %for Art 23. Healthcare providers I. Media 1. Santa Paula Times It 2 Adelphia Cable ° 3. Television Channel 10 4. Ventura County,Star k _ 5• English/Spanish d'0 � 1 ASx ja.Ao: t r r Guidebook To The Carlsbad General Flan • upMeO*Ust 2004 �t at�.a{�5��,�.r `�,��di• i, �y.Lr" � ��x`�y4 C� �'`i F. R� -��� � 4,t 4�w =,.�. '3�'•~ 'Y � �` '`+ fx �' • a v ty ¢ d, (i a1°d•w� y y \ � t r r - ' a >u 5` i .t tS �: K x 4kt .:4. � }f -�Y�,•�Cj f c tq: sa . s n 4 �t�d 1 Q 'S' � .�.� h � y � -.� '�t''f 'ff T su`C •�it!�'(v�f.'. .. a-02 ix er.s.. - 5�... ... - t _ Guidebook CONTENTS CONTENTS.....................................:................................._.................................................. I PREFACE........................................• .........................................:................................................. 1 L. CARLSBAD—THE VISION........_...................................................................:...............:...:2 IL . INTRODUCING CARLSBAD....................:_ .. .. ................................. ..................3 III_ WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN.................::...:.:...:..........:..........................................................5 A. STATE LAW. z......................................... AW.:.....................................•--- ........_.:.:... .....::.......:....::.................................. 5 Purpose........................................................................................................................... 5 Content and Form.:..........::..:::.. ::......... ...............:...:..........:.........:....:.:...:.:..........::....:'S Amending the General Plan........ ::..::....:...:::..... ......................................................7 B. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................8 The General-Plan"Cycle' _.:...........::...............................................a.....:........8 Consistency.rvittt the General Plan....::...:.::......:::. '' Zoning. ..... :......... ... .::.............:........ . .__:..:_.....................:.:. .. .10 Specific Plans and Master Plans „;, . ..... ......... .:........................ 11 Subdivision Regulation ........ 12 _. ................................ Capital Improvement Plan.......................................... ..::.:.:..:..........:.:...:... .. .:.......:....:.. 12 Environmental Protection Procedur+es;................................................ . .:.................:...:.... 13 C. THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT'PROCESS............:..::::.: ::a::_::.:... 14 IV. HOW TO USE THIS GENERAL PLAN................. . :.. .......... ' ................... 15 A. THE HORIZON: GETTING THERE...:.:...............::_.:.... :......::.:..::.::::.......:.:::......:.. . 15 B. ORGANIZATION.OFTHE GENERAL PLAN........: : .:.::.:': ...................... .16 Contents................................_. :. .. •. . . ............ 16 The Vision..................:. 17 ...................................................... The Elements..:.._... ........... ................... 17 What Are Goals, Objectives and Implementing PoGcles and Programs?::........::..::: .. 17 C. FIT .(NG IT ALL TOCjg"ttR:,,THE.Cf-NERAL PLAN'S RELATIONSHIPS VVITFE''- OTHER PLANS AND PLANNING PROGRAMS........................................:................... 18 General................... __................................................ ... .. 18 State. .........................................................................;.......I......... ............. 20 :_................. Regional.......:::.:.:................_.. _�.: .21 ..............................:.....................................:.......... Other Local Plans................-: ............................................................................. -.........23 Usage...........-................................................. : ... 23 ;X. Page r..;. Guidebook B. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The General Plan "Cycle" Upon adoption, a general plan represents a snapshot in time of values, politics, and conditions. These factors exist not only at the local level, but also at the regional, state, and national levels. Since these factors are continually in flux, local governments must continually monitor the relevance of their plans to ensure that they remain in touch with their evolving local and extended communities. Therefore, a general plan should be a dynamic, evolving document The statutory provision for up to four amendments to each required-elenient each year plus California case law all support this view of general plans. The general plan should be reviewed at least annually for any need for amendment; and a comprehensive'review•' should be undertaken about every five years. State law requires that the Housing Element be comprehensively reviewed every five years. The process of preparing and property maintaining a.dynamic general plan involves a series of steps that are repeated in a recuring.cycle. These steps are portrayed graphically in-Figure 3: 'The Revolving General Plan Cycle." ■ Identify Issues and Problems. Issues and problems can be tentatively identified by a range of partes, including.the citizenry, city staff and officials, other agencies, and through formal monitoring programs. Once issues or problems have been tentatively identified, it is necessary to articulate them precisely and dearly. Forming a,consensus.on and making a dear statement of "the problem" can be one of the more challenging AcuRE4:;:: steps of the cycle. The..Revolving GerWral Ptah:Cycle ■ AnalvzelStudv. Often it will be Identify rssaesl necessary to study problems or Problems issues in.some depth to determine Evaluate Pmgiess AnalyzdStady their full nature and to identify spin- offs and possible responses. Technical studies and analysis may be required when dealing with traffic, noise, geotechnical hazards, Progmss ce* Formulateldew or other complex subjects. Depending upon the nature of the needed stud ;this 5tep.;,can require an extended time to complete: ImQ[emeut Plan Formulate P'I= . wsoals, ,Proeedums,P�ugramsY (G 'Objeetives, Policies,mans) •, Formulate Ideas. Once an issue has been explored and a problem . clearly identified it is time to Adopt ran formulate ideas on possible -responses and actions. Depending upon the number and complexity of the issues this step of the cycle may involve both thoughtful brainstorming and spirited community dialogue. Page 8: G " 73 Guidebook ■ Formulate the Plan. All of the ideas must eventually be organized into a coherent plan or' plan amendment In the case of an amendment the new proposal must be-integrated into the•existing plan in such a way as to be consistent with the balance of the plan's contents: Raw ideas must be carefully formulated into background information, goals and objectives; policies and standards, or proposals for implementing action. Appropriate text, graphics, and data must be prepared to communicate the plan faithfully and clearly. ■ Adoot the Plan. Once aAraft of the plan or amendment is prepared, it must be adopted by .the City..through..-.tornal public hearing process..: At this time the entire community can,' deflate,the_.pros- and cons of both the basic ideas and the specific language of the proposal.-. Plan Implementation. An adopted plan is an expression of a-community's aspirations: However;if it just sits on a.shelf those aspirationsw8f not be fulfilled and the plan wiltlbi of little value. Only. with Ahe subsequent adoption 'off implementing laws; operating• procedures, and action programs which are based upon the plan, will it then conte to life.. Upon the_, adoption of a, plan or plan amendment this step of the cycle should Elie", undertaken,in a prompt and forthright way. ■ Monitor Progress. How do the members of the community know that their generaf,man'is working or even being implemented? Are the goals and objectives that were so carefully developed and debated being met? These questions can only be answered,if.ongoing monitoring programs are put into place. Such programs, tailored to the specific goals and programs of the general plan, . "A comm11its' need to include the ongoing collection of data and the regular Should not production of reports for the review and discussion of the entire community. hesitate to in the.m ■ Evaluate Progress. A community.should not.hesitateto look in.. gra to @Val the mirror•arid,td evaluate itself and .plan If it is actiieving 'its goals and'objectives.:the,achievements.,shoufa.fie noted itself anand celebrated;"if It is lalfin- hod,"it should take note and P either try,harder or re.-evaluate the worth.of toe,original goals and objectivesr`As:inias.noted above,circumstances and needs change;a community Yves in a state"of cons UX;With active monitorng.arid periodic evaluation,emerging:issye� .; can tie 060itikki before the become crisis profjlems.. Thtisttie process cow f4rft cycle: Vllhilri $ fi[e-year c�tcte is typical for'acorriprefiensive ;° ge`rrirtat:ptan review,.in'piadiee, individt:iaf efe'r`rrents,or parts,of;elements may,requfre revieuv. ;:- on a�more'frequent,fras�" The frejugncy will ±depend upon,tare.forces operating within the � . commt�rirty and'tlieir interactions.. Consistency,with the General Plan, . .. J. Since he,early.497gs:the planning theory in Captorfifa(supperted both by state statutes and an int sing bodyofcase law)ha$evolved.into�tn W is called"the consistency doctrine.'-Put`:` simply, this doctrine says that governments engaging:in latd:use planning as epitomized:-by'' the general plan--must base their official regulatory land use and development controls on, or make'them consistent::witfr, such .planning: In. particular;.-the-Califomia.4egtslature banged laricl:use planning ( t y:..Whig requirements in 197,1). requiring open=space zarrir;g and Page g. . .. Guidebook building permits to be consistent with the open space plan of the general plan and in 1971 requiring subdivision approvals and zoning to be consistent with the general plan. -,Other statutes, while not mandating consistency directly, required findings or a report on whether various local actions conform to the general plan. Today, to one degree or another, all of the-following may be undertaken only when consistent with the local general plan_ agricultural preserves; building and housing regulations; capital improvements; development agreements; housing authority projects; integrated.: waste management interim classroom facilities; large-scale urban development projects; focal coastal plan ordinances; low- and moderate4ncome housing; mineral resource development and extraction; on-site wastewater disposal zones; open.space; park dedications,:parking authority projects; Planning Commission recommendations; project review under the California Environmental Quality. Ad; redevelopment agency plans; reservations of- land-Wdlhin subdivisions for.public facilities; specific plans; street,' highway, andservice`easement abandonments;subdivisions;transmission lines; use permits;and zoning.,- While:allof thesegovernment activities-are important in Carlsbad, five in particular folio the core of the regulatory and planning environment that implements the Carlsbad Gendral'PTan_ ■. :Zoning. ■ . Specific Plans and Master Plans., ■ . Subdivisions. Capital Improvement Plan.- ■ Environmental Protection Procedures Zoning Zoning is the primary mechanism for«npterneinting a general plan Tn contrast fo the•lorrg=te rr► outlook ofathe general plan,:zoning focuses on the immediate uses of land..`Also, in contrast to the general plan,which is adopted by resolution. zoning is adopted by ordinance; The City's "zoning ordinance.regulates land iise bthe y dividing "Zoning is,the community into districts or tones',and spepfyirig the V.ses�that primary are to be per tilted aridJor prohibited wettun each distrubt. dor each zone; v�iiitten .' i " mechanism for regulations establish standards for minimum implementing a : lot size, building height, setback limits, fence heights,.,pafking, ; signs;•and- other development parameters. file :ook-mr1pe general plan: consists of a text''setting out the'-:regulations, and a ;(nap; esfablrsti 4 the spatial r+e i&nships-,and tacatwtis of zbnes . Land uses of compatible intensely are grouped together and obnoxious and ha i4dd-is"uses are separated from reskientiaT areas. Every zoning action, such as the adoption of an amendment to'the,offiaal zoning map or`tiie approval of a planned unit development, must be consistent with the general plan. By the.,,,. same. token; when an aeiendment to the rgeheral;plan .makes 'some aspeet, of zoriw inaonsistent.with fh_plan,::tlW,=, ning-must:ti'e dwriged-to neestabGsh cohsistencyr4 :vbithih a'` reasonaMe time(Government Gode.Section 4MO(Q., "The authority for zoning is derived:from the.porrce:powers of the local jorisdicti'on."Ira CBttsbad; asin many other jurisdictions; this.zoning authority has been e)panded'to-indiide:a range of Page to Govemor Pete Wilson Putting Action Info the Open' ',Space rElernent Techniques forPreserving Open apace and. Faa�nd o tof Am G Moor v _ t �f�pLlf_ I. .. ,.. ... - ,Goveii:ENfiee of Planning and Research 1400.Tenth,Strteet $aCfdRlentO CA 955814 ". .. .(9.16)445-96 . Paul,F W1ner,:Duecix-. Mteio RivasptaEa.Aulhor ;;•. z' ., . . .r. c. . . . , Kenrieih Lee, trrtem -Ravised Ndmtdw 19W Putting Action into the Open Space Element TECHNIQUES FOR PRESERVING OPEN SPACE AND FARMLAND ach county and city in California must adopt an open space element as part of its general plan.The element is a statement of local planning policies focusing on the use of unimproved land or water for. 1) the preservation or managed production of natural resources,2)outdoor recreation,and 3)the promotion of public health and safety.By law the document must contain an"action program"identifying specific techniques which the county or city intends to use in implementing its open space plan.The purpose of the following paper is to improve the effectiveness of local openspaceelements by highlightingpoWtial action program components. Open space zoning and Williamson Act contracts from taxpayers without their consent." Many of the are widely used preservation techniques:These place geuetal taxes, a?sessments, and user fees previously regulatory limits on the types of uses which maybe used to raise revenues are now subject to voter app pursued in agricultural areas in order to prevent.the proval under the provisions of Proposition 218. The conversion of agricultural lands to non-compatible significance�6f Proposition 2.18 in funding open space uses. Every California county and.general law city: initiatives will be discussed in the following sections. must adopt open space zoning (Government Code Not all sources of revenue are affected,but overall,the section 65910).Most of the agricultural counties have process will be slower, the overhead costs will be active Williamson Act programs offering land owners. greater, and,with the new ability of the electorate to. property tag incentives to keep land in agriculture.As repeal or reduce taxes,assessments,fees,and charges aresult,most Califomiaplannershavealreadysampled by initiative,there will be less certainty ofa continuous some of the ample literature regarding agricultural revenue stream preserves and zoning. Remember that acquisition is not limited to fee To avoid repetition, this publication focuses pri- simple purgbaim of land. Purchasing development warily on non-regulatory approaches which acquire rights, ` ' options, or easements can also be open space lands or development rights. Some of the effective mean bf protecting open space,depending techniques discussed below may be used directly by a upon the crctiknstanees. For a detailed discussion of city or county, while others rely upon a program of many of the avails !e options, refer to Tools for the cooperation with other local governments or private Greenbelt published by The Greenbelt Alliance,a San organizations Francisco-based.open space advocacy Soup- Development impact fees are a popular method FINANCING ACQUISITION for financing park land(under the Quimby Act) and imrastriictiire However, we will not discuss impact One of the best methods for preserving open space fees in detail While impact fees and dedications of and farmland is to buy or lease the land.This avoids land are useful on a project-by-project basis, in.our questions of inverse condemnation or"taldng"since opinidn they iiie not particularly well suited to be the, the owner is compensated fortherights to the land.But sole basis for a long-range acquisition program.There where does themoneyforsuchacquisitioncomefrom? are several reasons for this: The following sections describe a variety of funding 1, The amount of fees collected is directly related to sources that are available to local governments. therate of development within the community. A recent Constitutional amendment has sign fr- They cannot be depended upon dudng times of cantly restricted the ability of local governments to slow activity. raise revenues through many of the following funding 2. Fees are short-term in nature.-Under California sources:Proposition 218,enacted by California voters law, unused and uncommitted fees must be re- inNovember 1996,`protects taxpayers by limiting the famded if not obligated in five years. methods by which local governments exact revenue 3. Fees must be clearly justified.They must be based 3 3 p -- Z-. PUTTING ACTION INTO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT upon a nexus that relates the purpose and amount Several years ago, the city of Fairfield created of the fee to the specific development project,its three Mello-Roos CFDs to fund open space acquisi= proportional impact on the community, and the tion.The city levies special taxes'on both developed governmental purpose that is being advanced by and undeveloped land. The taxes vary among the the fee. districts and are administered by the'Solano County 4. Imp act fees concentrateon new developmenL They Farmlands and Open Space Foundation.proceeds from are notspreadOver the community asawhole-even the fust of these CFDs helped to finance the purchase though their results may be enjoyed by everyone. of 1000 acres of grazing land in Lynch Canyon. ' 5. Fees often cannot provide an adequate lump sum for significant improvements to be built at one Cities and counties may use the Infrastr'uctuIrc time.'Mey also do not offer a dependable return on Financing District (IFD) law (Government Code investments to support bonded indebtedness. section 53395 et seq.)to form tax increment districts to Two good reference books on fees are YheCdfdu- finance the purchase ofopen space.Similarfo redevei- latiom of Proportionate-Share Impact Fees by James opment financing,the lFD prbvidesa way&rlocalities C. Nicholas,.-available from the American Planning to purchase open space without raising property taxes Association,and Public Needs and PrivateDollars,by However,in older for anIFDtobeformed,eachofthe;' William Abbott,et al.,and available from Solaro Press. other taxing agencies must grant its approval'beforc ' Booms anyofitsportionoftheirincrementcanbecollectedlry A Most experts agree that development impact fees the IFD. Since an IFD should only be established ia.• are notaffectedby,Proposition2l8.TheConstitutional substantially undeveloped areas,conflicts shouldobt amendment clearly provides that proposition 21.8 does occurr with redevelopment areas. not apply to"existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of project-developmerX, In June 1986 California's voters enacted proposi2 (Section,(b)(1), Article.IMD, California Constim tion 46 authorizing cities and counties to issue"gen=' tion).As+such;.devclopmentimpact fees remairiundef eralobligation"(G.O-)bonds"fortheacquisiti'onand. the authority.of the Mitigation Fee Act(Government improvement of real property,"-including open spade Code section 66000,et seq.)and do not require iroter Issuance of the bonds is premised on a two-ttiiidg voter approvaL. approval. G.O. bonds are secured primarily by ad vatoie& The Mello-RoosCommunityFac7itiesAet(Gov- property taxes:Cities'andcounties maytncreaseprbp=:_ erament Code section-533.11 et seq.)is a-tax-based erty taxes beyond the normaFProposiiidi 13'ligiif td"'- financing; o'financing;method available to cities, counties, and pay the principal and intereston the'bonds `S-ince.' special districts .It authorizes•local governments-to investors perceive Property taxes as tieing 7ft risky'. establishcOmmunity_facilities districts(CFDS)within than the security for other types of indebtedness,-66 ' which they may levy special taxes and issue-bonds to bonds may be issued at relativelyIower intet6strates. financeopenspamacquisition,mamWnancz;andother G.O.bonds am therefore less e expensiv ctndrng�ecliati'': programs'...... nisms for local governments'than revenue-Educts;fist" Approvabof the special tax'and`anynelated.bohd example:' issue requires approval by two-thirds Of:the:district fti Wovember 1987.Redlands votets'autiroHzed'u electorate. When there are fewer than 12.wed: $7.6 million G.O. bond with a 71%`positive voter ` voters in a,CFD,approval must be by two-thirds of the About 501/o of the money was designated:'for:laud dist rfces landowners.SinceMello-Root taxes•alteady acquisitions.As part of the:city's historic brange grove" regaireatwo-thirds,vote,thcy,arcWfaffected'by-the protection progrdm,the open spacebondshdpedfund voterapprovalrequitementsofProposition218.'How= grove purchases along with other improvements sibli ever,as with all special'>axes,WO—ROos-taxes are: as land for open space at major city eritrauce Poitirt ; subjecttoreductionorrepealbyinivativeundeipmpo Preservation oflargenatural areas antheh= �s P�. sition218. :., s.. : cry,a strip park with ttaUs land for expanded paflcjdl CFD boundaries�need•not.be contiguous..POVdi; recreation spaces and land for a sports cotnples,golf ' ample,areas may be excluded from the district=where. =course,and swim complex. theme is snffieient open space or whemyoters oppose g'. (n 1988 a combined tbW of 61.5"percent df tit tax levy. voters iu Alameda and Contra Costa Counties suibo- -,D - 3 PUTTING ACTION INTO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT rized the East Bay Regional Park District to.issue$225 "(b)Any assessment imposed pursuant to a peti- million in G.O. bonds. The bonds financed a major tion signed by the persons owning all of the parcels expansion of the district's.park and open space hold- subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is ings...The bonds also financed the improvement and initially imposed enlargement of various city park and recreation facili- "(c) Any assessment the proceeds of which are ties within the East Bay district exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to.pay would violate the Contract State law authorizes local governments to levy Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United special assessments upon property owners in order to States. pmchaseandmaintainopenspace.Theownersmustbe "(d) Any assessment which previously received the beneficiaries of the open space and,the size of majority voter approval from the voters voting in an individual assessment levies must be strictly propor- election on theissue of the assessment"(Section 5, tional to the,amount of per-parcel "special benefit" Article XIII D,California Constitution} which the property receives.As strictly defined by The Park and Playground Act of 1909 (Govern- Proposition 218,"special benefit"means"a particular, ment Code section 38000 et seq.)allows cities(but not and distinct benefit over and above-general benefits counties)to impose assessments to finance the acqui- conferred on real property.located in the district or the sition and improvement of public parks,playgrounds, public at large.General enhane mentofproperty.value, and urban open space land This act also allows a city does not constitute `special.benefit.' Assessments to condemn land for these purposes. must not exceed the project's total cost . Thef.an iscapingandLightingActof 1972(Streets Unlike a special district,a special assessment dis- 'and Highways Code,section 22501}et seq.) enables trict is not a political entity.It is simply a designated cities,counties,and special:districts•to;among other area in which a local government levies open space things, acquire:.land:.for parks, recreation, and open charges. space., In,addition, a local.government may`use the Proposition 218 impacts.special assessmentk#iore. . assessgnents•to pay:for;improvements and inamte than any other of the f nancing mechanisms discussed nance.Prior to.Proposition 218,this Act was..widely in this.report The Constitutional amendment invali- used onthebasis that�parks,open space,and recreation dates previously established procedures and court in-!.: , facilities benefitedproperties by increasing their value., terpretadons applied to the use and levying of special Proposition 218 puts an end to this justification by assessments.It restricts the uses to which assessments imposing,its strict definition of special beti6fit, thus may be.put, limits the property owners who.may be. making the Act much more difftcalko use.: charged4 assessments,increases local agency account- . In 1990;the East Bay Regional Park District..: ability,andprohibits assessments thatlackthesupport.. established a new landscaping and LigbtingAct as- of local property owners,. sessment district to finance maintenance ofparks in Theformationofadistrictispre.misedonreceiving eastemCouha.CostaCounty:Ia1993;the parks district approval. m a majority of the.affected property established another Landscaping and Lighting district:' owner;ljycast afhallot(tb&method ofvofmg is called. covering both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to:: an "assessment ballot proceeding"'to distinguish..it.. fund maintenance.of trails and trail coi ridots. from.an election).Ballots must be weighted propor- TIielitde4 sedUpenSpare,I WntmanceAct(Gov tionm y to the financial obligation of. the affected emment Code section 50575 et seq.)is helpful whea.a, property,In,int ast,to previous law, the.governing,,,: city or:county has already acquired open Space,:fiat ' ' body does not have the-authority to oxemtfe-the.pmp doesn't have.a way to pay for its maintenance:�Undev. erryo�vaerswhenamajodtycastbailotsagainst461rid . , theact,localgovemmentsmaylevyadvaloremspecral formation.P5rtmer,once,an.assessment js.ereated,:it assessments to improve and:maintain open space, maybe repealed or reduced by popular.vote, reduce fire,flood,and erosion haxar is,'and perform- ThOHOWmge)dsting&iFssments,.inpL%xg.pf erformTheollowingexistjngassessments,.inplaceasof. related activities.,The.formation proceedings oftliis:;: Novernber5319961 are exempt fmmthe application of: : Act conflict with Proposition 218's provisions:The Proposition 218: local government must substitute the requirements of "(a) Any assessment imposed exchtsiyely:to,fv, Proposition•218 for any conflicting:provisions in the mace the capital costs or-mainteoanceand operation codeuntilproperlegislativeaetionistakentoreconcile expenses for sidewalks,sheets,sewers,water, flood,.. the Act with Proposition 218. control,drainage systems;and vector controL. • 5 PUTThNG ACTION INTO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Lea"urchasing is.another technique for ac- development began circulating, preserving the grove quiring open space. A lease-purchase is, in effect,a became a hot political issue.As an alternative to G.O. loan.A city or county finds a bank,leasing company, bonds,the city turned to COPS to purchase and save the nonprofit organization, etc., willing to purchase the property.Carlsbad's growth control plan provided the targeted property-The purchaser then leases the land to rationale for the city's actions. the city or county which makes a regular appropriation The cities of Los Altos and Cupertino have also for`tenL"The rent consists of principal and interest issued COPS for open space purposes.Both used their payments.At the end of the lease,die local entity has funds to acquire excess school district landsto expand completely reimbursed the lessor and it ends up own- or develop local parks. ing the property. Cities and counties maysometimes use"certificate of participation'.