HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/1993, 2 - ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT UPDATE. Ii�H������INlllll�ll I M� 1 - G D TE
c� o san tui s OBISPO ._ i-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
D
BY: John Mandeville, AICD::=fir
Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT:
Adoption of the General Plan Open Space Element update.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and to
adopt the July 1993 General Plan Open Space Element update.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Open Space Element contains the City's detailed policies concerning: a) land that
is to remain undeveloped; and b) protection of natural features within developed
areas, including wetlands, creeks, hillsides, and agricultural land. The update contains
goals, policies and programs identified and refined through public meetings of an
Open Space Advisory Committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
Planning Commission. Preparation of the Open Space Element update included
substantial public participation. Staff and advisory bodies are recommending
adoption.
The Community Development Director approved a mitigated negative declaration for
the Open Space Element update. The Draft Open Space Element contains mitigations
to potentially significant impacts that were identified in the initial study. No
significant environmental impacts are expected from adopting the element.
A staff evaluation of the Draft and primary issues raised in the course of public
meetings, and correspondence to date, are discussed in the body of the report.
Advisory body recommendations and comments of other departments are also
discussed.
Implementing this Element will require City regulation and investment, and cooperation
with other agencies. The fiscal impact of the individual implementation programs will
be analyzed as specific projects and proposals brought to the Council, and as the
Parks and Recreation and Community Development Departments develop their annual
work programs and budgets.
The Council may continue action. Council may direct that changes be made to the
element before it is adopted. (Any changed features not considered by the Planning
1
Commission must be referred back for report before Council action.)
DISCUSSION
Purpose of the Open Space Element
Open space is land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or
undeveloped state. The Open Space Element describes how the City plans to
designate, acquire, protect, and maintain open space.
Background
In 1988, Council called for an update of the current Open Space Element originally
adopted in 1973. The July 1993 Draft Open Space Element is the product of the
Open Space Element Advisory Committee's recommendations, input from the Park
and Recreation Commission, and revisions by the Planning Commission.
In January 1992, the City Council appointed an Open Space Advisory Committee. A
staff planner, hired in part for open space planning, worked with the Advisory
Committee to identify the issues and policies that should be addressed in the Open
Space Element update. By general consensus, the Advisory Committee determined
that hillsides, creeks, wetlands, agricultural land, and other similar resources should
be protected. There were differences of opinion on how these resources should be
protected. There was also support for a greenbelt around the City. The input from
the workshops was used to develop an Open Space Workbook.
The Open Space Workbook was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC) and the Planning Commission in May of 1992 and was reviewed from June
through August. A financial analysis of means to obtain revenue for open space
protection and acquisition was prepared by a consultant during the period of February
1992 to August 1992.
Based upon additional input from the PRC, the Planning Commission, the Open Space
Element Advisory Committee, and the financial analysis, staff produced the Draft
Open Space Element (DOSE) in October 1992. In November the Draft Open Space
Element was distributed to the Planning Commission. Staff distributed the Negative
Declaration for the DOSE in January 1993. The Planning Commission held meetings
through May 1993. On May 5, 1993 the Planning Commission directed staff to make
revisions to the DOSE and carry it forward to the Council for adoption. The July 1993
draft transmitted for Council action highlights changes from the draft presented to the
Planning Commission. A summary of the Planning Commission's changes is discussed
under the Advisory Body Recommendations section below.
2
z- z
Organization and Content of the Draft Update
The element has five chapters: an introduction; resources and areas to be protected;
City management of open space areas; implementation; and definitions. Chapter II,
"Resources and Areas