(COP)'financing in conjunction,with LAND .BANK 1 N G lease-purchasing to acquire expensive tracts of.land- Under this technique,the lessor purchases the desired Land banking involves the acquisition-of land in open space, leases it to the local government; and advance of expanding urbanization. The price,of an receivesasmall fee forhistherservices.The lessorthen. open spaceparoel notyetsubject to urban development assignstherightstoreceive leasepaymentstoatrustee;, pressures will probably be more closely based-on The trustee,working with an underwriter,issues cer- curentratherthanspeculative land uses.Lm dWnking tificates of participation to individual,investors who may therefore result in considerable savings to ajuris contribute to the property, acquisition,fund.to reim- diction seeking to preserve open space. burse the,lessor.. The COP is„a bond-likesecuring A city or county might use this technique to,de- indicating the holder has an undivided interest.in a velop a greenbelt or simply to preserve key open space percentage ofthe local,govemment's.lease payments. or agricultural tracts. The jurisdiction should have a The local goverumentannually appropriates funds definite public purpose for a land bauldng projeaL J, for leasepayments. A local government cam recover its.tand 6ankiag certificate holclThe payments are then distributed to dieeass by the trustee.The percentage expenses by leasing purchased property.back.toa of the payment received by each such investor equals farmer. Cities and counties may also recoup at least the peseentagq of the purchasing fund contributed by part of their costs by reselling the acquired land with the investor.At the end of the lease,the city or county deed restrictions that guarantee the{property's contin- acquires title to the property. . nod open space use.To date,Land baakingisnot widely ' Becatuse•it is similar.to a lease,COP financing,is practiced in California There are a number:.of ex- not limited by statutory restrictions On long-term debt_ ampler,however. . Also,a city or county may issue COPS without a vote Redlands is•using:land banking as part of its Open' of the local electorate,unless an election's Iocel eli�r required by space Preservation pian.The city purchased a 20 acre•' .. . dairy:which adjoins a historic property at'the city's LTurdeiaca fiully:crafte. COP program,,mvestArs western extreme. The city also owns.and operates e” may be entitled to tag-free investment iaco�.(Le.,the . extensive orange grove acreage inberestpo.monsofohelease.paygienis),;Dependingoa.. Dixon and-Vacaville are coo Local Y cooperatively bankidt the gQ fanment'.s.credit rating, tbis type of.fi- agricuitural'htad.to.preserve a greenbelt separator' mancirig can therefore by accomplished at a relatively between the cities:Nearby,the city•of0avis is land'..`' low interest rate. .. r banking to arcate a greenbelt around its boundaries At times,COP f iiWing can be''ompUcated and San Lui&Obispo County uses Transfer of•Devel-:.;, costly because,Of-' all players and aaan ements apmentrights.(TDR)forland banking.This involved lit. rt possible.Also a local vein- °' P ga approach allows land owners to Sell credits whirls" inert must be.careful that'*its:actions rt hrtive to the.. comprisethedevelopm�tpotentalofaxestricteclsitte... acquuedlanddozmtinvalidate*-t -memptstatusnf. Those credits.may.be used to increase development? the lease=purchase arrangement, intensity elsewhere.The.County-of San,Lub,oO icpo_ The,cit .qf Carlsbad employed COPS in 1988 to. has passed aaflrtik arce allowing-the San Luis Obi rspcp ac q me and preserve 52:.acres of open space. The Land Conservancy,(a nonprofit land trust)to seri the prope<ty gontains.a grovq.of trees and is nearly,sur- development rights to the land itis conservmg, rousted,by"tulian uses. When,word of its pending, tially,the-Mist received a grant of$20000•froi}i the 6 f c PUTTING ACTION INTO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT State Coastal Conservancy forthe purchase ofenviron- lowed counties to increase their sales tax to finance mentally sensitive land for open space in the coastal general expenditures,thus expanding district funding community of Cambria.The county designated a por- opportunities.However,any sales tax dedicated solely tion of the town of Cambria as the receiving zone for to an open space district is considered a special tax and development credits that are transferred from the envi requires a two-thirds voter approval under Proposition ronmentally sensitive lands. Property owners in•the 218. receiving zone may purchase development credits(in, Sonoma County voters created the Agricultural the form of square feet of building area)from the trust Preservation and Open Spece District in 1990 and in order to increase the square footage of their homes authorized a quarter-cent sales tax increase to fund the above the normally permitted limiL District.The$10 to 12 million dollars annual revenue An interesting feature of this transfer of develop- that results is used primarily to purchase conservation ment credits program is that it costs the county nothing, easements from willing sellers.Since 1992,the District since the sale of credits is administered by the trust. has acquired easements over approximately 23,000 Development is distributed over the whole community acres. rather thanin just a small number of large,projects, Also,SS 1685 (Ch. 982, Stats. 1986) authorizes' because homeowners may purchase just the portion of = open space districts to levy special assessments for development credits needed to make additions to their open space purposes.These assessments are subjectto homes rather,than having to purchase all the credits Proposition 218's limitations on the use and levying of assigned to a parcel owned by the trust.Proceeds from special assessments. the sale'of development credits are used to purchase Regional open space districts are also authorized additional lands for open space. to levy special tixes, subject to a'two-thirds voter approval.In addition,they may receive Land giants and' gif sand may employ debt financing measures such as C O N S E R V A T 1 O N. general obligation bonds. They'may also lease-real AND, PRESERVATION estate as parrof their preservation activities. For Ln- O R GA.I :1 Z A T f O NS stance> to save agricultural, �Y p�has farms or grazing ranges and lease them back to farmers A regional.open space district is another effec- and ranchers. Regidrial-districts, such as-the 1Narin . tive mechanism foc preserving open space,including Open Space District; sometimes employ the services agricultural land It's an independent special district. of land conservation trusts in acquiring open space. with an elected board of directors that is incorporated In 1995,The Midpeuidsttla Regional Open Space through the cooperative efforts of a region's cities,- District participated in a joint acquisition with the cotirities;.and voters Its primary functions are to ac- County'of Santa'Clara County to purchase 967-acre Wire,preserve,and maintain open space_ Jacques Ridge.Jacques Ridge provides a wildlife cor- This.narrow focus provides open space districts ridor connecting over 10,000 acres of contiguous park' with an•a"Int age over city and county.;goveinments and open space lands.It also establishes a vital link in when it comes to saving open areas.Since cities and" . 1heBayAreaRidgeTraiLThcNfidpe insitla ILegidinat` . counties:bave multiple and competing service objec- Open Space District is responsible forthe Pi servation; tives,openspace.fundingcansomedmesbediverted.tb ofover36,000acres ofopenspace extchdingfromihe other.pressing-needs. An open space district's rev- city of San Carlos to the town of Los Gatos. enues,on the-other hand,may only spent for open' The enabling legislation for regional open'spacc space.purposes, This encourages it steady flow.of districts is'in'the California Public.Resources Oode f[tading-for the•long-term,implementation of an open . commencingwithsectionSS00andiatheGovmmuW space plau.; .. .., Code commencing with section 56000.It is tlksaui During-ft.Vast decade fised constraints'..have• authority asthat forregiangparkdisttictiandregional, hindered tlts formation ofnew openspace districts.As " park and open space districts. in the case of other local governments,regional open space districts have been financed primarily byprop- ' A land conservation trust is anothertype ofotganii a- erty.tax revenues;Property tax increases to fund new tion devoted to protecting open space; agricdltuual districts.are reshictod by Proposition 13. - lands,wildlife habitats,andnadualresourcelands.The In response,state Iegistatioa enacted in 1997 al appmximate80trustsinEalifomiaachieuetheirowec PUTTING ACTION INTO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT fives primarily through acquiring and managing inter- The American Farmland Trust and the Trust for ests in land. Public Land often advise local land trusts on successful Most land trusts are local,private nonprofitentities preservation programs.Another source of information with boards of directors made up of private citizens. for and about local land trusts is the Land Trust Alli- They rely on private funds, corporate or foundation ance in Washington,D.C. BralitS.and Property gifts to carry out their land acqui- Another resource, published by The Land Trust sition and managementactivities.A r umberoftrnsts m' Alliance, is a book entitled Starting a Land Trust•A California also use public funds,such as those from Guide to Forming a Land ConservationOrgair&ation. Proposition 70 or the Coastal Conservancy, to pur- The book outlines case studies in starting land trusts,, chase open space. how to organize a board of directors and articles of Land conservation touts preserve open space and incorporation, how to apply of federal. tax-exempt resource lands in a variety of ways. Some use their status,and much more.The appendices have a list of fiords to acquire fee simple interest in real estate and useful contacts and a sample of articles and bylaws.- then ylaws.then manage or lease back their holdings.odters par., chase conservation easements which.protect sensitive land from development while allowing owners to sell OPEN SPACE A N D their remaining property interests to whomever they CONSERVATION E'ASEM'EN`T`S please. The Marin Agricultural Land Trust in Marin County has pioneered the use of such.easements to Cities and'counties may accept or purchase ease- Preserve agricultural and dairy lands.The 20 year-old meats from private landownersfor.open space and Sonoma Land Trust now cornpliments the work of the resource conservation purposes.Opeu space and con County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space servation easements are;in effect,purchases of devel -' Distdctand,overits lifespanhasprotectedsome 10,000 opment rights.The deed transferring an easement to a ' acnes. For-overt a decade, the Kern.River Pathway localgovemr wtmustrestiictibeamflilxiedpropeity's Foundation has aegttir ed laird along the Kern River in use to open space or resource cofts Y tion acfivltke, ' Bakersfield which has contributed to implementation Lands subject to the state's-open space or cbtiser-- of the city/county Kern River Parkway Plan: The vatibn easement acts are"enforceably'restrictedt"In': Foundation has also planted over 3200 trees along the other words, their value for property tax purposes is Ply established on the basis of the easement restrictions Land trusts also purchase land and resell it with rather than potential development uses.For properties deed restrictions that guarantee the property's open which would otherwise have been subject to rising simcectazactermperpetuay Alternatively,trustssome- taxes,this is a form oftaxrelief.Itprovides landowners times acquire land on an interim basis and later transfer with an incentive to grant easements_ it to public or private conservation organizations. Since they are less fetteredby red tape,private land Cities and counties may acquire open space ease- trusts are usually able to respond more quickly than numb pursuant to the Open Space Easement Act of goveramenffi1 entities to sudden and fleeting Purchas- 1974(Government Code section 51070 et seq.).Land ing opportunities.They also use their real estate expe- must remain within an easement in perpetuity or, rienm to help public agencies with the mechanics of alternatively,for atleast ten yeamAneasement'sterm acquisition. For example, the Peninsula Open Space is automatically extended each year by an additional Trust in Menlo Park was originally organized to facili- twelve months. Under certain circumstances, open tate the land acquisition activities of the Wilpeninsula space easements may be abandoned. .Regional Opera Space Districk A city or county must have an adopted open space Recently; the Peninsula Open Space Tout put- plan(element)as a prerequisite to acquiring an open chased 1,262 acres ofwedands on dw Peninst&next to space easement Furthermore,the.preserving of ease- the San Francisco Bay from a development company meat land in open space must be consistent with the for$15 million after-receiving a loan from a private local jurisdiction's general plan. group.In January 1997,the Trust for Public Land and are state Department ofParks and Recreation coopers- The Conservation Easement Act (Civil Code sec- tively acquired 13.9 acres of scenic land near Tomales tions 815-816)enables a city,county,district,or non- Bay in Marin County as an addition to Tomales Bay prolit organization to acquire perpetual easements for state Park. 8 PUTTING ACTION INTO TELE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT the conservation ofagriculturalLand andopenspace,or tions, legislative appropriations, general obligation for historic preservation. Unlike open space ease- bonds,federal grants or loans,and other sources. meats,there is no procedure.fornon-renewal ofconser- TheAgricultural Land Stewardship Program,along vation easements and there is no expiration date. with the federal Farmland Protection Program,is cur- In establishing an easement,a landowner and local rently facilitating fimding for 940 acres on four pro- agency agree upon the permitted land uses within the posed parcels of farmland—two farms.in Monterey conservation area.The casement is bindingupon suc- County,andfirms.inFresaoCountyandSolanoCoumty.. cessive owners of the land. The development rights on the properties will be.trans- The Conservation Easement Act does,not require ferred from landowners to various nonprofit land trusts conservation easements to conform to local general while allowing the landowners to continue to own and plans. Nevertheless,,a general.plan is useful as the farm the land,, rationale for,a local easement program. Recent state legislation has expanded opportuni- ties for cities and counties toprotect viable agricultural CONCLUSION. lands.The Department of Conservation's Agricultural Land Stewardship Program(ALSP) was enacted.m, .Stateplanninglaw mandates the inclusionofopen, 1995 as SB 275.The Progmampro;+des c ties,counties;- space action programs in every local general plan, and ric"rofitlandtmsiswithfimdingforthepurchase Many communities, in-complying with,this.require ofconsemboneasements ftomagriculturd landown- ment,have gone a step firrther by adopting.measures. ers.The.Programcomplementsthe.WilliamsonActby, that preserve agricultural landsandprotectopen space. providing.pennanent protection,of agriealttual land, This publication has high-lighted a range of preserva-' targeting protection of most breatened.agricultural tion options,that are available to local governments. land,:placing,own -of develgpment rights with iL. Counties andcitiesmayuse these techniques to expand third party,usually A local land hwt,.and pr+hviding the effectiveness of their open space elements but are. one-time payments al,Jowiog farmers to:teriµveat.in .. cautioned.to take adequate.,steps,in:oider.to(mget the, .. their igricultural,operationsto impmve.proftWr7ity. provisions.ofProposition 218. Sources of revenue for funding.include.gibs,dons- 9 7 7 495 �� n, - PUTTt..i; ACTION INTO THE OPEN SPACE L: -iMENT CONTACTS BIBLIOGRAPHY American Farmlands Trust Abbot,William W.,Moe,Marian E. and Hanson,Marilee, 1949 5th Street,Suite 101 Public Needs and Private Dollars:A Guide to Development Davis,CA 95616 Fees and Dedications, 1993,Solano Press Books. (916)753-1073 FAX(916)753-1120 _;California Debt Issuance Primer,California Debt and Investment AdvisoryCommission,Sacramento,CA 94209- California Coastal Conservancy 0001, 1995- Broadway,Suite 00 Evaluation ofAgricultural Land Trusts, 1989,Califor- (510).464-1015 Oakland,CA 94612-25330 nia State Coastal Conservancy. MarrwAgricullrvalland Trust,pamphlet published by California Department of Conservation the Ma.mAgticultural Land Tnat,Point Reyes station,CA. Office of Land Conservation The Public Official's Gukk to Mello-Roos Financing, 801 K Street,MS 13-71 Orrick,Herrington and Sutcliffe,San Francisco,CA, 1994: Sacramento,CA 95814-3528 Putting er lo (916)324-0859 FAX(916)327-3430 g Tr=rf Development Rights to Work in Cali- fornia,by Rick Pruetz, 1993,Solano Press Books. East Bay Regional Parks District _,Savmgthe Farm:AHandbook forConservingAgricul P.O.Box 5381 tural Land, 1990,American Farmlands Tout. Oakland,CA 94605 _,Starting a Land Trust,1990,The Land Trust Alliance.. (510)635-0135 FAX(510)635-3478 e,Tools for the Greenbelt:A Citizen's Guide to Protect- The Greenbelt Alliance ing Open Space, 1985,People for Open SpacdGr=belt 116 New Montgomery om S Ammon ProProgramtract,Suite 640 San Francisco,CA 94105 Understanding Proposition 218,December 1996,Cali- (415)543-4291 fornix Legislative Analyst's Office.. The Land Trust Alliance Emory,BcnlamnR,"SavingLaxtdClosetoHome,"Water- front Age,voL III,no.4(Fall 1987),9-13. 1319 F Street,NW,Suite 501 Washington,D.C.20004 Hinckle,Pia J.,"Completing the Green Puzzle,"Waterfront (202)638-4725 FAX(202)638-4730 Age,vol.HL no.4(Fall 1987), 14-15. Honer, Virginia L., Guide to Public Debt Financing in P.O.Boxx 8 809 Marin Agricultural Land Trust California,San Francisco,Packard Press Pacific,1987. Point Reyes Station,CA 94956 Lewis,Martha I.,"What You Need to Know About COPS," (415)663-1158 FAX(415)663-1699 Western City,vol.LXII,no.i l(November 198-1115-16& 19-21. Mann Open Space District Newton, Kent and Dean Rabb, "Understanding COP s," Civic Center,Room 417. Western City,vol.LXII,no.l l(December 1986),23-24& San Rafael,CA 94903 26. (415)499-6387 FAX(415)499-3795 Nicholas, James C., The Calculation of Proportionate- San Luis Obispo Land Conservancy Share hwactFees,1988,APA Planning Advisory Service. P.O.Box 12206 Rivasplata,Antero,APlarmers Guide to Financing Public San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Improvements,Sacramento,Governor's Office of Planning (805)544-9096 and Research, 1997. Trust For Public Land Sen,Irving,Alternative Tedmiques for Controlling 116 New Montgomery Street Land Use:A Guide for Small Cities and Aural.Areas in . San Francisco,CA 94105 Cfornia, men, CA, University Center for Economic Development and Planting, California State University, (415)495j1014 FAX(415)495 4103 men, 1989 Slaton,William LAndFroderickT.Watdeck,"APrimeron Lease Financing By'Letting Somebody Else Qum It'Cities Conserve Tax Dollars," Western City, voL EMIT, no. 3 (March 1982),24-27. 10 :Yahoos I�LvYaboot fiAa�i -the WebS62 IN Welcome, mcsgday MA9L fSign Out My Account] Mail Home Mail Tutorials Help ..-- --- Addts�es -� C �idaCo� What's New-Mail For Mobile Up—grades.-Options " , . -0 ;fA .' _. .. Previous I Next I Bade to Messages Vonage: sign up & get 1 month free! 1 Check Other Mail [Edit] ' Chis n ssag XS t1D((]13Jg8C},'Iµ 3 Message` M is s unreal } `z ��°Pttn abl evv. ' maiLearthlink.netxt4 wed, 14 Dec 2005 16 11:57-0800(PST) .... . . ... ........................................ ... .............. .... ... •Michael Sullivan' <mcsgday.@yahoo.com> (MView Contact Details Add a r Mobile Alert Folders [Add Edit] ?, Yahoo DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo com Learn more ......... .......... ... . .............................. .. .' .......,...... • Drafti 6 CORRECTED FINAL VERSION For Planning Commisslon'14 Dec 2005 Agenda Item .. - 4-ER/GPA 149-98 -Conservation and Open Space • Sent o . . .... Bulk 32 , 'Diane Stuart" <dstuart@slodty.org>,Iroske@slodty.org,jhook@sldcity.org ( ) [Empty] r .......... .... .......:................. ......... ...:.. Trash [Empty] °Michael Sullivan" <mcsgday@yahoo.com> CORRECTED FINAL VERSION ,A*.[Isywr 14 Dec 2005 Got rfmis . ,4recv�.4aver} To: City.of San Luis Obispo, CA including Planning - Commission and City Council 6Bst cend for= - iyasE,defit ' From: Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 awr' 9@ (805) 545-9614 utas t,rFdeE'�4h SUBJECT: Planning Commission hearing of 14 Dec 2005.= Public hearing, agenda item 4. - Citywide. GPA and.ER_ 149=98. Review the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space element of the General Plan to update, and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Land Use, Safety, Housing, - Circulation', Parks and Recreation, and Water. and Wastewater elements of the General Plan. (continued from 30 Nov 2005) . v Abbreviations. CEQA _ California Environmental Quality Act 10-2005 COSE - Conservation and Open Space element (draft)_ of Oct 2005 M: ER - Environmental review GPA - General Plan amendment Z 1994 OSE —Open Space element '(Qan 1994) PC _ Planning Commission of City of SLO SLO -'San Luis Obispo 1. LEGAL CONCERNS OF MICHAEL SULLIVAN HAVE-NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY STAFF OR PLANNING COMMISSION. Summary: Important issues (e.g. those mentionea in spoken and written comments from Michael Sullivan; PC hearings of 09 Nov 2005 and 30 Nov'2005) have been'. neglected, e.g. IT Y ®� g 1 of/ Trinidad,CO-Photos 12/142005 4:161'M uw:iruuu-iuwguayiwyanoo.com httpJ/us_f3l7.maii.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLe#er?Msgld--9690`77607._. . a (1) Negative Declaration for CEQA review is improper and illegal because substantial evidence (facts and inferences) indicate that potential environmental impacts could occur_ (2) Proposed 10-2005 COSE is internally inconsistent (e.g. in definition of open space) and probably inconsistent with various other General Plan. elements. (3) City has improperly and illegally abused the "interim C/OS" pre-zoning for annexations and- this - deficiency is not addressed in 10-2065 COSE' staff reports or in the 10-2005 COSE itself. Interim C/OS - zoning should not be used when it is definitely known that a particular parcel is planned for some more intensive use, such as Commercial Retail_ This was. ' the case, for example, at Froom Ranch, which had pre-zoning to conservation / open space (C/OS) when the City already knew that the actual planned land use was commercial retail. As a consequence, the LAFCO y " - review (e.g. for infrastructure capability, environmental impacts, land use compatability, etc.) was inadequate because the LAFCO review only characterized the proposed Froom Ranch annexation area as an open space (C/OS) use, which has much less severe impacts than commercial retail. use. The Governement code required the City to wait 2 years before re-zoning the Froom Ranch to Commercial Retail, but the City ignored this .law (Govt code 56375) and allowed a re-zoning to commercial retailimmediately after annexation. See -Michael Sullivan's comments of. 09 Nov and 30 Nov 2005. Some additional environmental information s)iould 'be noted: r. (4) Other Cities within SW County (e.g. Atascadero. in 2002 and Paso Robles in 2003) have recently made major revisions simultaneously to several elements of the General Plan. These changes in the General 'Plan for those cities are similar in scope to the changes 5_ proposed for the General Plan of the City of the currently proposed update of the Conservation and ; Open Space elements. The actions of Atascadero and. Paso Robles both required EIRs. The General Plan amendments proposed by City of SLO should similarly have an EIR (or, at a minimum, a Mitigated Negative Declaration) because of potential environmental impacts not adequately addressed or mitigated in`the City's Initial Study and Negative Declaration. : (5) One additional environmental factor that has not been addressed by City is the potential for ruminative environmental impacts associated with the development potential of Open. Space lands in the SLO urban area .• _ i , {the area inside the URL) or in the Greenbelt', (the. area outside the URL) . "._ The potential for environmental impactfrom'it, ° City's Conservation / e. Y Open Space- (C/OS) zoningi is' significant. The current (24 Jun. 2004) zoning ordinance allows one dwelling per five or more acres Maximum pavement and building area is governed the rule: 17.32.020F - ".Maximum pavement and building°area . buildings and paved surfaces,. such as parking nand . > roads, 'shall not exceed five percent.of site area ,for a parcel smaller than 10 acres or three perdent_ .of' site area for a parcel of 10 acres -or larger:" ','(drd 1365 (200 series) (Part) ) " Using this standard, maximum pavement and bui .Idinc for. Trinidad,CO-Photos 11/14/2005 4:16 pm { the following site areas would be: Y Site area, Pavement+buildings ?� acres Max area, Acres Max area, SQ FT 5 0.25 10,890 _. 9.99 0.4995 21,758 10 0.3 13,068 20 0.6 26,136 40 1.2 52,271 80 2.4 104,543 100 3 130,678 " 130 3.9 169,882 160 4.8 209,085 t Thus, especially for larger.parcels, the amount of allowed pavement and building area in the C/OS zone E can be substantial. For example, a 20 acre parcel could have an allowed maximum pavement and building area of 26,136 sq ft. This .is allowed by right, and no Conditional Use Permit is required, apparently, for such use_ All of the open space (in both the urban area and outside the urban area) 'regulated`by the City is zoned C/OS, according to the SLO zoning map of 13 Oct 2005. Thus, the amount of cumulative residential development allowed can be considerable, causing both cumulative and indirect impacts (e.g. traffic, air pollution, loss of farmland, etc.) . This fact has not. 4 been addressed in the Initial Study for 10-2005 COSE »»»»»»»»»»»»»» 2. THE OLDER (1994 OSE) DEFINITION- OF OPEN-SPACE" IS SUPERIOR TO THE NEW (10-2005 COSE) •DEFINITION OF POLICY 8,21.2 Staff report (14 Dec 2005) at p. 2 states, ' "Section 8.21.2 of the Draft COSE defines open space. This definition closely follows Appendix A in' the OSE The Commission revised the definition slightly to- clarify its purposes and geographic area to which it could apply; however, the Commission was careful to maintain the intent of the current definition." PC Staff report 14 Dec 2005, p. 2. Appendix A of 1994 Open Space element (OSE) reads as ' follows: { Definition of open space. f "Open space is land or water are which remains in j a predominantly natural or undeveloped state_ Such s lands protect and preserve the community's natural and -.� historical resources,' define the urban boundary,. and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel or large tracts of land: Such lands may include farming and grazing; creeks, a' marshes, watershed, and floodplains; scenic resources, s' plant and animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas.' '1994 OSE ' at Appendix A. `'' Compare this to Section 8.21.2 of 16-2005 OWE.:, Policy 8.21.2. " . "Open space defined. Open space shall be defined as any land 'or water area that remains in a predominantly` natural or undeveloped state and which is geiierally •' - free of structures. Such lands protect and preserve ir 3 ofi( Trinidad,CO-Photos 121W2005 4:1'6 FN noo! man-mcsgday(uyahoo.com http://Us.f3l7-mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Msgld--969077607... - F 'o the community's natural and historical resources, ' define the urban boundary, and provide visual and ' physical relief from urban development. 'Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel such as a Small Wilderness Preservation Area, or large tracts. of land. Such lands may include: prime agricultural soils, range- and farmland; creeks, marshes, watershed and floodplains; scenic resources; plant 4.. and animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas. Agriculture is generally open land where there has been a history of agricultural cultivation or keeping of livestock, which remains generally open and y.. . '� in such use." 10-2005 COSE, Policy 8.21.2. COMMENTS of Michael Sullivan The older (199,4) definition is superior to thee. .' proposed new (10-2005) definition of Policy 8-21.2. The information below (Topic 1 and Topic 2) explains why. **TOPIC 1 - Open 'Space definitions 1994 OSE definition of Open Space (OS) la - Gives clear language that points out that- ' recreational uses (ball fields, swim pools, golf courses, etc) are not classified as OS. lb - Gives 'useful examples of types (categories) of open space and suggests kinds of uses that could occur in those categories. For example: The 1994 'OSE mentions one type of OS lands useful for production -of' food, fiber and specialty products (such as flowers and mushrooms), areas required for recharge. of groundwater basins; and areas containing major iumineral deposits. The newer (10-2005 COSE) language'.is less.'' - informative and less precise. 10-2005 definition of Open Space (OS) la - Does not specify whether or not recreational uses '. (ball fields, swim pools • golf courses, etc..) are OS.,..' lb - Has only sparse language about. types of OS and. the kinds of uses that could occur there. For example: 10-2005 COSE mentions "prime agricultural soils, range- and farmland" but not the other uses that had been given in 1991 OSE such:as recharge of groundwater basins, mineral deposits; etc..; ' Summary comments on TOPIC 1, above (open space definitions) : " - The newer (I0-2005 COSE) language is less informative and less precise. **TOPIC 2 - Internal inconsistencies. in 10=2005 COSE regarding Open Space definition oc 1994 OSE definition of Open 'Space (OS) . 2a'- The 1994 OSE'does not have .the phrase ."generally free of structures" in the general'definition o£'OS, 10-2005 definition of Open Space (OS) 10-2005 definition of Open Space '(OS) 2a - The 10-2005 COSE has the phrase "and i&ich rs generally free of structures." (8.21.2) This fits with the State definition .of OS ,(Govt code .65560 "Open space land is.. . . essentially un' roved...:".; ) . Trinidad,CO-Photos 12/14)2005 4:16 PERI z a } However, this general definition (8:21.2) is inconsistent with Policy 8.24.1, which allows for home i sites (by right) and commercial uses (such as the sale of ag products produced on-site) with approval by Council. Both home sites and commercial uses involve 3` structures. Potential residential improvements such as J{ roads, driveways, dwellings, garages, parking areas, outbuildings, swimming pools, fences or walls, decks, storage buildings, etc. or commercial structures allowed by.Council approval in C/OS zones) and this would be inconsistent with the State definition of open space as "essentially unimproved" and inconsistent with the 8.21.2 definition of open space as "generally free of structures." Summary comments on TOPIC 2, above (internal ° inconsistencies in open space definition) : The definitions of open space are internally inconsistent in the 10-2005 .COSE. While one ` definition states that OS is "generally free of - structures" (8.21.2) , ,another section (8.24.1) .ailows . home sites by right and commercial uses by -Council ! approval. Such uses (residences, commercial uses) do , ` not fit the definition of "generally free of } structures." »»»»»»»»»»»»»> 3. PROPOSED '10-2005 COSE IS SIGNIFICANTLY INFERIOR TO, 1994 OSE IN TERMS OF (A) EASE.OF USE, (B) ' COMPREHENSIVENESS OF POLICIES, (C) DETAIL AND SPECIFICITY OF POLICY DIRECTION: The organization of the older (1994) Open.Space element was far superior to the organization'cr`the'' proposed 10-2005 COSE. The 1994 OSE (Chapter II) had distinct policies in five major categories: (1) General goals, policies, programs for open space (Chap. II) (2) Policies within the Urban Reserve Line and the . , City Limit Line (Chap. II - Resources and areas to be protected) (a) General goals and policies (b) Goals,„policies, programs in issue caCegories' A-L, below. _ r (3) .Policies within the Greenbelt and the! Oute` Planning Area (Chap. II - 'Resources and.areas to be protected)' (a) General goals an policies (b) Goals', policies and programs in issue.'categories `' A-L, below. . Issue. categories { A. Hills and.mountains G B. Creeks C. Wet areas D. Grassland communities E. Plants and"animals i F. Hazard areas ' G. Cultural resources H. Mineral resources I. Agricultural lands 5,0 Trinidad,CO.-Photos. 12114/2005 4:16 PM aa,U: Man-Ui;brUdY wyauuU.wm http://us.1317.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowL.etter9Msgld--969077607... J. Scenic resources -� K. Outdoor recreation L. Urban edge a (4) Policies regarding uses on City owned or managed :j open space lands (Chap. III - Management of open space : # and greenbelt areas by the city) Y ? (a) General policies (b) Policies regarding uses on City owned or managed y , open space lands (c) Policies regarding law enforcement and e maintenance a (d) Policies for new developmentadjacent to open. I space lands (5) Goals, policies . and g implementation - � •� programs for {{{ (Chap. IV - Implementation mechanisms) . Comments of Michael Sullivan -' The older (19 94 OSE) element organization-wai far superior to the proposed (10-2005 COSE) organisation. Using the organization outline in the 19'94 OSE, ' it is simple to determine the policies pertinent to any situation. Example: What. if I want to know `the .: ` open space policies for agricultural iands .both inside: and outside the urban reserve area? In the i994 this information is given in Chap:, iI, ' Section I: The : 1994 OSE also gives helpful information about policies •.: r contained in other General Plan elements. Implementation programs are also given in this ° section. But in the newer version (10-2005 COSE), agriculture. is riot specified in the table of.,contents. If I turn to the Open Space chapter and look foi- - agricultural open space policies, I find one.broad ' policy for open space outside the urban area '(8.21.1 - Open space preserved) and one mention of agriculture ' inside the urban area (Goal 8.22 and policy 8.22.1) ,. No implementation measures are listed under the policies. If I read further, I discover some other, agricultural policies hidden within other policies For example, an ag buffer policy is mentioned 'in:'.' policy 8.22.2 (open space buffers), agric4lt4ea1'-` commercial uses are found in policy 8.24.1 (open: space f uses), conversion of ag open space land is'mentioned '> in policy 8.25.1 (loss of open space), required mitigation for loss of agricultural land is.Pouridin policy 8.25.3 (required mitigation) . If I want 'to find the implementation measures related to agricultural open space, I have to' 'Sift through 12 randomly arranged implementation measures within Program 8.30.1 (protect open. space kesources). y and 12 additional implementation measures : in Pii�3cy 8.30.2, (enhance and restore open space.);, :Readin ' through all of these, I discover three, 'generdl and. vague implementation *me 'asures• -which.might `be related to agricultural open space:" (However, `there`is no mention of other General Plan elements which may'-also contain policies related to agricultural open space,p Trinidad,CO'-Photos 12/14/2005 4:16 PM` v. I I .. - AZT- .- � •VVI.. JY t Weak and vague implementation measures for ag open =' space in 10-2005 COSE: 8.30.1 (protect open space resources) (B) - Promote open space protection by annexing and applying city Conservation and Open Space (C/OS) and Agriculture zoning to private property. .. al.< (H) - Encourage sustainable agricultural practices.. . . (What is sustainability? (A broad definition is given- in ivesin the glossary, but what does it specifically mean?) Who does the encouraging? How is it done? Are there any incentives? What if a farmer doesn't 'want to use sustainable practices.. . . are there any penalties? These are unknowns.) Y'. 1 v,. 8.30.2 (enhance and restore open space) (J) .. .. adopt conservation plans for open .space'areas' under City easement or fee ownership. .. (a-general, policy, possibly valid also for agricultural lands)_ In contrast to the vague agricultural implementation programs of the 10-2005 COSEC the 1994 OSE had specific implementation programs such as tax : programs that favor farmers, low interest loans 'for . agricultural operations, identification of ag larrds threatened with urbanization, and an agricultural, land impact mitigation fee process. (1994 OSE at p.'.85 .1'n Chap II, Sec. I) The 'older document had a useful VISION STAtMiENi that clearly and explicitly explains. the ultimate' . ; objectives of the open space plan. The newer docuibent W. lacks a useful vision statement for open space•. The newer document does contain the Ahwahnee Principles but these are so vague and broad as to.be almost meaningless in relation to conservation and ". open space. Some of the Ahwahnee Principles, do.uot' r have a clear relationship to open space or conservation. For example, principles.may-;deal waah economic factors (principle 5 - provide a range of, job: types), or urban design guidelines (principle 9 - public spaces should be designed- to encourage the . . =' attention and presence of people at all hdura. of the s`' k day and night), or other concerns irrelevant:to conservation and open space. The older document gives clearer directiari and specificity, while the newer version is mare .vague and generalized. For example, in the older document (Chap. II) there were -30 major issue-specific pglscies (and many more policy sub-sections) for opi-a spade: within the urban area. In contrast, in the newer, . document in the section (8.22) for open space' Withui the urban area there are only two main policiez, ..: 8.22.1 (general kinds of open space areas within tfiet y urban area to be protected) and 8:22.2 (open- --space-buffers) . - The older document follows-a superior logical organization in which:goatls-„ ;policies and amplementa measures;ar8'grquped.togedrer.” In contrast, the newer docamient.�-put# all,the implementation riis eaures at together 'a£ the end,-of chapter in a haphazard 'and confusing ioanner. .:' Irk this newer scheme,: one does now know.:which- implemeatatioa To/ Trinidad,CO-Photos 12/14/2005 4:16 PM hoo!Mail-mcsgday@yahoo.com http://us_f3l7.mail.yahoo_pom/ym/ShowLetter?Msgld--9690.77607_. !> s ^T^ measures belong with which policies, or even if a policy has any implementation measures. y The older document has a useful section called How to Use this Document. The newer document has no such information. It is a guessing game. In summary,, the older .(1994 OSE) document was far K superior in terms of organization and ease of use. It also provided policies and programs which were more comprehensive and more detailed and specific in JL1 direction, thereby giving stronger open space protection than the newer (10-2005 COSE) document. OVERALL SUMMARY The proposed Draft COSE has many flaws and Y)l weaknesses. It is not legally adequate. Its environmental review (Initial Study)• is based on false statements that assert that there no significant changes in the proposed, General Plan amendments, but actually the, new language either weaken's or deletes the older language. in numerous instances The in£drmation in the staff report does not give a clear' picture of comparisons between old and new language in ( Gomparison .of the existing and proposed General Plari.- The proposed implementation programs are weak and poorly laid out and poorly organized. The City can do a much better job. Please improve our Conservation and Open Space element before sending, it to City Council. Please allow time to,further review and more carefully . consider and refine -this major General Plan' amefidment• . which will be with,.us for years to come. If we don t: get it right now, we are acting irresponsibly. Michael- C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St. San. Luis Obispo, 'CA 93405 (805) 545=9614 . (home) mcsgday@Yahoo.com s. Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protectioh:'around; ' http://mail.Yahoo.com -_ PreitWuSL 1 Next Bade to''Rtessaaes 5aYie Atessace Text butt Header _ HMO MI]AW Ttiuidad,CO-Photos 12114/20054:16P . To City of San Luis Obispo fr( lichael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission :ng of 18 Jan 2006- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/comolidation of Conservation and Open Space elemems of General Plan. Page 1 of 5 18 Jan 2006 To: City of San Luis Obispo, CA- including Planning Commission and City Council From: Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614 SUBJECT: Planning Commission hearing of 18 Jan 2006-Public hearing, agenda item 17 Citywide. - Citvwide. GPA and ER 149-98. Review the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including, amendments to the Land Use, Safety,Housing, Circulation,Parks and Recreation, and Water and Wastewater elements of the General Plan. (continued from 14 Dec 2005). Abbreviations CEQA- California Environmental Quality Act 10-2005 COSE-Conservation and Open Space element(draft)of Oct 2005 ER-Environmental review GPA-General Plan amendment 1994 OSE- Open Space element(Jan 1994) PC-Planning Commission of City of SLO SLO-San Luis Obispo 1. Staff report(for 18 Jan 2006 PC hearing) states that the Director(of Community Development Department)granted a negative declaration for the revised Draft on October 28,2005. This is apparently a response to the changes in the draft Conservation I Open Space element(COSE)that have occurred since the earlier environmental determination of 15 April 2002. Because the final.. COSE approved by the Planning Commission will have substantial changes compared to the October 2005 draft COSE,the City must prepare a new Initial Study related to the final draft COSE version that is to be analyzed by the City Council.`:The.environniental determination for a "Negative Declaration"is inconsistent with CEQA because many of the older policies for Open- Space pen Space protection and Conservation have been weakened or deleted in the proposed amendments;' thereby creating potential significant environmental impacts. I have given examples of such cases. herein and in earlier correspondence to the City and Planning Commission,for example m November and December 2005. 2. PC staff report for 18 Jan 2006 at page 3, General Plan Amendments,states that the Planning.._.. Commission(PC) "should complete the LUE amendments tonight and..complete minor amendments. to the Parks and Recreation, Safety and Water and Wastewater elements." In addition;tie Planning Commission should undertake a diligent analysis of proposed changes in the Open Space element of the General Plan and compare these proposed changes to existing General Plan goals,policies,and . programs to ensure that the proposed amendments do not weaken or delete important existing goals, policies and programs. CLAD00 7 76 To City of San Luis Obispo from i.,.-nael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing of 18 Jan 2006- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 2 of 5 3. The following comments refer to the PC staff report for 18 Jan 2006, COSE "City Council Hearing Draft March 2006" 8.15 Understanding open space "3. Lands designated as "Interim Open Space" in the general Plan Land Use Element Map. These are lands to be kept open for an indefinite period until constraints(such as flooding or access)can be resolved and urban development or Open Space designation is appropriate." (Staff report 18 Jan 2006 p. 40 top) Comment: All of the open space lands inside the city that have been designated for open space use in the city's General Plan are zoned"C/OS." (See City of SLO Zoning Map, 13 Oct 2005) The Conservation/Open Space(C/OS)zoning states, "It(C/OS zone)will be applied as a permanent zone to areas designated"open space" or"park" on the general plan map. It may also be applied to areas designated "interim open space" where development is contingent on prerequisites identified in the general plan text. (Ord. 941-1(part), 1982:prior code- 9203.5(A))" City of SLO zoning ordinance of 24 Jun 2004 Chap. 17.32, Conservation/Open Space(C/OS)Zone. The language in paragraph 3 of 8.15 states that "Interim Open Space" lands are to be kept open for an indefinite period until constraints(such as flooding or access)can be resolved and urban development or Ope4n Space designation is appropriate." However, in the recent past(1999-2000) in certain areas(e.g. Froom Ranch)the C/OS zoning has been used inappropriately for pre-zoning of lands ah-eady designated Commercial Retail(C-R)in the General Plan. As discussed by me in. earlier letters to this Planning Commission, such pre-zoning is illegal because of conflicts with state law. It is also probably illegal because it is inconsistent with the intention of the Interim Open Space designation in the General Plan land use map. Interim Open Space applies to certain lands that have environmental constraints which must be resolved prior to redesignation to an urban land use. Such was not the case at Froom Ranch. There were no significant environmental constraints at Froom Ranch,and Froom Ranch had already been designated for commercial use in the 1994 Land Use element of the City's General Plan. Thus,the C/OS interim pre-zoning of Froom Ranch was inappropriate. There was never any intention to have the Froom Ranch kept open"for an indefinite period" as paragraph 3 of 8,15 suggests. In'fact,the use of C/OS pre-zoning was a charade used by the City to allow a quicker annexation. By pre-zoning to C/OS,the environmental and infrastructure review required by LAFCO could bemade moot,because C/OS zonmi g generally. means that no urban development would be allowed. The meaning of"interim open space"was also given in the latest(Sep 2004)Land Use element '"Interim 9pen Space is a land-use category for areas-which may be suitable for development someday but which should be kept open until certain constraints to development are overcome:" City of SLO,Land Use element of General Plan, Sep 2004,at p. 91. The Froom Ranch,with interim C/OS pre-zoning,was not waiting for development"some day." The City changed the zoning designation to Commercial Retail. immediately after annexation The zoning ordinance must be'consistent with the General Plan. If the City's interpretation of Zoning Ordinance Chap. 17.32.010.(Purpose and application of C/OS zone), part C.has been at odds with the concept of"interim'open space"then the.city's Historical practice of improper pre= zoning to C/OS for lands not intended for open space must be abandoned, or the Zoning Ordinance must be amended,or both. To City of San Luis Obispo,—.a Michael Sullivan-RE Planning Commissic.__caring of 18 Jan 2006- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 3 of 5 "Goal 8.22: Open space within the urban area. Within the urban area, the City will secure and maintain a diverse network of open land encompassing particularly valuable natural and agricultural resources, connected with the landscape around the urban area. Particularly valuable resources are: H. Economically feasible farmland and prime agricultural soils (Appendix D)." This language is a significant weakeningof f the protective policies of the 1994 Open Space element. (a) 'The new language uses the term "economically feasible farmland and prime agricultural soils (Appendix D)_" Appendix D is a map of prime agricultural soils. It includes properties such as the Dalidio and "Gap"properties between Madonna Rd., Los Osos Valley Rd.,and U.S. 101. Who determines what is economically feasible? This new language("economically feasible") seems to be a conditional phrase that lets any owner of agricultural land change to a more intense urban use b3'claiming that agriculture has become infeasible. Language in 1994 Open Space element: Within the Urban Reserve Line and the City Limit Line, "1. The City should: A. When the remaining unincorporated area bounded by Los Osos Valley Road;Madonna Road, and Highway 101 is annexed to the City(see site#12, Site Map): 1. Preserve as agriculture the southern portion of the Dalidio property,and the northern portions of the McBride and Madonna properties(all designatedopen space by the LUE Map),- 2. ap);2. Preserve as open space(A)Prefumo Creek and associated creek setback area, and(B)the portion of the Dalidio property utilized by herons and other unique resources or sensitive habitat; and Staff comment(14 Dec 2005 PC staff report attachment): Covered more.specifically by LU 1.13.5 and the LUE Map. Comment of Michael Sullivan: LUE(Sep 2004) policy 1.13.5 states, "E. Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101,Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road)shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one-half of each.ownership that is to be preserved as open space." This requirement clearly pertains to the amount of open space protection at the site. However,the City has recently taken a different.approach,by allowing significantly less than 50 % (about 42%)of dedicated on-site apen space in the Dalidio Marketplace plan of 2004. Some off- site open space(m easements)was proposed,but still the amount of-on-site open space land at the Dalidio site would have been inconsistent with the"approximately 500/o".as required by LUE 1.13.5. In addition,LUE 1.13.5 does not include the language for protection of Prefumo Creek, heron habitat and other unique resources as the old.1994.language did;above,in paragraph I This is a lower level of protection than envisioned by the 1994.Open Space.element. To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-RE Planning Commission hearing of IS Jan 2006- ER/GPA 149-99. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Pian. Page 4 of 5 3. Consider a transfer of commercial development potential from the Dalidio site's commercial area to the Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Plaza sites. Such a program could(A) form one viable shopping center versus three largely independent centers, and(B)allow additional prime farmland to be preserved as agriculture." 1994 Open Space element at p. 65. Staff comment(14 Dec 2005 PC staff report attachment): Paragraph 3 (above)- "To be deleted. The neighboring shopping centers have been and are being redeveloped without transfers of development credit." Comment by Michael Sullivan 18 Jan 2006: Staffs comments ignore the alternative 7.6 (incorporation of the commercial component into the San Luis Obispo Promenade Shopping Center) given in the April 2004 Final EIR for"Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace annexation and development project" This alternative(proposed after the Promenade shopping was already developed)stated that the 635,000 square feet of commercial area proposed at the Dalidio site(but not the business park)would be added to the adjacent Promenade shopping center with additional stores and parking structures. "This would have preserved 109 acres of agriculturally productive land at the Dalidio property and would not result in the loss of soils determined to be of statewide importance. .Also,this alternative is consistent with Open Space element policy 10.2.1C,which recommends consideration of the transfer of commercial development potential from the project site to the San Luis Obispo Promenade shopping center. Therefore,this alternative is considered superior to the proposed(Dalidio Marketplace)project from an agricultural resources perspective." Dalidio/Marketplace final EIR April 2004,at p. 7-19. Thus,this important open space policy of 1994(transfer of development credit for the Dalidio site to.Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Plaza sites),is excluded,based on the faulty assumption of city staff(planners) that such a protective policy is somehow infeasible. This is one example of how the newer(Oct 2005) Open Space policies are weaker than the old ones of 1994. "B. Work with Cal Poly to determine if the Orchard area should be preserved as agricultural land and as an entry into the City(see site#13, Site Map.) If appropriate, examine the possibility of a transfer of development credit between the Orchard area and the Dalidio open space area.". 1994 Open Space element at p. 65. 8.22.2. Open Space buffers. (Staff report 18'Jan 2006, p. 43 bottom) Policy 8.22.2(PC staff report 18 Jan 2006)states that buffers "provide distance in form of setbacks,within which certain•features or activities are not allowed or conditionally allowed. .....Buffers shall be adequate for the most sensitive species'in the protected area and shall complement the protected area`s habitat values." This implies that there must be some discretion based on biological studies and the recommendations of experts concerning buffers,e.g. along creeks. It is not sufficient to simply rely on standard creek setbacks as given by the zoning ordinance, since buffer widths and creek setbacks may need to be greater,in some cases,that what is stipulated in the zoning ordinance. 3� -a¢ To City of San Luis Obispo L_.a Michael Sullivan-RE Planning Commissioi.-earing of 18.Jan 2006- ER/GPA 149-98. Update/consolidation of Conservation and Open Space elements of General Plan. Page 5 of 5 LUE Policy 1.9.1 - Clustering- Basis for Variation. (Staff report 18 Jan 2006 at p. 10 top) This section gives three conditions,A-C, for residential clusters. A fourth condition should address a requirement for adequate buffers between residences and open space. Or,a requirement for buffers could be used in LUE 1.9.4;Design Standards for Cluster Development 1.183 "Development review. The City shall consult with the Air Pollution Control District on all significant development." (Staff report 18 Jan 2006,p. 18 top). This has been deleted and not replaced with equivalent language in the new COSE draft. The APCD can provide significant advantages to control of air pollution by giving their expert advice in development review. Deletion of this requirement weakens existing air pollution policies in LUE 1.18.3. »»»»»»»»»» 18 Jan 2006? »»»»»»>Start here?? »»»> 6.13 Agriculture. "Agriculture is generally open land where there has been a history of agricultural cultivation or keeping of livestock,which remains generally open and in such use." (Staff report 18 Jan 2006,p.42 top) Staff should delete the last four words, "and in such use." The economic and agricultural potential of a site does not depend on whether it is presently used in agriculture. Rather,the agricultural potential depends on soils,topography,water availability;etc.regardless of the current land use situation. Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)545-9614(home) mcsgday@yahoo.com r February 24, 2003 Subject: Revision of the Land Use Element CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Chairperson Loh and Members of the Planning Commission, As former members of the Environmental Quality Task Force we are shocked to learn that many sections of the Land Use Element.are proposed to be deleted as part of an unannounced major revision to the plan. The problem seems to have begun with staWs request to Council that they approve the updating of the Conservation Element,which would incidentally also include"the consolidation"of some other elements into the new Conservation Element.Now we discover parts of the LUE are being"consolidated"out of existence. "Consolidating"implies that the consolidated elements will be joined together,that pieces will be moved from one volume to another,not rewritten or have their meanings changed Although the legislative draft is difficult to follow and not readily available to the public,it is apparent from it that two major things are happening to the LUE: 1. Important policies of the LUE are being deleted from it, and 2. None of the policies deleted from the LUE are being moved verbatim to the Conservation Element. Some,when moved,are being rewritten so as to be weakened or to have their meaning changed. Others are being thrown out altogether. Among those being thrown-out is the over-riding conservation land use policy establishing the status of resource-based land use planning as"co- equal"with other comrmrnity needs A LUE without this over-riding policy is but a shadow of our present LUE. -The adopted Land Use Element ofthe City's General Plan is the product ofL of great public involvement. There was very specific input from a City Council appointed Land Use Element Task Force,an Economic Task Force,and an Environmental Quality Task Force. This was capped off with multiple,very well attended town hall meetings and public hearings before both the Planning Commision and City Council. We strongly object to the process which asks you to support deletions to the adopted LUE without clear public notice that the LUE is being revised, without input from a City Task Force, and without readily understandable information as to what are the deletions and revisions to the existing LUE that are being proposed Ifthe LUE stays at it is, our objections to placing paraphrases of its policies in the Conservation Element are diminished Please leave the existing LUE intact. We also believe all land use policy belongs in the Land Use Element. It seems risky to delete certain land use policies,those deemed "conservation related"and placing paraphrases of the originals in an unrelated element, while leaving other hand use policies,those governing development,intact. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to support leaving the LUE as it is. Sincerely, micnara5cnmiat 5544-4247 W212113 011:16AM D1/13 r RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 February 20, 2003 VIA FAX CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Re: Conservation Element FEB 2 1 2�3 Dear Planning Commissioners: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Last fall I presented to you a long critique of the proposed Conservation Element. I am resubmitting that document now so that it can go out in your packets and you will have time to digest its principal concerns. In addition, this weekend I shall review the draft further, and prepare some additional comments. I remain steadfast in the key argument made last fall:. This is a radical rewrite and recomposition of the Land Use, Open Space and Energy Conservation elements, unsanctioned by the City Council, unadvertised to the public, conducted with.a bizarre "paper-saving" rationale that shuts the public at large out of even understanding what's happening. This secretive radical revision is a stealth staff attack on provisions of the General Plan that have been assembled over the past 25 years through painstaking public participation, This is an entirely improper way to proceed to effect such radical changes. The Commission needs to pull the plug on this process, and go back to the basic issue: how to revise the Conservation Element without destroying the entire General Plan. specifically request that the Commission adopt a "hands off.the LUE" stance. , A radical rewrite of the LUE has never been advertised nor authorized by the Council. Staff should not be permitted to launch a stealth radical attack on the crown jewel of the General Plan.entirely on its own initiative. Thank you for considering these.points, and good luck in your deliberations. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt ` 60 U1/IJ RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect 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 to reject this updated 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 memberof 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-today 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 an effete,:secondary,•exotic and easy-to-ignore;thing tucked away in a special element unlikely to be referenced except Conservation Element Comments,Page 2 GO Richad Schmidt Ir 544-4247 CW2/21/3 m 11:20 AM p 3113 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. I'll 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. Staffs 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 Revision of the LUE was never the advertised ptirpo of this undertaking, 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,l as a conscientious commissioner I requested copies of all general plan elements. I noted that one, the Conservation Element, was not among those provided. l 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 commission-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 3 rvu iau�auiuui Y,vmvG9/ A"Adzi13 1Y I Uzz AM Ll 4n4 rewritten and watered down, others have been entirely eliminated. This sleight-of-hand elimination of policies lacks legitimacy. 3. Staff had no mandate from the Council to tum the Land Use Element 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 knowing that"revising"the Conservation Element means the Open Space Element is about to disappear, 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.submit to you that it is illegifimate to dismantle the LUE, for example, through a back- room, aderoom, 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 other key elements of the general plan. In short.There are huge questions about the legitimacy of the difference between what staff has pmdu 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 legitimacy. It has been a deliberately closed and anti-democratic process 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 WE was deemed the proper place for these land use policies because that element is absolutely the backbone of the general plan, and since environmental Conservatton Element Comments,Page 4 RichardSchtmdt Ti 544-4247 CM2121/3 m11:23AM 05/13 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 constituent araups involved in creating the orioriginal documents were consulted I t orlon given a role. Those with legitimate "ownership" were dispossessed. The radical revisions to the elements were undertaken by staff working alone or in non-public negotiations with unnamed special interests. None of the impetus for rewriting came from the constituencies involved in creating the original elements. It Is simply wrong to design a "rel^cion° process that excludes the constifuencies who created adopted anni g policies that are bei nggliminatea or watered down On this ground alone, the Commission should reject this"update," 2. When members of the former Environmental Task Fortes caught wind of what was afoot,they Muested a meeting with staff. The EQTF members were concerned about.what they perceived to be a closed process designed to remove 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 environmentaf 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 LUE and be cross-referenced as existing in both elements. Such cross-referencing is common practice in numerous elements already—look at your general plan digestfor- evidence of this fact. 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 fime, 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`resuit. 3. That the revisions are entir _ly staff driven is dear even from some of the'side notes Conservation Element Comments,Page 5 ./ nu wiu,xunui -a J44-4L4! UWZ21/3 Q)1125 AM L15l13 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 aquipment to heat public ■rimming oI water that it make use of the methane from its sewage treatment plspt,and that it operate asmall-scale hydro werto 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 that created the original element was shut out. 4. Problems With Draft Distribution Format to Public. Then there's the issue of the city's mode of making this draft available to the public for comment To"conserve° paper, we are told, it was only made available in e-format! This raises many issues. A. E-format inhibits 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. The chosen format itself is not universally usable by computer users. Thusthe 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 the public Raper copies of this huge comple2L 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 it 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 Conservation Element Comments,Page 6 6D Richard Schmidt V544-4247 CW2/21/3 011:27 AM Q7/13 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 only copy of the legislative draft document available to the public 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 ! � mible to access or understand the document being acted upon. This appears to be a deliberate effort to limit public participation. Deliberate or not, the net effect is to limit public participation. Limiting public participation is no way to do public policy formulation. On grounds of lack of ready, comprehensible public access to the draft; the Commission should take no action to approve this draft document. Print copies of the entire legislative draft need to be made available to the public, and the fact of that available needs to be announced to the.public. 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 polices 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 Many of the new element'sr :.lr down or dismantle existing policy and documents that are the product of years of work by citizens, committees task forces: commissions and a broad comm 1nitTconsensus The changes overall represent a weakening of environmental protection in the General Plan. This is evident by a careful comparison of present and proposed policies. Since staff received no directive from Council toweaken ehvironmental prot ions, one hastoquestion why this has been done under the guise of a"neutral" revrision process, These are only a few examples of the policy weakening—and deletion--that's happening in the "revision," not an exhaustive listing. Conservation Element comments,Page 7 •-^•--••••••••-••• w .I+Tvcv YOIGIG UJ IYII.G7 HM UOI1J 1. Note first of all, that when you see a notation next to a deleted item in the legislative draft stating"Covered more generally by you are being told some ing is bein�a 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 beingstripped of its environmentalIno icie.s. 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 has been no public buy-in to the notion that the LUE needs or should be undergoing radical revision at this time. Nor has there been any public advertisement that the element is undergoing radical.revision --this is a stealth attack on the crown jewel of the General Plana 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 environmental.pn1action measures from the LUE is a major blunder One expects to find all land use noGcies in the LUF not to have to look for devebpment- endless confusion at beg the cily's en ironment more pmbaft, A few example observations: A. Environmental Priorities Co-Equal with Others. The most outrageous thing staff proposes in this entire°update"is eliminating what is arguably the most pqrtant statement of city-policy y intent to protect the enronment in the entire�Ceneral 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 strbng intent to protect its environment in the broadest and finest sen66,-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, this Airy must be Maintained in the This Is so central to everything:. Conservation Element Comments,Page 8 60—m a' Ficn2rdSchmWt 45444247 CW212113 011:30AM D9113 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 cifyand 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. This unique statement of policy is being scuttled. The replacement policy, OS1, concerns land outside the urban reserve. The related policy OS2 mentions land within the°urban area,'though it is not dear what that means. I can find no definition of"urban area." °Urban area'could mean dry, it could mean urban reserve, it could mean metropolitan stafrstical urban area Since the meaning is.indeterminate and arguable, this reworded provision probably means nothing at ail', 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"ich I can find in'the draft made available'to the public, so it is impossible for informed public participation to take place on such art important and essential policy discussion. (This points once again to th6:iundamentM flaws in the cit) 's genuine lack of effort to make the revision accessible to the public.) Suffice it to say, however, that in their vagueness, the replacement prime land policies are dearly 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 preservationpolicy. C. Overlay 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 zbd 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 Conservation Element Comments,Page 9 needs to be kept in the LUE verbatim as originally adopted by the Council at the encouragement of the EDTF. D. Creek Setbacks. Staff wants to delete 6.4.6 creek setback.% 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 those standards enacted by the Council, and it was.only with this policy in the WE that they were successful. Now, staff wants to eliminate the city policy basis for those 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 keen ones licy statements in �ct.so it's dear 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 passedl The courts would have no way to understand the rationale underlying a law when the courts are called upon to interpret the.-intention and. application of the law. The resulting chaos will undo years of progressive environmental public policy-making. 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 theyare written at present. There is no mandate from the Council or the-public for rewriting the WE by alteration or removal of these key policies. A stealth staff assault on the LUE is an improper way to-go about ; revising the element. 3. ThEnergy-Element is being eliminated — not only 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 t, Pyr Element gram 26 a directive to the AAC to make sure that riate projects are d fined for energy con anration 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 spedfic responsibility for carrying through on-it; it is also a policy that puts our city in the forefront of.good energy-conscious design. The side note explaining its destiny says"Covered more generally by Energy Program G" Conservation Element Comments,Page 10 Hichard Schmidt 1Q 544-4247 X2121/3 m 11:34 AM D11113 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 fess both in its level of directive about who is to be doing this, as well as in the sought-after outcome. Dere 'encouragement' in the new elemen,t is nonsense compared to the exiGt.na element's directive to get somethi_na dom it means nothing 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"educating' is very different from "requiring' actions to be taken through project review standards as the original Program 26 did. The same sort of watering down is proposed for the existing Energy Element's PM=rn 45, which speaks to development incentives for eicceotional energy self-suffi cv. 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'exoepfional eneigyself-suffrdency?" 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 ordnance. The energy seompletely deleted from the updated element despite the side note reference to its alleged incorporation in the apparently all-inclusive Program G of'the new element. As a result, energy self- sufficiency will cease to exist as a citylap nning goal And in an era when more than ever before energy elf-sufficiency is this deletion makes no sense at all So, a fundamental question arises: Why is the Energy Element being,gutted, and watered down to the point that its remnants are meaningless happyltalk? . 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 Enemy Element that kept faith with the Wirit and role of the in its time would make as ifs g foal designipg pnto o_ur city's built en«ronmenr_ '_ tic and vate, enerav standards.that exceed the low on instate law today_im as the original attempted to eXceed the minimal state stn ^tris of its o�vn d Please direct that energy policies be strengthened and expanded, not weakened. Conservation Element Comments,Page I t 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 tittle 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.) Now, staff wants to repeat the same mistake -- sticking the scenic roadway policies where they're out of sight, out of mind, and out of the way, 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. They need to be where they are constantly in view, so we may all remain aware that they exist. 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 conservation dement Comments,Page 12 na�aarnmiai V 544-4247 1$12/21/3 (D11:37 AM D13/13 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.) So-_I�ggyol{ just say 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 creating,a new Conservation Element.Any radical rewriting of established elements must be advertised as such, and not accomplished by stealth means. 'Sincerely,. Richard Schmidt - Conservation Element Comments,Page 13 Cs� - � 3 — _•• •��• wuwu.w tv IV.41 rive U 114 . RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 SAN OBISPO. December 12, 2005 O�j`I OF �U1S Via Fax s: Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Re: COSE Hearing `OPMENT Dear Commissioners: , �pMpIlUNlj`f pEVE. I am writing to urge you-to keepthe key introductory portions of the Resource Protection section of the Land Use Element intact and in the LUE— explicitly, the Introduction, and Policies and Programs 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4, 6.1. and 6.1.1. It would be very misguided and a planning mistake to delete or water down these provisions, and to remove them from the LUE. Here are some issues I'd urge you to consider:. 1. An Overarching Policy Statement 6.0.1 is.the overarching.statement of resourre protection in the entire General Plan. It states clearly and strongly that the city shall:give natural resource protection .co-equar status with all.other land use considerations. Without this very strong, proactive statement of policy, all the rest of your resource programs become weakened. The fuss over wording of subsidiary,issues becomes meaningless unless backed up by a strong overall statement. Without this strong *statement of purpose in the LUE,discussion about land use decisions becomes merely which developed use should be on the land. Natural resources,get left out of the discussion because they are no longer co-equal. 2. Legislative Rationale_ 6.0.1 provides a very strong statement of legislative intent which informs the rest of the General Plan, and its interpretation and implementation: Throughout this section (6.0.1, 6:0.2, 6:0.3;.6.0.4),.the existing LUE text provides further legislative intent and rationale. If this Intent is removed from the General Plan, what overall poiicy.directives will give shape to future decisions? In what philosophical context will decisions be made?Staff-would have you reduce this material to a few vague policies, which exist in a philosophical vacuum without any-overall expression sof their rationale. Such stand-alone policies are then subject to the interpretation of the moment, by the.individual doing the interpreting,whatever that might produce. The result is unlikely to be coherent, consistent planning;nor is it likely to-be planning inspired by an overall purpose or vision of the co-equality of resource protection Within the planning process. Good planning,just like good legal reasoning, depends to a jreat extent upon understaning the framework for a legislative statement. The existing text- provides ext provides a rich framework for understanding how decisions are to be made. It would be a,huge step backwards—and a step towardss planning chaos--to wipe the slate dean . Richard Schmidt 2544-4247 0981271% 010:42 PM D2/3. of the explicit expression of these understandings. 3. Land Use Policies Belong in the WE Sections 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4 of the WE are explicitly land use policies.The state Office of Planning and Research states that a coherent general plan groups functionally-related policies within a single element. To have some land use policies in the WE, and others in other elements(as staff proposes)would produce an incoherent and hard-to-use General Plan. Indeed, this is explicitly the type of thing the OPR warns against doing. How ironic staff wants you to do this in the name of"simplifying"the General Plan. Land use policies belong in the WE. Please leave them there. (A second danger is that by removing land use policy from the WE, which is the "king" chapter of the General Plan, to a subsidiary chapter, the policy will simply be ignored. It is a fact the COSE will not be consulted routinely for guidance, but only when conservation or open space issues are being explicitly considered, and perhaps not even then. During my entire 6 years on the Planning Commission, we never— not once —were guided by staff to consult the Conservation Element. When I wanted to see what was in said element, it took staff several months to find a copy they could photocopy for my examination. Removing key land use policies from the WE and placing them in the COSE is a good way to bury them from daily decision-making consideration. The Commission must understand that by so removing them, you are saying conservation- related land use policies don't matter as much as other land use policies. It was a desire to prevent such slighting of these policies that lead the Council to include them in the WE in the first place. They belong in the WE) 4. Overlay Mapping Produces Progressive Conservation Land Use and Has Never. . Been Implemented: Program 6.0.2 directs the city to do overlay mapping of resources within the city as well as its planning area. Program 6.0.3 directs the city to revise its WE in accordance with.protecting resources identified by means of the overlay mapping. Clearly, this.has never been done -- the WE has not been revised to protect, prime ag soils, it has not been revised to provide meaningful protection for wildlife corridors.at the city fringe or through it(for example;along creek.conidors and connected open lands): The daily development of this city continues in a pattern that obliterates the very places such overlay mapping was intended lo preserve. Staff's reaction to the failure to implement these land use policies is to claim they've been sufficiently implemented they can just go away, this, however, isnot the case. These policies still need to be implemented, and a statement that the WE should be amended to reflect resource protection belongs IN the WE, not someplace else. For.Commission's background, when the overlay mapping was proposed by the Environmental Quality Task Force(EQTF) as part of the 1994 WE revision, their recommendation was accompanied by a written "rationale"for the recommendation, which constitutes the legislative history of these provisions. That rationale explained to the Council, in part: `There is a scientific and objective way to approach resource-inclusive planning This •• •��• �aruiw lY Iu.W rm L]3/3 is the concept of overlay mapping pioneered by Ian McHarg thirty years ago. The idea is simple:resources are mapped individually, and then the maps are overlaid. The resulting overfay outline shows clearly areas that are important for their resources(or off-limits because of their constraints), as well as areas that are most appropriate for urban development EQTF recommends the City use this approach to Planning, and move ahead now with taking graphic inventory of its natural stock. . . TO TF believes that the present LUE land use map should be considered provisional and temporary, and that as soon as the overlay mapping. . . is complete, the LUE land use map should be revised accordingly." The City Council bought into this. Rationalizing the LUE map according to these principles, however, has never taken place. S. Honoring Bill Boalman. Much has been made of the memory of all Roalman and its relationship to the current COSE process. I will simply state the facts: Bill worked with the EQTF on its recommendations. He was an enthusiastic supporter and champion of the notion that resource protection stand on a co-equal basis when weighed against the wishes of developers and other planning considerations. This was his issue. To remove these provisions from a 'revision'dedicated to his memory would be most unfortunate and cynical. Please don't do that. In conclusion, I urge the Commission to maintain the integrity of these land use policies by maintaining them, as they exist, in the LUE. Sincerely, 4 Richard Schmidt BudgetmInmB rief 2005-07 Financial Plan Approved 2005-06 Budget The purpose of this "budget-in-brief"is to summarize goals at the very beginning of budget preparation. the City's 2005-07 Financial Pian by highlighting the Setting goals and priorities should drive the budget City's budget process, key budget features,major process, not follow it. - City goals and basic'budget facts.` If you have any questions about-the City's budget or would like a For this reason,the City began the 2005-07 Financial complete copy of the Financial Plan;please call us at Plan process with a series of in-depth workshops 781-7127 or visit our web site at www.slocity.org. where Council members considered candidate goals presented by community groups,Council advisory Purpose of the City's Two-Year Financial Plan bodies and interested individuals; reviewed the Citys. fiscal outlook for the next five years and the statust of The fundamental purpose of the City's Financial Plan current goals;presented their individual goals to is to rink what we want to fellow Council members; accomplish for the and then set and prioritized community with the goals for the next two resources necessary to do years. ' so. Our Financial Plan 2005-07. process does this by. Financial City staff then prepared the clearly setting major City plan Preliminary Financial Plan goals and other important " based on-this policy objectives;establishing - -- 1 guidance from the Council reasonable timeframes Approved A number of budget and organizational 2005-06 workshops and hearings responsibility for achieving Budget followed,resulting in final them;and then allocating "' t uget Council adoption of the the resources required for 2005-07 Financial Plan on implementation. June 21,2005. a This process results in a 9 Financial Plan Policies two-year budget document �. that emphasizes long 9 i - .� Formally articulated budget. range planning,budgeting i and fiscal policies proiride for results,effective the fundamental foundation program management and for preparing and fiscal accountability. While appropriations are still implementing the Financial Plan. Included in the made annually under this process,the Financial Plan Financial Plan itself,these policies cover a broad is the foundatibn for preparing the budget in the range of areas such as user fee cost recovery goals, second year. enterprise fund rates, investments,capital improvement management,capital financing and Major City Goals debt management, minimum fund balance and reserve levels, human resource management, Linking important objectives with necessary productivity and contracting for services. ' resources requires a process that identifies key Cly o S an tuls OBtS o N BUDGET FEATURES Budget balancing for 2005-07:Another tough act ® Budget cuts have forced the City to reduce to follow from two years ago. The City continues spending on infrastructure and facility upkeep by 50 to face a very difficult fiscal outlook. On the heels of percent. Unless we act,the City's infrastructure, closing a.$7 million General including parks, roads and storm Fund budget gap two years drains,will deteriorate. ago—and another$1.4 million Em-IF-1 N.-Imstrift last year—we were faced with • We have cut swom positions in the Revenue measure is viable,but a$2.1 million gap in 2005-07, Police Department,including in the with.caveats. Fortunately,given largely due to continued State high priority area of traffic enforcement. our tough fiscal situation,the May takeaways. . We do not have a full-time Fire 2005 analysis shows that a Marshal nor a permanent Training general-purpose sales tax ballot For the next two years,we Officer for our firefighters. In a full- measure of no more than %-cent have been successful in service city of our size,these should be in 2006 is viable. However,it also preparing a Financial Plan for full-time,regular positions. shows that its success depends 2005-07 that reasonably . We have suspended the upon an effective public balances the delivery of core "neighborhood"street paving program. information and community services with the resources In 2005-07,we will only be able to outreach program accompanied by available to us. complete limited arterial street repairs. strong fiscal accountability • We have virtually no City funding for provisions, such as a sunset However,achieving this flood protection or storm drain provision. balance required service maintenance projects. reductions in all areas of the . We have discontinued General . Accordingly, given the difficult. City's operations,including Fund support for the open space financial outlook facing us, we will public safety and basicacquisition program. be initiating a comprehensive infrastructure.maintenance Eke . We only have one Code public education and community street paving. Enforcement Officer. In a:City our size;', outreach program in 2005 06. this is inadequate to'addrew In the long run,we need to community conoems.such as building Budget balancing strategy, As : develop a stable new revenue violations,property maintenance and surfaced in.the becember 2004. . source,which will require voter other code matters,. - Forecast,the City faced a General. approval via a revenue ballot Public counter support is reduced in Fund budget gap in 2005-07 of measure. As discussed in May the Community Development $2.1 million annually. Our strategy 2005 when we presented the Department:the`front line"In customer in-closing this gap consisted of results of a revenue measure service. four key elements:using reserves; feasibility analysis to the We have reduced the amount offurther reducing the"maintenance- Council,the need to do so is cultural and social'service grant only"capital improvement plan driven by four key factors: funding available,even though the (Cl P);further reducing operating services provided by these groups help program costs and related service O The State.has taken$22 make our community a special place..,_ levels,including cutting over 12 million of our City revenue over positions;and Implementing the past 15 years,andselected new revenues as allowed continues to take$3 million from us each year to under Proposition 218. The following chart help balance the state budget This measure would summarises the role that each of these•elements give us more local control and keep local tax dollars played in the City's budget-balancing strategy. here to pay for essential services. Closing the General Fun_d Gap:$2.1 Milifoe ' © The City has been forced to use millions of enudollars from our emergency reserves to provide , t9Re2D% 4* J essential City services. Without additional funds,we ' o cip will no longer be able to provide important services, 3e% such as paving streets and upgrading the 100-year- ©deserves "' old storm drains. s% 72%, © Calls for fire and paramedic services have increased by 65% in the last decade. Unfortunately, without additional funding,our emergency services °Ope�'�'9 are unable to keep pace with this demand. Without 34% this measure,we will have to cut back emergency services even more. As reflected'above,expenditure reductions account for over 70%of thebu et balancing strategy. ..a . 2 MAJOR CITY GOALS The 2005-07 Financial Plan sets major City goals for the next two years and links them with the programs, projects and resources necessary to achieve them. Detailed work programs have been prepared for each of these goals, including the challenges we will face in achieving the goal,action plans and resource requirements. Infrastructure Open Space Preservation Maintenance Continue funding open t Continue to maintain _ space acquisition and the City infrastructure,such natural resources program; as roads,sidewalks, maintain and enhance water,sewer,storm open space,creeks and drainage and parks,at ,, : riparian habitat;and A moderate level. continue OSLO Stewards" program and collaboration with conservation organizations. �T��J Economic Development: Traffic S4Congestion Relief v�"� � Sales Tax and TOT Continue efforts to ■OBISP0 Revenues improve traffic flow, Encourage and promote safety and reduce projects and programs that traffic congestion will increase sales tax and throughout the City. , transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues.. F' Bikeway.. �*' Downtown Improvements Continue the City's . Continue efforts to traditionally strong support Improve bicycling in the for the downtown in ' .f r•" '< 'City, including, multiple areas,such as completion of,the maintenance, economic Railroad Safety Trail, development,public safety, Bob Jones City-to-Sea parking and tourism Trail and the Bill promotion,including Roalman Bicycle progress on the installation Boulevard. of pedestrian lighting,and other improvements as resources allow. Cooperative Use Lon Term of Sports Facilities Fiscal Health. �n 2•, Support the Joint Use y Continue developing and Committee in further implementing a long-tens redeveloping school plan that will deliver.. 4. district.sports facilities.. desired service levels, --adequately maintain existing infrastructure,and " facilities,and preserve the Citys tong term fiscal health. AVL V 3 BUDGET 200506 Budget By Funding Source: 2005-06 General Fund Budget: $74.3 Million $43.1 Million o.Dew Service ■ Capital 4%_ Projects `. L 6% _ 4. 0 Erdelp ise .9 t=1xldS 13 General ny .Q 38% 31 Fund OPeraen9 58% PrOgrdtrC 96% IN Other Funds 4% 2005-06 General Fund Operating Budget- 200506 General Fund Qperating Budget By Function:$38.0 Million By Type:$3"Million 13 General =6% jr 0 Other Operating 16% - 0 Gorton CostsPtbft '. Develop. ;3 + 12% ment Seely .' 13% (ice&: .l4 Contract r f Servicese 10% B Leisure. ;"'• . T D Statfug, Guttural& r .•) 78% , Services O Streets, 15% Sidewalks &Flood Protection 696 2005-07 Ma •r Capital Projects: All • ` 2005-0¢General Fund Revenues: Water System Improvements $5.3 $40.4 Million Wastewater System Improvements 9.8 Arterial Street Paving 1.9 G Revenues Other Downtown Paving. 02 G Service Los Osos Valley Road Paving Rehabilitation Ob Charges Intersection Improvements:Tank FarrrMlpwd 0.4,. 14% 6? f Sales rax.: . Traffic Signal Installations. 0.4 m Omer et%. Pedestrian&Bikewa lM rovemerrts .. 1.A - . razes '!n W1Ifrons 10% 2005-07 0 vLFNL F Public Safety 1swa7.Q 6% Public ljtilifies Transportation' 25 5 © Amy c5 Pmpeny. Leisure,Cultural&Social Servicos 28.0 Tax Users rax nor t7% • > Community Development 37.6 10% 10% - General Government- 54.9 Total Positions 341.8 4 . City of San. Luis Obispo Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project r Final A Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2003021089 Submitted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo,, CA"93401 I Apri12004: oc . I r. AIR POLLUTIOh - CONTROL, DISTRICT March 10, 2004 'COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY Of SAN LUIS OEISI'u City of San Luis Obispo Letter #3 EWR 2 � Community Development Department Attn: Pam Ricci,Senior Planner j 990 Palm Street I COMMUNITY DEVELOPUIENT .j San Luis Obispo;CA 93401-3249 SUDJECT: Dalidio/San tuis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Thank you for including the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)in the environmental review process. We have completed our inview of the pfdpo'se&projeet°1'ocated at the D96dio property in San Luis Obispo:We have the following comments on the proposal. First;°ive would Ir7ce to comaiend`the applicant bn theii analysis of the potential air impacts and the breadth of tiie-mitiga do measures'propose&"Tofentialy.l. ions from` )is Project, during both the const uctiorf and operation phase, greatly ekbeed the APCD's CEQA significance thresholds. As identified in the DMa wide vatiety of mitigation measures will need to be employed to duce'the poteriW airibipacts froni buildout'of11iis project: Additional mitigiitio measures and'eonvbfions-to the`text dthe DBIR sire detaifdd.'be1d*. The majority ora-&-iiiipac6 resutting'froar this,J'6cf*&be from vehicle emissions. The APCD is disappointed that housing will not be included with this projertt;wfiiich could have eliminated many vehicle trips.'While eve are aware of the restrictions placed on the project by the Airport Land i)se'Coissibri and aegotiatioYis lietRfeeli the City and the owner that have iresit W in th6 ce+of hi using'm tl s projedt,�'we'feel that' is'a critiicaZl opportunity that will be missed. This project tvi)1T result'm appraixiriiately 1,666 new jAb A=`'an area that already has an abundanceof'obs compared to workforce housing units. .This imbalance increases vehicle emissions' 'tr c>iry requiring workers to five in outside commuriities.and commute in to San Luis ObirSpii''fgr jbbs., 1hi loe ation'of tj is projek`send the inclusion o f`�obs and stropping,woir `1io sn`icaf opporttinity to meed=uso liousring ID 8 e "COmfnent` - 1 2-14 -Thepedestdih dir&latit5ii ei.bm 6ts included ifttheproject are difficult to Bete fie ed upon Mdesorkitiomand the maps provided: Adequate included to inpi'ove�the edestrian _ es i eiiittirs mvst'1ie c " environment and incrirase pedsttiari safety with the goal to rtedfice'iatemtil vehicle trips. We understand this will be addressed in the Pedestrian Circulation Plan to be submii dlo the City{AQ 4(c)),and encourage the applicant to include all Ci elements that make pedestrian use not od'y safe,but more inviting than driving. �i4diiitioni lly;redesigning the site to create more of a neighborhood scale development, clustering retail uses along Datidio Drive next to the existing shoppingairea,with street facing access and pa ddag in the rear,would encourage users to walk between the commercial/retail areas,rather than driving from one complex to thee:' 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX 80S-7814002 Info@s1odeana1r:M F wwwsiodeanairorg t5 Printed on recycled paper Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project ELR March 10, 2004 Page 2 of 4 ID Page Comment 2 4.3-1 In addition to carbon monoxide(CO),nitrogen oxides(NOx) and reactive organic gases(ROG), construction activities will release diesel combustion emissions such as diesel particulate matter(diesel PM),which has been classified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board(ARB), and is a significant concern for the APCD. 3 4.3-3 The San Luis Obispo County area was designated as attainmevt.with the state health based standard for oiorie by the ARB in January 2004. :Whfe this is a., monumental achievement for our area,we must continue to work to minimizes ozone precursor emissions.in Qrder to maintain,our healthy.air. The attainment status.of the Country is referenced many times in the Air.Quality section, and 7 should be updated throughout, 4 4.3-6, 4Q-1:As.mentioned in comment 2 above, construction activities will els release diesel PMemissions and should pe estimated.and.�valuatu inthis docun}ent. Screening level emission rates based upon the amount of material to be moved during site preparation are available in Table.6-2.of the.APCD's..CEQA i .Handtwok . 5 43-7 The duration of the project construction sl;ould1be.iadicated aitd quarterly ernission.estimates should be compared to`�V-M's.CEQA quarterly thresholds. Currently only maximum daily emissions aree:listedy. r 6 434 . .AQ-1(a) The<APCD agrees that DOCS or CI*I~s alioulte ted during project construatioi{.: The number of catalysfs Qr filt the equipment on which they should h installed wilifineed to b�'.d on a -cgpp lta#on Qiit .the bo..'.d .. �` t 2i ACD. The applicant must develog;a Diesel Basion Corot Plan'(D")for approval by the APCD prior to the start of 66 The I?ECP dill de W, the diesel.emission cpntrS?ls to be emploXed during prujOct will specify use-pf•DOPs,and.CDPPs. The APCP enCoutsgF.s slip applicant to complete Ons,-Plap aqd place the order foi tlae•regu}reT, OiCs and CDPEs as quickly as possible to avoid,any,unnecessgyproj.c delays'. •. r 7 43-l§ AQ-1(c)j Truck trip scheduling will be detailed in the Construction Activity : Management Plan,tb bq developed under AQ-1(b). 8 43-9.- AQ-1(o): If asbestos will be removed,from the s&ctures scheduled for demolition,:the:APCD mint be.notified. Com fah:Pubs ofthe District's ') Enforcement Division at 781-59L2 for more in 'oirriatin. 9 43-9 • AQ-1(p): Sandblasting or removal of gamt by,heating v, itk a heatgun can result in significant emissions of lead. Therefore,proper abatement pf lead before Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR March 10, 2004 Page 3 of 4 ID Page Comment 9 4.3-9 (Continued) demolition of these structures must be performed in order to prevent the release of lead from.the.site. Depending on removal method, a District,permit may be (CCW%}' required Contact David Dix6d tom the District's Engineering Division at 781-5912 for more information. Approval of a Lead Work Plan by the District is required and must be submitted ten days prior to the start of the demolition. Contact Tim Fuhs of the District's Enforcement Division at 781-5912 for more information. 10 43=9 if it&defeimn l that portable engines or portable equipment will be utilized doting pirojeet Sonstfi etion,California statewide portable equipment registration or Ai APCD pemnt may lie required. Contact David Dixon of the District's F,ngineering Tlivisian.at 781=5912 form it information: 11 43-11 AQ-2(a): Addiddiia'l b ditig energy efficientymeasures&A'should'be included are eaetgy efficient rriteaor lighting,high efficiency heating acid cooling, and the tA use of roofing material with a solar reflectance value thaf'ifieels the EPA/DDE Energy Star rating. Asite en1.ergy efficiency measure that should be included is the use of low energy Parking 1'ot lights. 12 43-11 An adequate amount of shade trees must also tie planted throughout the parking N lots to reduce evaporative emissions-from parked vehicles. 13 4.3-11 AQ-2(c):A park and ride lot was included as a mitigation measure in the l~EiR for the upcoming Costgq project on Los Ossos Va *A6ad..,An:additignal park and ride lot in oris ales is not I&ely to captufe a si aificaut number of commute trips, .'especially oo kdepng San�I.uis Obispo,as a regional`eaiploymeait tenter;receives more inboffid commute'trips thea it generates! This iait%gation should be removed to focus'efforts on the othertisted measures. The applicant must work with the APCD to'det0MIine`the`exact finandWi comributions and methodology for implementing the listed mitigation measures. The current rate for financial contributions to oMi et project emissions that cannot be mitigated on--site is $8,500/ton emissions greater than 25`ffisrday: 14 43-14 Tlie text states that rib`voluntary commute'options are included as mitigation measures for this project; however,mitigation AQ-4(b)includes the provision of vaapool services,rideshare matching services, and cash incentives for using alternative trinsporthhon,,all of which am.inclnded•in this category.Inadditiori the applicant or tehants association should'work with the 1661 Transportation Choices"Prograin(TCP)coalition to develop au employee trip reduction program designed to encourage the use of alternative transportation and eliminate commute trips. Further,Guaranteed Ride Home,'a service of Ride-On/ rtation, Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project ELR March 10, 2004 Page 4 of 4 ID Page Comment t 14 43-14 (Continued) F should be provided for employees who use alternative transportation. Contact SLO Rideshare for more information on TCP and Guaranteed Ride Home at 541-2277. 15 4.3-16 See comment 9. l None of the altemative*scenarios explored involved a mixed-use development with a reduction • commercial retail and inclusion of medium to high density workforce housing. This alternative would be environmentally.superior to the proposed project and could reduce employee commute trips and vehicle shopping trips if adequate amenities were provided to encourage residents to walk or like between the different land uses. As stated at the beginning of this letter, San Luis Obispo has a shortage of affordable workforce house,which requires workers to live in outside communities and drive into the area to work. Providing nearby housing units with this . development could help to minimize vehicle trips and the associated traffic and air emissions. The APCD recommends this alternative be explored further. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposaL If you have any questions or comments,or if you would like to receive an electronic version of this letter, feel free to contact meat 781-5912. Sincerely, , Heather Tomley Air Quality Specialist III HAT/lmg cc: Tim Fuhs,Enforcement Division David Dixon;-Engineering Division xbisipho�ponsd?A36 5doe .. . . . .. . _ I C70 Q� 46; 1 y� , DaGdio/San Luis Marketplace Annexa. .and Development Project EIR Final EIR Comments and Responses Letter 3 COMMENTOR: Heather Tomley,San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District(APCD) DATE: March 10,2004 RESPONSE Response 3A The commentof s summary of the Draft EIR air quality analysis is noted. It should be noted, however,that the applicant did not prepare or sponsor the air quality analysis in the EIR. Rather, this analysis was completed by Rincon Consultants,Inc under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo. Response 3B The commentor states opinions regarding the need for housing on the project site. Project alternatives that include housing on the site a�e included in Section 7.0,Alternatives,of the Draft EIR Refer to Response PC-39 and Section 5.0,Land Use,of the Draft EIR,for discussions of the, effect of the project on.regional jobs/housing.balance. Response 3C . The pedestrian.eomponents of the project are deserted throughout Section 2,0,Project Description, of the Draft EIR As notedbby the commenter,Mitigation Measure AQ-4(c).requires the applicant to prepare a Pedestrian Circulation Plan for the project. The commentor states theopinion that redesigning the site to a"neighborhood sole"would encourage pedestrian use of the project Increased pedestrian use of the project would generally offset a portion of projected vehicle use and associated air contaminant emissions.generated by the project Pedestrian circulation issues will be addressed as part of the Pedestrian Circulation Plan required to be prepared for the projecL Response 31) Combustion emissions,such.as>IVOx ani diesel particulate matter(diesel PK,-are most. significant when using large,diesel-fueled scrapers,loaders,dozers,haul trucks,compressors, generators and otherheavy equipment. According to SLQAPCD,depending on the construction site location and proximity to sensitive receptors,a project that generates high levels of construction emissions,including diesel PM,may iequire.apecialattentiore.and mitigation,and may need to perform a health risk assessment to evaluate short-term exposures to high pollutant concentrations. As described in Appendix D,Air Quality Modd Results, project demolition,grading,and construction would result in substantial:emissions of diesel., PM emissions. As stated in Impact AQ-1,_tate proposed project would generate temporary emissions during;grading activities and during Phase 2 demolition. ,Mitigatiork Wasures AQ-. 1(a-p),which require implementation of Best Available Control Technology(C$ACI)for .i:lRy of San Loll Ot�po CR-61 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Final EIR Comments and Responses diesel-fueled construction equipment, and other construction specification,would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Response 3E Page 4.3-3,fust full paragraph,has been revised as follows: "Federal air quality standards within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo APCD have been attained,while the County is in non-attainment for the state standards for,eeenearPM,6l The San Luis Obispo County area was designated as attainment for the state standard for ozone in , January 2004," j Page 4:34:firstfuII paragraph,has been revised as Mows.' y 'f E "As noted above,San Luis Obispo County is-in nonattainment regarding ezeneand PMio,but has I recently achieve attainment status regarding the state standard for ozone." Page 43-16,fifth full paragraph has been revised'as'fdUows "San Luis Obispo'Count�ail bas$ti iart'tiriuutiy-iii`non-atfailI ent for state'stand#4s for.e�e E aPA PKo,but has recently achieve attainaienf"statin re and g he state'standai�for'ozone. The proposed project,in combi:�iation with pending development elsewhere in the City of Sari Luis•Obispo planning area,could co�itnbute.to the cumulative degradatign of reiortal air : ''t' quality, Increases in.aubamobile c,resulting from General Plan buildout would cause increaaks m ozone piec�iisoi and` ''emissitins�In ad tion,caniu7ati�de ions ucEion=related F emissions would'coiitribute to the ciintulative exceedance oche state'" PMlo standard. Because the proposedproject wonyldinerenientaiiy add'to the ezoeedin&of i46e, sus this standard,,cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable." a ' Response 3F . . _ '. ...' ., st,•. . . Refer to Respoii`se 3D. + Response 3G t Although not anticipated for several years,the removal of on-site struct1.ures for development of ! the business Bark inssuated to occur overa"t&e tvdek'"nod:'Site gradi�Fig is assiuieil`tfS� reguimabout 6 wed4.16 coin�lete' Project cdnsItia ioriis ass ed tb regm a abo at'30'iiliynffist° to com Tete. 'I III' SLO"ANtb CEQA'Handliodk'states that construction emissions of'.2:5 G 0 tojis/quarter re'g1%i✓B cr. finis tHrhshiird would 6& -gtwi project moveg more Anja:i.53;;5U0 c.W yar'. -of mate nal:per"quarter- 'Based oit th&large aitiliiint of grading•ari&friTiri3`terial proposed oil tlte�si`te;it is'assirnied tii'at tliis't hcilel oufd tie'' ,.. exceeded `As'stateiflii Triipatt"AQ=4,`tke T WposeTd'project would genefa trirapfi'ra y etiiissions ,.. #;,.. during grading aciivit esand'durmg Phase'Mi iohtron:�`1Vlitigation dldeas�rres A04(a-'O; ; which requ re m'p-)f eritation of Best Avail�li `C�Orititi�l'�erhnology fit 'tor c�"ieseT ueledKl '" r tR. const hcfl&n do i11pmQRt';i3dd other COI15tflrC� d SSp2ClfiQtlOit,WCII�d^?ed t�Sl�ItpaCt tdSB' less than iigni c level: • . , is ..� _., - '.+ •IF'r .' • 'riF..`iY. . .. N' .. r� f ;, r a City of San Luis MISR ; CIT�2" Dafidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexab6h and Development Project EIR Final EIR Comments and Responses ResgMw 3H The commentor s concurrence with the requirement of mitigation measure AQ-1(a)to use diesel oxidation catalysts(DOC),catalyzed diesel particulate filters(CDPF)or other District approved emission reduction retrofit devices during construction is noted. Mitigation Measure A¢1(a),on page 4.3-7 of the Draft EIR,has been revised as follows: "AQ-1(a) The:applicant shall implement the following Best Available Control Technology(CBAC`l)for diesel-fueled construction equipment,where feasible: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications, • Fuel all off-road road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers,graders,cranes,loaders,scrapers, backhoes,generator sets, compressors,auxiliary power units, with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); . o Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment .meeting the ARB's 1996 or newer certification standard for off-roadireavy-duty diesel engines, o Install diesel oxidation-catalysts(DOC),catdayzed.diesel particulatefilters (CDPF)or other District approved emission reduction retrofit devices(the numberwf catalysts or.f ilters.required and the equipment on.w*Ich they- should heyshould,be installed-shall be.detennined in:consultation with APCD); ' • £Iecircf y equipment where feasible; • Develop and implement a Diesel Emission control Plan MECP)'that describes the diesel emission controls_to.beused during construction and ,'specifies the use of DOCS and CDPFs,in.consultation.with APCD prior to the start.cf-cTrstruction;- .. s • Substitute gasoline powered for diesel powered equipment,where feasible;.. • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible,such as. compressed natural gas (CNG),liquefied natural gas (LNG),propane,or biodiesel;and • Use equipment that has Caterpillar pre-chamber diesel engines; If any of the above CBACT's is considered infeasible,the applicant shall notify the Community.Development Department,by letter,and clearly state wap.any of,the measures of are considered.infeasible.:The Community ' Development.Department,in consultation with.the San Luis Obispo Cdgnty ._APCD would then make a final determination as to whether he'measare is ipfeasible.,, The commentor's.statement that truck trip scheduling will be detailed in the Constriction Activity Management Plan to be developed under mitigation measure AQ-1(b)is noted. City grSen Luis Oblgao CR-63 DaGdio/San Luis Marketplace A7mexation and Development Project EIR Final MR Comments and Responses Response 31 The commentoz's statement that APCD must be notified if asbestos is to be removed from structures.scheduled for demolition is noted. Response 3K As described in Mitigation Measure AQ-1(p),if during demolition of an on-site building,paint is J separated from the building material(e.g.chemically or physically),the paint waste will be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its.proper management. The commentoi's statement that an APC D permit may be required depending on the lead removal system is noted. Response 3L The commentor's statement that Califoria statewide portable equipment registration or an APCD permit may be required if it is determined that portable engines or portable equipment will be used during construction is noted. Response 3M Mitigation measure AQ-2(a),on page 4.3-11 of the Draft EER,has been revised as follows: "AQ-2(a) Increase building energy efficiency ratings byat least 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. Potential energy consumption reduction measures include,but are not limited to,increasing attic,wall,or floor insulation,the use of photaovoltaic•roof;tiles,installation of energy efficient windows,installation of energy efficient interior lighting,use of high efficiency heating and cooling,use roofing material with a solar reference value that meets the EPAIDOE Energy-Star rating,installation of low energy parking lot lights,and the use of R-45 insulation in the roof/attic space'of all on-site structures." f Response 3N J. Mitigation measure AQa(b),on page 4.3-11 of the Draft MR,has been revised as follows: I "AQ-2(b) Shade trees shall be planted to shade on-site structures to the greatest extent possible in summer;decreasirng indoor temperatures,and reducing energy demand for air conditioning.•Shade trees shall also be planted throughout the parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions>from parked vehicles. The landscape plan•shall be submitted to the San Luis Obispo APCD for review and comment. The City's Architiectural Review Commission(ARC)shall review project landscaping plans for consistency with this mitigatioo measure." �J City of San Luis Obispo ` CR-64 <. `Da6dim/San Luis Marketplace Anneuetion and Development Project EIR Final EIR Comments and Responses cam, y , .`.: Response 30 The 25-space shared use park and ride lot required in mitigation measure AQ-2(c)and AQ-4(b) would provide additional air contaminant emissions reductions regardless of separate park-and- 'ry ride lots in die project vicinity. Mitigation measure AQ-2(c)states that the applicantshall t implement the referenced financial measures in coordination with APCD. Rasponse 3P ` As stated in Section 4.3,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR,the project proponent has not specified:any. voluntary commute options(e.g.,employee ridesharing incentives,etc.)at this time. As noted by the commentor,voluntary commute options are encouraged by mitigation measure AQ4(b). Mitigation measure AQ4(b),on page 4.3-15 of the Draft.ER,R,has been revised as follows: "AQ-4(b) To reduce overall project trip generation and associated air contaminant L, emissions,project tenants silo}d will beregttired to-establish and maintain employee trip reduction programs that ee>dd will include,but are not limited to,the following elements: • Free or subsidized employee passes for SLO Transit; • Vanpool services provided by Ride-On Transit; ' Cash incentives for using�alternative travel modes;. A. Onsite rideshare,mabching.sezvioes; • On-site shower facilities•for bicycle users; 3x • Encourage Guaranteed Ride Home services for employees who use alternative transportation; • A minimum of 25 parking spaces to.be shared use as a public Park and Ride lot; • Posted.information on.alternative travel modes;and. • Preferential parking for employee carpools/vanpools(where feasible)." + Response 3Q Refer to Response 3K Response 3R The commentor suggests an additional alternative,involving a,mixed-use development with a reduction of commensal retail and inclusio of medium-to high density workforce:housing,be .evaluated.. .Refer to Response 7E regarding the selectionpf a„ fie of treasonable alternatives to the project Such an alternative would result in reduced.air quality.impacts,compared to the proposed project However,it likely would not:be feasible;.since it w. ould be potentially inconsistent with the 1973 Airport L.arid Use Plan(ALUPa._This is,becapse it would result in a high concentration of residents in overflight zones,where land uses are restricted. It may be infeasiblP from a land use policy consistency standpoint without the adoption of an ALUP- amendment. /`�J1 !8 of /,0 Ckp of San Luis Obispo CR-65 189 San Jose Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 544-3399 27 February 2 6 Mayor Dave Romero Vice Mayor John Ewan Councilman Allen Settle Councilman Paul Brown Councilwoman Christine Mulholland Honorable Mayor, and Members of the City Council, 3 or 4 years ago, I said I wouldn't come again to these Chambers because you folks never listen. Well, I hope you listen tonight because it has cost me much effort to read this DRAFT COSE document from the internet and to write this letter with my comments to a few parts of the draft. One of things I did not have time to do was go back to the original (1994) Open Space Element and the earlier Conservation Element to see what your staff has actually eliminated from those documents because, in their words, it is "no longer relevant, is redundant,or is unnecessary." As someone who helped formulate some of the content of the 1993, SE, and helped write the EQTF plan accepted by a previous Council (in the last Century!),I no longer have the time, temperament, or passion to pang with staff so I suppose it's only fair that staff would consider some of the work we did on the OSE and the EQTF as "unnecessary," "redundant" and"no longer relevant."In fact,I even have been told directly by one Council Member that it doesn't matter what we wrote in the past, or what was our intention then ... because it's all in the past! On p. 3,your staff expresses the view that a"key objective"of their effort has been to prepare"a document which is both comprehensive and enjoyable to read."I can assure you that it was not enjoyable to read! The main reason for this is that there are too many inconsistencies in what your staff has written! For example, on p. 2,they define the terms "shall"or"will"as being"mandatory,"whereas "should"means that"an action or procedure will be followed under normal circumstances." Furthermore„ "encourage,""promote," and"support"are "permissive: terms that indicate a "desirable, but not mandatory action." How then, for example, do we interpret: -on p. 7, "2.21.4. Promote walking;biking and use of public transit use(sic)to reduce dependency on motor vehicles."Followed.by: "City actions should seek to reduce dependency on gasoline-or diesel powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking,biking and public transit use."and, -on p. 8,that"the City...will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise."There are several other places where will is coupled with encourage or support,thus making a coupling of a mandatory with a non-mandatory directive! On pp.4-5 there is a discussion about the Council adopting the"Ahwahnee Principles,"and(the City)"intends to incorporate these"into"all future updates of the General Plan."Unfortunately, at any given point in time, the City's "General Plan" is whatever three Council Members decide it is. Thus, the intention here is not a mandatory "will"or"shall," and not even a"should,"but, at best, only a very weak "encourage,""promote,"or"support."In other words, it is a"desirable, but not mandatory action." So much for the well intentioned Ahwahnee Principles! Furthermore, if you look at the list of 15 Ahwahnee Principles,each from 1-11, and 13-15, use the word"should" as their hopeful intention. However, # 12 uses a weasel phrase to reduce an intended "should" when it states: "Wherever possible,the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts." I can just imagine how many times in the future a Council Member will defer to that phrase, "Wherever possible,"in shooting down a proposal to preserve any of the resources mentioned! My comments hereafter will apply mainly to portions of Chapter 7.0 and Chapter 8.0(et seq.) "7.0 Natural Communities."(p. 30) Under"7.10 Background,"the second sentence states: "Many of the physical requirements for natural communities are provided by open space"(emphasis mine). RX Comment: "Open Space"is a planning concept not an ecological term. Open space, recreation, view sheds, watersheds, soil; biodiversity, wildlife, etc„ are environmental "amenities" which people like to have nearby (as we do in SLO). However,while open space may contain "physical requirements," it does not provide them; open space is but one of the physical attributes in a range of environmental conditions which ecologists use to describe where an organism(not just an `animal') lives, i.e., its habitat. Also, staff uses the word `niche' incorrectly when it refers to it as an area "within this range."More correctly, habitat is where an organism lives; its niche is what it does, i.e., its job, in a specific habitat or collection of habitats (= ecosystem). Under"7.20 Goals and Policies." "Goal 7.21 Sustainable natural populations. The City will maintain and enhance conditions necessary to enable a species to become self-sustaining. Within the San Luis Obispo planning area, the City will seek to achieve self sustaining populations of the plants and wildlife that made up the natural communities in the area when urbanization began(italics mine)." RX Comment: First of all, are you not going to do this for"fish"also? Among professionals,the term "wildlife" does not usually convey"fishes." They usually use the term "fish and wildlife." RX Comment: Second,how will the City "maintain and enhance conditions"to make a species "self-sustaining?"Assuming that the Natural Resources Manager might know how to do this for (some?)plants, who within the City staff has the professional ability to do this for fish, or wildlife? Who on the City Staff has the knowledge about what were the populations of plants and animals "that made up the natural communities in the area when urbanization began?" i Under"Policies" "7.21.1. Protect Listed Species." "A. The City will identify the location, habitat and buffer needs of species listed for protection. This information will be developed by qualified people early in the planning and development review process (italics and emphasis mine)." RJK Comment: I am glad the City "will"do all this, but my Question is: "Who, on the City staff is qualified to do this? And shouldn't this more accuratelystate: "qualified professionals"rather than"qualified people?" "B. The City will establish and maintain records on the location of listed species." RJK Question: Will access to this information be granted to "qualified professionals?" "D. The City will protect listed species through its actions on: land-use designations; etc., etc., location, design, construction and maintenance of creeks, City roads and facilities." RJK Question; Is the City going to engage in the"construction._,of creeks?" "7.21.2. Species of Local Concern. The City will: "B. Identify the location, 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." RJK Question: Don't you mean"qualified professionals?" Where are all these "qualified people" coming from? In what way will they be "qualified?"Will they be able to develop this "information"early in the ...process?"Are these "qualified people" somehow going to appear out of thin air to make up for the loss of former City Biologist Michael Clarke? "E. "Protect sensitive habitat areas including creeks, from encroachment by livestock and human activities." RJK Comment: Protect...habitats; the word"areas" is redundant when used with the word habitat. & Question: Fencing is the only way to stop livestock encroachment. Is the City actually going to begin fencing creeks from livestock encroachment? If so,then why not state it as your intention? 7.21.3. Wildlife habitat and corridors. Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary,created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will: RJK Comment: I'm in favor of this mandatory language. However, staff language begins to waffle in the next section: "A. Require public and private developments,including public works projects, to evaluate animal species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors appropriate for wildlife. RJK Comment: This require developers only to evaluate species movements and then, to create appropriate habitats and corridors. Who on staff is qualified to determine what is "appropriate"for any animal species and whether the appropriate habitat and corridors, once created,are actually working? Question: How, in fact, will this noble effort be accomplished? "B. Plan for connectivity of open spaces and wildlife habitat and corridors using specific area plans, neighborhood plans, subdivision maps or other applicable planning processes, consistent with Open Space Guidelines." RX Comment: Oh, staff will "plan for"connectivity on various plans! "C. Coordinate with San Luis Obispo County and adjoining jurisdictions, federal and state agencies such as Caltrans to assure regional connectivity of open space and wildlife corridors." RJKComment: And, yes, we will"coordinate" with other agencies. RX Question: But how, in fact, will old habitats and corridors be preserved and new ones created? No actual procedure or process is detailed because there is no one person on staff who is, or will be, designated to actually preserve or create a new wildlife habitat or corridor! "D. Preserve and expand links between open spaces and creek corridors, as shown in Figure 3." RX Comment: On the City website,Figure 3 is incomplete. However, what is shown appears to indicate that huge blocks of property will be fenced or otherwise enclosed and the wildlife will be expected to use the space in existing rights-of-way along roads in order to get from one place to another. Is this a joke? What about crossing the roads? What about tunnels under the roads? The answer is not given in the following section either. "7.30.4. Protect wildlife corridors.Condition development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance to wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between sensitive habitat areas. RX Comment: What are the"applicable mitigation measures" that"ensure important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal?Where are these detailed in this plan?There appears to be no details of a realistic way to protect wildlife corridors in this plan! "Goal 7.22: Trees and other plants. Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species." Policies "7.22.1. Protection of significant trees. 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 8.25.3" RX Comment: Since willows are native species,especially in riparian habitats, they must make "significant contributions to natural habitat of the urban landscape." Thus,I assume, the City will no longer cut down willows in creek corridors above,below, or within City limits! Thank you. "7.30.1. Protect natural communities. 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:" "D. Develop and maintain current benchmark information on habitat types and conditions,and 1 the known and likely locations of listed species, population number and density estimates, limiting factors, environmental threats and other pertinent information for use in planning and environmental review." RX Question: This would be a tremendous repository and asset to citizens as well as developers. Which City Department, where, and who within it, is qualified to do all of this research on "population numbers and density estimates, limiting factors, environmental threats and other pertinent information?" On p. 37,the following diagram is shown: "Figure 4: Creek Corridor and Setbacks" However, on p. 76-77, the following definition is given: "Creek corridor is that area of the creek between physical top of bank on one side of the creek and physical top of bank on the other side of the creek,or the area between the outer edge of the riparian vegetation on one side of the creek to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation on the other side of the creek(whichever is greater)." RX Comment: OOPS! The diagram in Figure 4, p. 37,does not fit the definition, given on pp. 76-77! Rather, it shows the "Creek Corridor"extending only from the top of the bank(on the left side)to the edge of riparian vegetation (on the right side)of the creek! This is a narrower distance than is intended in the definition(i.e., whichever is greater")! If followed, it would give the developer or homeowner a precious incursion into the creek corridor. Furthermore, the diagram (as drawn) is technically incorrect. [It is also modified incorrectly when compared to the diagram of "Creek Sections"depicted in Fig 6 of the 1994 OSE!] On the right side,Figure 4 depicts a small built structure sitting on flat land. At the edge of the structure the profile of the land then slopes down to the top of bank. To my trained fisheries biologist eye, the very fact that the profile of the land-slopes down indicates that, at one time, perhaps in a 100- year flood, water flowed high enough to erode the land and make that sloped profile. Thus, the top of bank on the right side of this diagram should be not between the two trees but right at the place where the built structure ends! In fact, in my professional view, this diagram demonstrates the situation where the built structure shown is in violation of the current creek setback ordinance! Honorable members of the Council, at great expense to my personal health and comfort; I have spent almost 15 hours reading this document, critiquing it, and recording my comments herein. Unfortunately, I have only been able to sit and type my comments regarding the Introduction and Chapter 7.0. Natural Communities. I have not been able to sit and type long enough to record my comments for you regarding Chapter 8.0 Open Space(perhaps another 3 pages worth can be handed in later?). I present you this incomplete document as the best I can do at the present moment. I trust that others will have had sufficient time to cover comments on Chapter 8.0 that I might have made were I hysically able. Sincerely, Dr. Ric d ejsa, Fisheries Biologist& SLO Creek Watcher rni.�-u John Ewan _._.__.-._..___._.... ..__.._ _..__..______.__-.--_______�......____._.._ .... From: Carlyn Christianson [carlyn@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:50 AM ., To: John Ewan;Allen Settle; Christine Mulholland; Paul Brown; Dave Romero (?U- fh� Subject: Conservation &Open Space Element - Please do not reply to this email since I'm mailing you all at once. 1 I cannot attend tonights meeting due to a schedule conflict, although I think one or more Planning Commissioners will be in attendance. I am emailing because I was very disturbed to get an email from ECOSLO which made it appear as though the COSE that you will review tonight had little or no input from the community including ECOSLO and the Sierra Club, and weakens our city's policies and dedication to open space and conservation. I want to say that not only is the PC very grateful for the regular attendance and invaluable input.from ECOSLO reps (Jody Bennett) and the Sierra Club (forget his name) among other community members(including Jan Marx) during our many meetings on the COSE, but that we adopted almost all of the suggested language and changes they made. I'm having a hard time wondering what we left out, changed or didn't add that they don't like. There are two bigger items which are still being insisted upon by some of the die-hards, and that is that we not certify the EIR and that we recommend an Open Space Committee be appointed by the Council. The EIR is up to you at this point of course but the PC truly believes this COSE to be MUCH better and stronger, easier to use and certainly less bulky and more organized. A neg dec on the EIR is.appropriate. The Open Space Committee was considered by the PC but we did not feel that such a committee would truly be beneficial to the Council except to siphon off the environmental politicos so they could talk amongst themselves and feel useful—not exactly the community dialogue I would value but perhaps the political points would be worth it to you. The PC felt it wouldn't be valuable to the community at large. The current strategy by some of failing to appear at the early community dialogue stages and then stepping in during the final Council hearings on items in order to torpedo them as "not inclusive" or"not responsive"continues to strike me as the ultimate in bad politics, bad faith and bad ethics. am proud of the work we ended up doing on the COSE. I am retrospectively grateful that your Council insisted that the PC was the appropriate body to do that work, that we took it seriously and waded through it, and I urge you to of course review it carefully )ut also that you acknowledge the work that we have already done on yours and the community's behalf and not get dragged into [his unfortunate approach favored by a few naysayers. ks I said, please do not respond to this email. rhanks, Marlyn Christianson planning Commissioner ?/28/2006 c ` @pin i SIERRA Santa=Lucia Chapter CLUB P.0, Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 FOUNDED i 8 9 2 (805) 543,-8717 www.santalucia.sierraclub.org February 28, 2006 RE: Conservation and Open Space Element hearing draft Honorable Councilmembers: San Luis Obispo is an enlightened community, which has set aside areas where its wildlife and their habitat of forests, grasslands and creeks are protected. This community continues to be the envy of the county because you have had the wisdom to preserve the great natural beauty here; the Morros, the hillsides andgrasslands; agricultural and ranchland; the open space that runs through and around the community. The General Plan wisely and emphatically stated that the primary purpose of our open space lands is the. protection of wildlife and habitat, the farms and ranches, the scenic resources they contain. This protection is to be undertaken not only for ourselves, but so our grandchildren and their children will know the solace of having open space and wildlife close at hand. We commend the Planning Commission and the public for the work they did throughout this process to retain the protections for open space that were put in place in the 1994 Open Space Element. Most of the work that remains to be done comes under the heading of "things that fell through the cracks." To that end, we support Residents for Quality Neighborhoods in their recommendation for the addition of teat addressing neighborhood compatability impacts at Draft Policy 8.24.6, Passive recreation, and to delete Draft Policy 8.24.3 — Landform modifications in open space -- as it is both partially redundant and inconsistent with the complete text of the same policy in the Land Use Element. Also at 8.24.6, we recommend deleting "off-road" from the reference to "off-road bicycle use." As "off-road" can be too freely interpreted to mean "off-trail," simply "bic clin.," would be preferable here. The referenced Open Space Ordinance does the job o d efining precisely what kind. To improve the planning process and seal up the cracks through which things can fall, we also strongly endorse the creation by the Council of a standing Open Space Committee. r-AC IL ECDDDIR FIN DIR � AC d .� 2096 rFIRE CHIEFSL.) CITY CLE NEY 2 O DIR - - J /ORIG ld,POLICECHF 0 DEPT HEADS .EnEC DIR ,[UTIL DIR Oil San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce -a Z-1R DIR 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255 •TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO February 27, 2006 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo DATE,- 'TEM # 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Conservation and Open Space Element, Item PH 1, February 28,2006 Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has been closely involved in the Planning Commission hearings on the Conservation and Open Space Element. The Commission has been very diligent in its deliberations. It has received and responded to a wealth of input including that of our organization along with SLO Green Build, the AIA, ECOSLO and the Sierra Club. In many cases, the commission was able to incorporate into the document the community input received. A good example of the constructive process undertaken concerns the Energy section. Initially, the Planning Commission received testimony from Green Build, the AIA and the Chamber that differed in our view of LEED requirements to be included in the document (Sections 4.21.6 and 4.30.15). These groups were later able to meet together and form a consensus for a recommendation to the commission that will advance green building on the Central Coast in a way that is practical and will encourage the use of environmentally friendly design and construction. The commission appreciated the work that had gone in to these comments just as it responded favorably to input from the Siena Club and from ECOSLO. While we give our overall support to the draft that you have received from the Planning Commission, there is one point that we believe deserves reconsideration by you, the City Council. That is 4.30.17. Require Solar Power for New Dwellings. The requirement that within new residential projects of 20 or more dwelling units, 5% of the total number of dwellings shall be built with photovoltaic power may be workable in a single family development but it is problematic in a multi-family airspace condo project with a large number of units. The proposed Chinatown project, for example,would be one where appropriate roof spaces,etc. would be difficult to access for the 5% rule. For condominium projects, it would be more workable to use photovoltaic power for the common areas. email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com Please be assured that the document you have received from the Planning Commission has been thoroughly and openly discussed in great detail with considerable community input. The members of our organization, for example, found it important enough to form subcommittees that went over each section and provided comment as appropriate to the Planning Commission. The document that you have before you is a user-friendly element that protects our treasured open space and furthers the conservation of both energy and our natural resources. The concise, easier to use format makes it more likely that our community held values and standards will be adhered to. San Luis Obispo has much to be proud of in the areas of open space protection and energy conservation. The element presented to you tonight is one that furthers these goals and respects the values of the community. It provides guidelines that pro-actively preserve and enhance our unique quality of life by following wise principles of resource conservation and continued respect for our abundant open space. It protects what we have while looking toward doing more in the future. Some months ago, you gave the Planning Commission a task, that is, to present you with a Conservation and Open Space Element revision that addresses current issues in a concise, practical way while respecting the protections that are so important to all of us.The commission has accomplished that task and we request that you respect their diligent work by adopting a resolution that approves the negative declaration of environmental impact, adopts the Conservation and Open Space Element and amends the General Plan to maintain consistency with the new element. Sincerely, /} ;ja �Nry V rdin Chairperson of the Board cc: Ken Hampian, CAO, City of San Luis Obispo Jeff Hook, City Planning Department it .:r REDS 'E ME TING AGENDA City Council,February 28,2006: Item #1: DATPLR, ITEM #2!i( Jud Daft Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Dear Mayor and Council Your work and the deliberations of Planning Commission and the staff are highly appreciated Consolidation of General Plan Elements and bringing Energy and Green Building into the COSE is timely. As staff writes at the bottom of page 14,rearranging the whole General Plan"can be alarming". But it can be done if we proceed carefully step by step by taking the many proposals of the public before us tonight very seriously. We must build up high public cor�tdence for the process also in view of the revisions of other Elements. In my opinion one session will not do it. Although a member of the Chamber of Commerce and of ECOSLO, I only write as an individual about the below points where proposed changes to the Draft COSE are in bold Italics 1.Where do"scenic roadways" belong: into the Circulation Element(CE) or into COSE? Considerations 1.1 Logical location is the CE. In our CE(p. 37/38)there are two pages of very clear "Policies"and derived"Programs". Every transportation professional or student goes first into the CE and immediately sees that we have scenic roadways and how he has to deal with them. "A road is a road.is a.road". 1.2 Other agencies, e.g. Caltrans,have it where road engineers see it. Their"Highway Design Manual"has two pages under Topic 9 called"Scenic Values", in addition to chapters about bicycles and pedestrians. If we Have bicycles and pedestrians in our CE, why should scenic roads be"hidden" in the relatively unknown COSE? 1.3 More time for improvements is gained if scenic roadways remain unchanged in the CE for now. When the CE is revised we might add specifics for each scenic road link as done e.g. in the CE of Pismo Beach. Proposal: Leave the chapter"Scenic Roadways"where it is in the CE. (If this is not done at least there must be a hint in the CE where to find scenic roads now. The average road engineer does not think of ever looking at the COSE. In the COSE the word"scenic roads"is not even mentioned in any title. If the engineer takes a magnifying glass he finds these roads in the text under the blurred title"9.0 Views". If we want to amputate scenic roads out of the CE, we should at least change the COSE title to what it is on Figure 11,namely to"9.0 Scenic Roadways and Vistas". Unfortunately this chapter now is four pages long and mixes roads.with general landscape regulations in a very hard way to read for engineers and it loses its"bite' COUNCIL e2-CDD DIR IR $ACAO ;;FIRE CHIEF 1;-ATTORNEY e f PW DIR 1 F 2 8 2006 Ja'CLERK/ORIG 1p POLICE CHF FEBSLO CITY CLERK J!T 13 DEPT 2 REC DIR UTIL DIR ___Z!HR.O.IR , i 2. The original Scenic Roadways Map of the CE was changed by staff in a positive way Considerations 2.1 Two"Cones of View"(vista points)were added and more road links were designated as of"high scenic value" which shows staff's sensitivity to the issue. 2.2 At the public meeting of Supervisor Lentliall on Saturday,January 28, 2006, in the County Building, 80 percent of the public spoke in favor of preserving most of the greenery and the beautiful views along this stretch of road—and this was going on during the whole morning. 2.3 I often drive Hwy 1 coming from south towards the City's "Gateway"at LOVR. For me the real gateway is not south of LOVR where we nervously navigate through the curves between the hills and try to avoid confusing exit ramps but north of LOVR all the way to the Madonna Road bridge where we have 90 relaxing seconds of unobstructed view of the open space and the hills. Proposal. As shown in the attached map put the original vista point of the CE back to the location at the Dennys restaurant near Hwy 101 and designate Hwy 101 from LOUR to Madonna Road as of"high scenic value'. 3. Cultural Heritage: Demolitions and Native American Sites e Proposal.On page 1-119,the excellent paragraph 3.21.2 about demolition of significant buildings should contain specifics, especially where politically relevant. For example the Dalidio Farm buildings on Madonna Road should be protected On page 1-121, the excellent paragraph 3.22.8 about protection of Native American sites should specifically mention protection of the Native American site between the Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the South Hills which is heavily impacted by the planned four lane Prado Road (If I remember correctly, history Prof. Dan Krieger wrote a letter about this to Mr. Hook two years ago). 4:Missing implementation.plans for alternative transportation Proposal.On page 1-130,the good intentions of paragraphs 4.22.1 and 4.22.2 should more clearly refer to the full tent of the CE pages 12 to 16. Thank you for your consideration Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers 665 Leff Street, SLO 549 8185 J.. 2 f� 4 '� 4, � �• � a ,4.t �, r "d r"�� � r" �. t'Ip f{ t. �''��+�`4��r'{`•'Y 4+ ..��1-'` 0' �i p �,s ,jy,tr -M y,,r!• \` �.l`S .. �C ...'� ' �^7 y �7L. _1'i+�C, _ � .' t �,}J.���p r �(+• v re;Sl^�>9��u`r.\�`Wi7rh','�,7u r',. `;yi�l�,\,�n��lS(�"f7'• Yh 7�.�3p, +� �r.! �V a cr" "� ,�p�+ ""r N �a�' +C'�e'"x�"ytii♦Po'+^, C"'��,� Y x.141, ' =n ay1+ •M"�� . 4 r,.i - �w:� 4"� t• ` ,t e y�' �, s _M r t J Y li.t t}�.�+ r ra'-4, dam,;•�wt +, p, �" yt dwp...•` > kl.iiy;> �� Nin.AC'. � `• G"Y*T xi ry 1T t+'Y+R .\ V�yf�'ib "fir^X, �'A 'I�. r 'r`" ':. *�( \ I la/q� �a'���„ � ,��, �tx•`rq��l�Yi tZyi r � � � u � +'- �'*„•"'�� I it ri•t i ...rte 3. �• 9� <iAl ml• .�. A �� -y,. � �� i, O+' l:k _ .�. "• '�"� r.,iJ �� . di` K' ,,rikx> h , h,�ljk iM y + q•1 ,. y �, }. . H e wil' t��4 rai.x,�tyv4• i f. . `♦ }>;' 'i d" Y(J j��•JI yMiY�w^N' •'j,W^.'r,7 S y2e •1�.� H A� t ■:,, r °''� 4 r{'' ` `. y yyt4t t '/ srFu 4sy,i\,� yr"{''.r tt. \4»r y �, �,+,, (`��l.., e �! � �(�y y../�,{'i � r.t. r'r• � � b S +'�' � Mr �L', ......♦''r .. int r' TTI til r r•�t t •r�^ 1' ■ d i j ,f r..e; t7f ..l 1. '` 7♦ r ~1 F r r .. � � +� )i`I (�Y {J{T!'�„_`'"'7' ? � {i � .t.• i C.61)�„� .u.y'� Y ' r � T f /rI +I,1.'�� ��y�,A�P' � �(: 'a y, ,• w l �'r 'f. ,�rr.. ����. �� a :n .7 .• a r1 U V ti YC� J � i a "l1� r /. � ,`S�3••.� \r< irr Jr'b' t r. a 5\I r � '�yrS� ��aH r' .\ y"'•, ,.� .r �SCC•t hS' T" �,. � r Coo y- "t' rY-'.'r�s,� � r�Jy�I,i♦�' . �■.,.�'.' i \ rcS1A/� +� .J... , 9L +n ♦ ,.,,,�-{4�'V +rya 7'/ +. ' ,� J P,r �. r'"Jt 1 it r t y ,� k�,� ,.r:,•I•� • A ��^ .,•� 7,Cv ! r nr a,�t�ti,I k t � 1'^.fit -r� r, \ Y.,r,4,'.f�•.�!n � i ^ /r7' t if, 1 T '� r` !�. I >r a y.4 F4 :3' N� ^+`•` �•!f1 .:.�'�,,yS,� i ' •�Y � �V s �. ��/r ` al lyd' V n� ,µi r :' •h 'hiyt�.i 4. � '{:r t-/V '� 'jt ` E✓r '. kY�Y � ., .r-r"V L� v Ir/Y�. er. Y`�r • �i{t,r l��'-i rtV�ki• �r� ,1 �t q ,r•. e"vn µf < ,� ,may ti1.s f ++!!yy ' ,r 4 � i� t tq 1,H i• Y v � .� { �A 1 . n'F S ..: u �rr,+h�y�r''r d �d�:l un��C6 '3•• r �t •r v ♦ yl I ik I'Kn�,� f+S M ��' r v { i r K? r,4 a. U''' '�9jC y r,•; ®SO" 4 l�xk*,4,tr y>•: tt i�t-h� rc r ,,.j,� � r' •,' ra •cy ti g `'�. S ^1�+i+lut + yro yna�k��ylC* my L�� N� � Y� � , , ,\ {+ �•',: r r Yt F ) �'.a {Y��F,\ it n ���� + pt). "�i na�♦ N� .� 'r' •.r a f• j✓ f a 1E RI h , e IR' y�y^ c• n x 7� rti r tuti , d. � ttltm�. r'�h, „�'�, r T`>f'�'r+' ,rRr.•,++�•� �!� �� 'yc , .u�� •, Srh YY ♦ �v�.tir K' ,4J.rr k y, , �1�.>,, � .,LIr 3.. �r4. t '�M�T.5F�4�r1^ � a,} y N �.qy, r's� �.r .,! srr �2�"•� ria,: �V„•'}Y i\ '�„, ,t .. .� n �''� i�;M V �\ �, •,,` FF l�� ^ A w���� µ Imo. •' ,r. ••�G'� `,,7 ..c. :y.. � r J��, •t't`'q(t�'Fi�.kl .•4 ^' rrt= 1r. * J Vn Y-r.' •.a 'p ' �1 O cn eNn eG>co s 0. = co j CD CD o C m � r' O w� n o�V n N (p n” •'w A .m < g i ID CD e X m _. 0 0 m U . � mOL + C cn a CD z 00 A 4 0� 3 yS/�Ce r e S� Po L o e did '�� C�c Feb. 25, 200 RECEIVED Dear Honorable City Council members, FEB 2 7 1006 Thank you for continuing to allow for public input for the update of t e Energy and Conservation Elements, and the revision of the Open Space SLO CITY CLERK Element. Also, thank you to City staff and the Planning Commission for all their hard work on this lengthy and arduous task. I have been actively participating in this process since the fall of 2004. 1 have submitted both verbal and written comments along the way, and appreciate the Planning Commission's reception and consideration. With the public's jparticipation, the Planning Commission has retained some valuable protections ul u- 1�_ from existing elements that were due to be eliminated. r The environmental community is pleased to see this new document r i ;1. affirms the existing Open Space Element's top priorities of obtaining and Lu protecting open space and agricultural land and of natural resource protection. 2 ul Upon review of the current draft, I would like to present these additional acomments for your consideration. 1.20 Use of Terms: describes how the word "should° is used. This language is vague and does not address who will determine "normal circumstances" or "countermanding reasons" or what consists of"preventing or discouraging implementation." The main concern of the community has always been the potential for weakening of protective language in the existing Open Space and Land Use Elements with the revision of these elements. It would be prudent to examine the use of the word "should" throughout the document and determine if the word "shall" results in more protective language, and substituting it in every instance. Table 2 Solar Access Standards: Conservation/open space is included in the first two boxes addressing solar access. Open Space land is"generally open and free of structures" therefore does not apply here. 7.22.1: This would be more meaningful if it states who is responsible for determining which trees are significant. 7.30.1: Please add and species of local concern after listed species, to provide added protection for these species. 7.30.2: This language is not well defined and does not state who determines if and how it detracts from habitat values. Suggest re-wording for clarity: "The City and private development will protect and enhance habitat by removing invasive, non-native vegetation and replanting with native California species." Retain the second sentence, but please omit"when appropriate" at the end...as always, this goes without saying. 8.10: Second paragraph, first sentence. Please eliminate the word "values". We are protecting Open Space, not Open Space values, (whatever that means!). Next sentence, please add Open Space and, to read: "As explained below, Open Space and the Greenbelt are tools for...' 8.15: Last paragraph, last sentence. "Agriculture is generally open land...which remains generally open and in such use." One of the main goals of the Open Space Element is to keep ag. land in agriculture. As stated throughout the. AF document, the main goal is to protect Open Space and ag. land. This language could lead to the belief that if an ag. landowner stops farming their land, it could become something other than ag. This could transfer the power of land designation to ag. landowners, instead of retaining it with the community and the City Council, where it belongs. This definition is not consistent with that of the County, and it is also added language included in section 6 of the Land Use Element. Section 6 is language specifically directed to be retained by the Planning Commission at public hearing. There was NO discussion of adding language to this section! The existing O.S.E. contains an entire section on agriculture as open space, which, regretfully, is due to be eliminated. 8.22.2: First sentence. "Adequateis a vague term. "Biologically effective buffers° is more protective language. 8.24.3: Please eliminate! It has nothing to do with Goal 8.2.4 regarding Open Space access and restoration. This language is redundant and misleading. It is contained (in its entirety) in L.U.E. section 6.1.2 (which has been retained by the planning commission). This paragraph leaves out the first two and last sentences of L.U.E. 6.1.2, changing its intention and making it sound acceptable to have landform changes in open space. 8.25.3: The word feasible does not give clear direction. Who decides what is feasible? 8.30.1 E: Please add: "...consistent with General Plan and Open Space Ordinance goals and policies." N: Make and/or just and so it reads: "._.performance standards and dimensions...* Appendix C#2: Please add "The City's General Plan, Open Space Ordinance. and Conservation Guidelines...'to retain consistency and affirm planning document hierarchy. #3 Protection of scenic resources and agricultural land are"overarching goals" of this element, (see pg. 2) and therefore should be included in priority#1. 8.24 states passive recreation is a secondary goal, (when it YOU not harm the environment) so public access and passive recreation should remain a#2 priority. Please add scientific study here and eliminate priority#3 entirely. #15: Please consider forming an Open Space Committee. Take advantage of the community's expertise you cannot afford to pay for. Thank you, City Council, for your careful attention to these important changes to our long-term planning documents protecting the City we are so proud of. Sincerely, Jodee Bennett San Luis Obispo Resident ECOSLO Representative -*:7CDD San Luis Docent 2tAO - CDD DIR CAO ?FIN DIR ATTOF, SIRE CHIEF R W DIR .0"CLERK C- POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HC.,. SEC DIR ..G-UTIL DIR -2-HR DIR Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-City Council Meetu,6 Feb.28,2006 Draft COSE From: "D.&E.Dollar"<ddollar@pacbell.net> To: Christine Mulholland<cmulhoUand@slocity.org>,Dave Romero<dromero@slocity.org>,Allen Settle <asettle@slocity.org>,John Ewan<jewan@slocity.org>,Paul Brown<pb Date: 2/28/2006 12:23 PM RECEIVED Subject: City Council Meeting Feb.28,2006 - Draft COSE CC: <jmandeville@slocity.org>,Jeff Hook<jhook@slocity.org> EB 2 8 x006 Mayor and City Council: SLO,CITY CLU As a concerned resident I wish to comment on the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element.Please enter my comments in the public record. The Planning Commission is to be commended for taking time to go through the Draft COSE in a fair amount of detail, especially the Open Space Element sections.They,along with all the public comment,have provided the City with much valuable insight. One thing really sticks in my mind as we have gone through this process for the last several years.The more times the Draft COSE was reviewed,the more it was changed back to more closely match the existing(1994)Open Space Element.The early drafts were too far off the mark.The public wants strong and clear environmental protection of our natural resources.The quality of our environment is one very key issue for residents of San Luis Obispo. • Air • Page 8 -2.30.1 Programs- Add "To help meet PM 10(fine particulate matter)regulations,the City will phase in a program to eliminate the use of leaf blowers." Leaf blowers produce large quantities of fine particulate matter, including allergens,and contribute to our violation of PM10 regulations. Also,the small gas powered engines used on leaf blowers,produce a disproportional amount of air pollution for their size. An additional benefit of reduced noise pollution is also achieved. Phase in over four years.The City will work with residents and the many landscaping maintenance companies in the area.It would be worth checking to see if there are grants available to help with this. . Open Space It is important to clearly state,as it is now,that the main purpose of Open Space is natural resource protection,and passive recreational use is a secondary permissible activity when it will not harm the environment. • Page 46 - 8.24.3 Landform modification....... - this section is out of context,and should be under the Land Use Element,6.1.2 Needs to be deleted from the Open Space Element. • Page 50 - 830.1 Programs Fundingfor or Open Space-Open Space is an integral part of the City's infrastructure, and as such needs base funding every year. . Page 78 -Appendix C #15 Establish an Open Space Committee.Repeatedly,city residents rate the quality of our natural environment as part of the bedrock foundation of a high quality of life experience that is associated with our city.The Open Space Committee will be a valuable resource for the city in helping to make San Luis Obispo a highly desirable place to live and work. Views Page 59 Monitor Viewshed Need to clearly add,that a photographic baseline of our viewshed will be established within one year.Should also add an historical component to the inventory.Need to designate who will be responsible for maintaining the viewshed inventory and how often it will be update,The viewshed inventory should be available to the public.Without a baseline,we will continue to lose our views. Thank you for consideration of my comments. Sincerely, COUNCIL eErbDD DIR Don Dollar RED FILE JZ CAO -2-FIN DIR- San Luis Obispo 781.0118 gAC ORNEY 2-PW D RHIEF MG AGENDA I�.o ,l�'CLERK/ORIO ,0'POLICE CHF SATE ITEM # _ D FADS ��bIR A!_1�_..C� file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW:.}00001.HTM 2/28/2006 FES-E7-2006 12:02 From:CYDNEY HDI-COMB 805 594 0365 Tr:8057817109 P.1/2 RECEIVED RED FILE ��' MEETING AGENDA FEB 2 7 2006 A a '�°ITEM # F t4 I SLO CITY CLER W &QM Residents for Quality heighborhoo s�o i'o�� � d P.O. Box 129A San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 {9 COUNCIL M CAO I- CDD DIR eACAO FIN DIR aATTCRNEY E FIRE CHIEF CLERK/ORIG �' PW DIR DATE: February 27, 2006 POLICE CHF TO: San LUIS Obispo City Council DEPT HEADS AEC DIR VIA: Fax to: 781-7109 —� le, UTI DIR RE: MEETING DATE: 2-28-06, ITEM # PH-1 -- '� £F-HR DIR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. (GPA/ER 149-98) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, As you know, many of our residential neighborhoods interface directly with the City's natural open space. While there have been conflicts between these uses, RQN has remained very supportive of our Open Space Program. This support has been based on the strong environmental safeguards contained in the 1994 Open Space and Land Use Elements. In our opinion, these protections have precluded many potential conflicts with neighborhoods adjacent to the open space. we are very supportive of the portion of Draft Goal 8.24 which states: "The main goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal of providing pass/ve recreation where It w111 not harm the environment.' However, to ensure that we continue to provide the same protections for our residential neighborhoods, we suggest the following changes to the policies supporting that goal. Draft Policy 8.24.3 Landform modifications in open space. - DELETE This proposed policy is an incomplete rendition of Land Use Element Policy 6.1.2. As written in the Draft document it eliminates the three critical qualifying sentences which protect the neighborhoods and homes adjacent to open space from Inappropriate "bulidings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles and alterations to landforms,: Since the Planning Commission has recommended that Policy 6.2.1 remain unaltered In the Land Use Element, it appears that Draft Policy 8.24.3 would create an Inconsistency and should, therefore, be deleted. • Draft PoliQt 8.24.6 Passive recreation. - ADD UNDERLINED LANGUAGE "The 0ty w111 consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility impar in acrordance with an approved open space conservation plan. Passive recreatlon act/vIdes may include: hiking nature study, off road bicycle use, rock climbing, horseback riding or other passive recreation activities as permitted and regulated in the Open 50ace Ordinance.p FEB-27-2006 12:02 From:CYDNEY HOI-COMB 805 594 0365 Tr:8057817109 P.2/2 February 27, 2006 RQN - Draft COSE Page 2 Open Space Committee We strongly support the Planning Commission's recommendation for the formation of an Open Space Committee to advise staff on open space acquisition and management. [Draft COSE , #15, pg.78]. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document and ask you to give due consideration to our suggestions. Respectfully.submitted, Cy ey Holcomb Chairperson, RQN FEB-24-2006 20:25 Jan 8055412239 P.01/14 RESEIVED RED FILE MEETING AGENDA IPCOUNCIL Q CDD DIR fE8 2 7 2006 DATE.&9,64ITEM #-&.L- 1IR CAO FIN DIR t7ACAO RFIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK ATTORNEY E PW DIR February 24,2006 ® CLERK/ORIG. B POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS rrREC DIR Mayor and Council B E L H RI o RIR I. City of San Luis Obispo �yc_ 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 RE:Conservation Oren Space and Energy Element Dear Mayor and Council: I ani writing as an individual,not as a past City Council membi r or representative j. of ECOSLO or the Sierra Club. I am glad that the Conservation and rgy Elements have been modernized and updated. They are a vast improvement ov the old elements. j Unfortunately,the proposed Open Space Element is not an im ovement over the 1994 version in my opinion. The Element simply needed iu*pddating bY community task I j' force,but it got total revamping by staff Thankftilly,the Planning Con mission has listened to comments by residents and the environmental community,g ad many of the important policies from the 1994 Element have been put back.imo the locument which is before you tonight. i However,there-are still a few important policy and program changes which need j. Y to made in order to carry out Council's original directive to strengthen and improve the Open Space Element. The following are my comments, focusing on the Open Space lement: For ease of reference,I have photocopied the pages and handwritten changes on them,as well as 1, discussed them below. Sold font indicates new language,plain indicatz unchanged from the draft and obieken thmugh language indicates deletions. I have put wasoning for the changes in parentheses_ Page 42 I: Goal 8.22 N The remaining unincorporated area bounded by Los OM Valley Road, Madonna Road,and Highway 101 is annexed to the city.The City hall: 1)Preserve as agriculture the southern.half of the Dalidio property and the northern portions of he McBride and Madonna properties(all designated Open Space by the Land Use Element Map.)2)Preserve as open space( }Perfumo Creek r and associated creek setback areas,and (B)the portion of the Dalio property utilized by herons and other important resources or sensitive babiti t. i. (Reasoning:this includes the policies from the 1994 Open S Element which otherwise would be eliminated. See attached page 65 of the 19 4 Open Space I Element. As the recent referendum on the Marketplace Project onstrated,city residents want to see at least half of the property in this area pre served in open 1. space. This policy should not be eliminated,) i i I i r FEB-24-2006 20:25 Jan 8055412239 P.02/14 "s - I � I Page 46 j 8.24.3 >hghtgag V&Yift use ef YehiI i i . i i (Reasoning: This is redundant with the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element section 6.1.2,attached. The proposed amendment strengthens open I. space preservation because it states,just prior to the above language "Lands designated Open space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services,major structures or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat;grazing cultivated crops; and passive recreation.") Page 48 j. 824.1 C On-site preservation of open space is not otherwise required by the Land �. Use Element,and the resource is it on a small parcel essentially surrounded by urban development,and the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt through transfer of development credit, dedication of open space easements or fee ownership,direct funding for open space acquisition or another equally effective method,as further described in the Land Use Element !! 1. (Reasoning: This provides consistency with the Land Use Element when onsite I: preservation is required, so that land(for example that preserved by the McBride development)is not laxer taken out of open space in conflict with the Land Use Element. Also, it-does not make sense to provide a parcel with less protection just because it is prime agricultural land..Rather,it-should have more protection. Even a small parcel of prime agricultural land is a valuable resource in an urban setting) Page 50- 8.30.1 Protect open space resources. To provide a viable open space program,the City must have a broad range of protection mechanisms and funding sources. In addition,this combination must include at least one long term funding source. Providing such a framework gives stability to an open space program,enabling the City to act when land becomes available and provides the City a means to retain the community's quality of life, The City will take the following actions to protect open space, and will encourage individuals,organizations and other agencies to take the same actions within their areas of responsibility and jurisdiction. I: (Reasoning. The language added above is from the 1994 Open Space Element Chapter IV Introduction- It provides the policy basis for the Open Space fund) I: i i is FEB-24-2006 20:25 Jan 8055412239 P.03/14 i. 8.30.1 A. Maintain the urban reserve line location, consistent with the Land Use +: Element. pFeteefienz I: f (Reasoning. This belongs in the Land Use Element if anywhere. It would create I; a loophole which would undermine the preservation of open space,compact urban design and the purpose and effectiveness of the URI,. This issue is huge and �. should be taken up when the Land Use Element is updated) Page 51 8.30.1 D Acquire land or interestsin land for open space under,the dbvction of the Natural Resources Manager, pursuant to City Open space Guidelines and acquisition i priorities. (See also Appendix B,"Acquisition of Open Space.") is (Reasoning: This anchors a policy basis for the Natural Resources;Manager's s: position and role.) I: i' 8.30.1 D 2)Seek and use grants, donations,other revenue sources, and long term financing mechanisms to purchase fee ownership or easements. The City will maintain annual funding for open space acquisition and protection and will ejxplore all potential funding sources and other creative incentive programs,including general obligation bonds,sales tax increase,property transfer tax, assessment districts, tax incentives and state and federal loans and grants. i (Reasoning: This makes a clear-cut commitment to the continuation of this program. It should not be discontinued,even if it is suspended under emergency E. financial conditions.) 8.30.1 M Maintain the position of Natural Resources Manager so that open space fimchons are consolidated in one existing city department under one person,and maintain the city biologist positionto help with environmental review,monitor {: mitigation measures, work with city staff,other agencies aud!comm pity groups to restore wildlife habitat,including environmental cleanup. (Reasoning: This gives a policy anchor to the Biologist position and its functions.) 8.30.1 O Establish an Open Space Committee staffed by the Natural Resources Manager to advise the City Council and Planning Commission. (Reasoning: This gives residents who are dedicated to the preservation of Open Space the opportunity to volunteer their expertise. This strengthens the open space program, which now relies on the Natural Resources Inventory Group,an ad hoc group comprised largely of nonresidents, for expertise. The Open Space program is included on page 78 in the Appendix,but it should be elevated to the I. i I: FEB-24-2006 20:26 Jan 8055412239' P.04/14 policy level to make it effective. See also the attached outline of an Open Space Committee,modeled after the one in Arcata,California,) Page 57 9.21.5 View protection in new development. The City will include.in all.environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development;streets anc r6ad construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Cruide in'es Relpt Restrictions,Hillside Standards,and Ifistorical Preservation Prograr i Guidelines. is (Reasoning- view shed analysis is part of CEQA review and sho*d not be strapped over, Height Restrictions and Hillside Standards also a ddress view-shed issues. Pap 79 Conservation means the use of less energy in any form than would oth se occur. It 11 may be accomplished by greater efficiency(for example,more miles perigallon)or reduced activity(for example, going to a nearby park instead of a distantipark). It also means preservation of existing natural resources... (Reasoning:this conforms with the definition of conservation,, per the dictionary and as used in the draft COSE element, I. Thank you for considering my comments on this crucial element of the General Plan. I appreciate your thoughtfW and thorough attention to this mattex. Sincerely, is an Howell Marx 1 265 Albert Drive San Luis Obispo CA 93405 FEB-24-2006 20:26 Jan 8055412239 P.05/14 ii crty of san Luis owspo conseuvation an0 open space elemot habitats, and productive agricultural land that reflects the City's watershed and topographic i boundaries. Policies 8.21.1. Open space preserved. The City will preserve as open span :or agriculture the undeveloped and agricultural land outside the urban reserve line, incl ding the designated Greenbelt as shown in Figure 5, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other agencies to do likewise. Goal 8.22: Open space within the urban area. Within the urban.area).the City will.secure and maintain a diverse network of open land encompassing particul lyj 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 vefetgtion B. Laguna Lake and its undeveloped margins C. Wetlands and vernal pools D. Undeveloped land within the Urban Reserve not intended for urban µses R Grassland communities and woodlands I, ' F. Wildlife habitat and corridors for the health and mobility of individuals and of the species I` G. The habitat of species listed as threatened or endangered by tjie State or Federal governments H. Prime agricultural soils and economically feasible farmland(Figure 10). 1. Groundwater recharge areas J. Historically open-space settings for cultural resources,native and tr*Donal landscapes K Hills, ridgelines and the Morros. L Scenic rock outcroppings and other significant geological features. M. Unique plant and animal communities,including"species of local concern." J ' /V1 A - ►erg�r . �.n+enlar�a r4e.l a.-et dV�-.(..( CaLwerqf l�,G[as, 4F Policies ��j t...f /x� r�/, .� �. �.� f , ; 1 ./ ' 8.22.1. Open space within the urban area The City will prese Open Space, or as Agriculture, the areas listed in Goal 8•.22, and will enc mdividual�, organizations, and other agencies to do so. (Figure 6.) Z r City Co ci(Hearing Draft 0 ALL` / ✓^^� � ��� 9-� f�-Ji�v March 2006 I,ZA L FEB-24-2006 20:26 Jan 8055412239 P.06/14 i i! Open Space Element I i i Policies Within the Urban Reserve Line and the CYtty Limit Line i • 1. The City should- i A.. When the remaining unincorporated area bounded by Los Osos Valleoad, Madonna Road, and Highway 101 is annexed to the City (see site #12, Site Map): i 1. Preserve as agriculture the southern portion of the Dalidio property the the northernc portions of McBride and Madonna properties (all designated o en sp a by the LUE I ; Map); i i 2. Preserve as open space (A) Prefumo Creels and associated creek en iackrea, and (B) the portion of the Dalidio property utilized by herons and other unique resources or sensitive habitat; and �! 3. Consider a transfer of commercial development potential f plilithe Dalidio site's !; . commercial area to the Madonna Plaza and Central Coast.Plaza sites. uch a program could (A) form one viable shopping center versus three largely i d pend t centers, and i (B) allow additional prime farmland to be preserved as agriculture, B. Work with Cal Poly to determine if the Orchard area should be pres a as a ricultural land and as an entry into the City (see site #13, Site Map). If appropriate, a aurin the possibility of a transfer of development credit between the Orchard area and the Dal dio pen space area. 2. Within the dry limits the'City shall require, and outside the city limits a lc�uragq. the County to .i require, that urban uses adjacent to agricultural lands provide an ag c •lrural btfer. Only eliminate or modify the agricultural buffer requirement if there are s' fican� topographical differences, a barrier of vegetation capable of eliminating potentially ad er 41macts associated with agriculture on adjacent development, or existing physical barn r n the urbandevelopment and the agricultural land. If a developer cannot provide dagricultural buffer between urban uses and agricultural land, the developer shall a ation fee to ! purchase agricultural protection elsewhere within the greenbelt. A. Where the parcel proposed for development is within the URL, and the ag 'cultural land is outside the URL, an agricultural buffer shall be provided on the dev ing p Tcel within the URL and maintained indefinitely until the URL is expanded to enanrpass he agricultural parcel or the City determines that: (1) there is no likelihood agriculture wi 1 occur on the. I i i pdosH.3.agriculture -65 - 12/22/93 i I i i I; FEB-24-2006 20:26 Jan 8055412239 P.07/14 / I lar city of san Luis owspo conseuvation an0 open space E1.em n� Goal 8.23: Open space for safety. Secure open space where development would be unsafe. Generally,the following locations are considered to be im sa e: A. Areas within the most restrictive aviation safety zone as defined in the Airport Land Use Plan. B. Land straddling 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 velocityDf floodwaters poses an unacceptable risk to life, health, or property E. Areas of high or extreme wildland fire hazard Policies 8.23.1. Open space for safety. The City will preserve as Open Space, o Agriculture, the areas listed in Goal 8.23, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and oder agencies to do SO. (See also the Safety Element.) i Goal 8.24: Open space access and restoration. The City intends to allow,public access to open space that fosters Rowledge and appreciation of open-space resources without > harming them and without exposing the public to unacceptable risk. TW main goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal of providing passive i recreation where it will not harm the environment. i Policies 8.24.1 Public access. Public access to open space resources, with in re 've information, should be provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the res u es, and with the i security and privacy of affected landowners and occupants. Access will gee ly be limited to non-vehicular movement, and may be visually or physically restricted in scrisi 've areas. Public access to or through production agricultural land, or through developed resi a tial lots, will be considered only if the owner agrees (Land for active recreation is typically ated"Park"in the General Plan Land Use Map). The City shall also designate open space as that are not intended for human presence or activity. 8.24.2 Creekside trails. Creek-side trails shall not be established in or across from existing, substantially developed residential areas of the City (such as the San Luis Dive area) where such trails could create a compatibility or privacy conflict with surrounding land uses. 24.3. ndform mod' 'ons in op Tqi.space. B an tions to the Iandforms ative o do andsca ng,o en pa ' use of v cies, 1? P ould mini , so ru cter and rces main[ai uildin d Pd =pave s, such as parkin ads, shad] exceed owin - here a p sm en acr already ex' , five Pe te site area- nap en ac r r more, erc nt. W' ' City Council Hearing Draft 46 �rch 2006 FEB-24-2006 20:26 Jan 8055412239 P.08/14 ar ,,,neral Plan Land Use Element Amendments .,I-I Open Space and Greenbelt Designations The City shall designate the following types of land as open space: ubstancia]SD A. Upland and valley Sensitive habitats or unique resources, as i COrPorated 6: defined in the Open Space Element, including corridors which .21 t 7.21.1, 7,21 connect habitats. 1 .21.3, 8.21. B. Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in I .22.19 arl agricultural use as provided in policy 1.8.2. 124A C. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or'unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element; agricultural value;and value for passive recreation.) D. A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area, E. Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and dispersal; these habitat types will be as identified in the natural resource inventory, as discussed in the "Background to this Land Use Element Update"and in Community Goal#81 Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Element Map. The City may establish an agricultural designation. (See the Open Space Element for refinements Of these policies.) OPEN SPACE AND AGRICUL L RAL L Q Several land-use designations are mainly for land that is to remain undevelop:d, eitiet permanently or until an urban use is identified or certain prerequisites we met. The Conse rvati Element contains more detailed policies for areas that are to remain undeveloF ed. and Open Space 6.1.2 Open Space Uses Lands designated Open Space should be used foi- purpi ist s which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses i ic ude: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat; grazing; cultivatedCrops and r as ive recreation Buildings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and n.&e or traditional' landscapes on open space lands should be minimized, so rural character-and resourc maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces,such as parking or roads,shall not exceed the fc flow'r g: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area; on a parc-I of I m acres or more, three percent. (As explained in the Conservation and Open Space Element, le characteristics of an open space area May result in it being suitable for some open space uses, but not the I Vf] range.) AC-142 Open'gpwee.11 ana Parcels within Open Space areas should n ot be I Li rther divided. 6.1.3 Aimiculture Agriculture is aeneral)X open land where there has been FEB-24-2006 20:26 Jan 8055412239 P.09/14 GRAN city of san Luis oBispo conseRVation anb open space ele e 1 a ,- N �` welf ,and them is no actical alternative to 1 ss of the resource; far 45 i C. /the resource is Dwtwa soil on a small parcel ess ntiall urrouride by urban development, and the development contributes to the protection of Wgricultural land it. e urban reserve or greenbelt through transfer of development'credit, dedica 'on of o 3en space ea ements or fee ownership, direct funding for open space acquisition or anot ier equally effective ethod, as further described in the Land Use Element. I � � 8.25.2.Extent of open space loss. The extent of loss or degree of harm to the resource shall be minimizedi, consistent with the justifications for any loss provided above. Where creeks must be r iodifird for flood pr lection or bank stability, the modification shall be patterned after natural conditic ns to the un ximum extent feasible. it 5.25.3. Required mitigation. Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasib e, ti ation mutt �t Ieast comply with Federal and State requirements. Mitigation shall bei plem nand m00ored in j compliance with State and Federal requirements, by qualified profe Psionss, and shall beIfunded by the project applicant. j A. For natural habitat that is relatively limited in extent (such a rip 'ai or wetlOd�rabitat) mitigation shall consist of creating twice the area of habitat l st, of equal quality] in the following order o€preference: 1) The same kind on the same site 2) The same kind on a different site (the site shall be within the San Luis Obispo planting area) 3) A similar kind (such as seasonal wetland in place of frephwat.3.r marsh) on the same site 4) A similar kind on a different site (the site shall be within thle San Luis {Obispo Planning Area) j B. Habitat created as mitigation should be located and desip�d toimrze the aged for long-terra artificial support (such as supplying wetlands from we r quiring 0:ietty and maintenance). C. For a widespread habitat type or for farmland, mitigationall o ist of perm#nently protecting an equal area of equal quality, which does not already have manent pl o*tion, i within the San Luis Obispo planning area. D. For projects involving enlargement of the urban reserve, mitigation shall dortlsist of permanently protecting an area not previously protected, th t is o ated and: 'at has r sufficient size (generally four times the area to be developed) to securD permanent Odge to the city. I Chy Council Hearing Draft 48 j March 20,06'. i 20:27 Ian 8055412239 P.10/14 FEB-24-2006 20:27 Jan 8055412239 P.11/14 i `e city of Sdn luta oi3isp0 consertvatton and open space el mE L 13. Promote open space protection by annexing and applying City Co se ation and Open Space (C/OS) and Agriculture zoning to private prof wh appropri4te and consistent with General,Plan goals and policies. C. Set conditions of subdivision and development approvals con isten with General Plan goals and policies. vr�X P`a. tr re r- o��; k4vd A .D. Acquire land or interests in land for open space, pursuant to Ci y Op n Space Gui4ej ines and acquisition priorities. (See also Appendix B; "Acquisition of Open pace.") P� 1) Obtain dedications of fee ownership or easements asifts r in exch ge for development approvals. , in an r, . 2 Seek and use _6 ' grants, donations, other revenue sources, and 1 n -t figan ing mechanisms to purchase fee ownership or easements. The City will ftre. all potential funding sources and.other creative incentive program.;,, including ter eral obligation bonds, sales tax increase, property transfer tax, assessassessir ent distridts, tax incentives, and state and federal loans and grants. 3) Advocate countywide planning and funding for open space rotec 5oh. . i E. Manage its open-space holdings and enforce its open-space a seme t4 consistent I Vith a 14 General Plan goals and policies. (See also Appendix C, "Manag men o Open Sp4ce") F. Encourage transfer of development credit from open lands to la d� designated for development,or retirement of development credit. G. Locate,design and operate facilities consistent with General Pla i goa s 4nd policies. H. Encourage sustainable agricultural practices to protect the health of u�rnan and tra ral v communities, and to minimize conflicts between agriculture and urbanheighbors, aoid grading adjacent to or within creeks and wetlands and limit lives ock access wi hin creeks and wetlands. I. Provide information for citizens and in particular, landowners, n ;the values nd techniques for resource protection and land conservation. J. Improve interagency cooperation for open space acquisition, greenbelt, dreeks, wetlands, and wildlife habitat protection in open space areas by coordinat ng with other government agencies and organizations having interest or expertise in res'olurce protection. K. Avoid imposing taxes or fees that discourage retention of op n sp c� or agricultural uses. L. Establish mutually respectful, long-term relationships with landc wne , end conservat on organizations such as land trusts,and local environmental organ zatiors. M. Maintain the position of Natural Resources Manager so that open s e function s ire consolidated in one existing city department under one person m�f.9 4.�wl ear � i¢ Ila,/// nw�,te✓/h^ i N. Natural Resource Manager will establish performance standar anor dimensions or buffers between open space or agricultural resources and urban uses or de velopmen', o Q r &NA6bsti a-. Ope, Jpwce- 40mm/'#ee-5AA�! Sf 7Aa 4 8.30.2. Enhance and restore open space. The City will do the following in s pA� o n_ space enhancemt and restoration,in coordination with other agencies and o zati S. fod /►v«_ VP City Council Heannraft 9 5i ch 2006 FEB-24-2006 20:2? Jan 8055412239 P.12/14 i I . i Open Space Committee Creation, Powers and Duties. � i The Open Space Committee is hereby created. Its powers and duti es(shall be as follows: A. To serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council, Planning Co fission and City staff in regard to matters that relate to policies affecting ope space-In pa e� B. To participate in the preparation and development of a detailed open space : General Pla program to implement-the Open Space Element of the I, C. To provide recommendations on the acquisition and/or pro ectio i opportunities'for open space. D. To provide recommendations for specific actions to take to secure Open space.! , Meetings. (' i ' i The Open Space Committee shall hold regular meetings once monthly. li Membership. The open space committee shall consist of seven members wi,io shall!be selected or their Interest, knowledge, and/or experience in open space p ese tan, passible recreation, fish and wildlife, land trusts, local agricultural farming, tershed management, wetland/riparian ecology and/or land use poli I : i Staff. ii The Natural Resources Director or his/her designee shall be staff tc the open spade committee. i i , i' li , �I I' i � i I i i I ii i I ii i i FEB-24-2006 20:28 Jan 8055412239 P.13/14 Whigcity of san Luis ostspo conseavation ano open space lem n� i j design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site featu s, dI neighbo ng urban ' development; and that are compatible with historical and architecturalre otirces. Plans for sub- areas of the city may require certain architectural styles. I; j i i 9.21.3: Utilities and signs. In and near public streets, plazas, and park, , features that clutter, i degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary feat , such as tility and communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should I ie des ed and placed so as not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or surroui kding i sides, or armland, i consistent with the primary objective of safety. New billboard siSVI s sh 1 iot be allowed, and existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon as practicable, as povided in the Sign j Regulations. i i 9.21.4. Streetscapes and major roadways. In the acquisitio , deign, constz ction or significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes andarterial stroets), the City will promote the creation of "streetscapes" and linear scenic park-ways or corridors that i promote the City's visual quality and character,'enhance adjacent u 5es, aid integrate koadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this,the City will: A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways; i B. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widenedoarkway plantings; C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way; D. Emphasizing the planting and maintaining California Nati v tree species of $uffrcient height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to crt ate d a ldesired stteetscape canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and then sired s#eetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommoded by 6e Tree , Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Co ssio . i E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street mit ,jdecorativq lighting ? and paving, arcaded walkways, public an, and other pedestrian- o0ented fegtures to enhance the streetscape appearance,comfort and safety. I F. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of oved=4 utility lines and Sfi'LlCtnreS. 9.21.5. View protection in new development. The City will arefL Ily a ns ider effect-1 of new"'^( development, streets and road. construction on views and visui qua ity by applrng the Community Design Guidelinesrd Histori/cal��P��rees��ervation Program Quidefio%. 9.21.6. Night-Sky preservation. City will adopt a"night sky" ordinance o reserve 'ighttime views, prevent light pollution, and to protect public safety by establishing tr et and plic area lighting standards, i I i Goal 9.22: Viewing opportunities. Provide ample opportune fo ' iewing airtractive i features. i City Council Hearing Draft 57 March 2066 FEB-24-2006 20=28 Jan 8055412239 P.14/14 MY of san Luis OBISpo consERvation ano open space E meltMAN f Appendix D: Glossary Accessory Structure is a structure that is clearly subordinate or incident aid directl� r$lated f to the primary structure. I. Active recreation means recreation facilities typical of urban parks, including play fiel (such as soccer or softball), school fields, community centers, tennis court;, pichic areas (group and individual), golf courses and golf-related facilities, recreation resorts, and sirailar facilities. Active trail corridor is a pedestrian or bicycle trail that typically i (1) uscd for co ! uting purposes (provides direct access from school or work and residences), (2) l ated in urban area, (3) paved with an all weather surface, and (4) utilized by a sign scant se pmt of e:City population. i Agriculture is generally open Iand where there has been a history of agrictdtural cultiv4tion or keeping of livestock, which remains generally open and in such use, and i 1 Gated within the City limits, is a specific land use designation in the General Plan Land Use a lent Candidate species are taxa the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US ) or California Department of Fish and Game (F&G) are considering for listing as ndan a ed or tht4afted species. , City Lints includes that land within the corporate limits of San Luisbis ere the dity has ! i jurisdiction. i Clustering means grouping allowed development on a small area of the site, w th the retrtarrider of the property protected as agriculture or open space. See the City' Lan se Elements for clustering densities. CLAPS means the California Native Plant Society. Conservation means the use of less energy in any form than would o erwi a Decur. It dray be I accomplished by greater efficiency (for example, more miles per gallon or d ced activity(for I example,going to a nearby park instead of a distant park). xVb ry(M °x&_Ky n� vedarP/�,c��• i Conservation Plan is a document prepared by the City or a City d ign ted represe ta6ve which specifies the care and management of specific open space sites or areas, in comp)iaoce with the General Plan. This plan outlines resources existing on the site, res ume preservlation, allowed recreational uses, and other similar programs. Creek is a waterway or portion of waterway designated on the Creek N[ap b3 alsolid or dashed blue, green, or dark orange line. Drainage ditches, concrete swales, u dergr u d culvert and storm drains (as indicated on the Creek Map) are not considered a Gree c. Crt ek s located in the ' i City Council Hearing Draft 79 TOTAL P.14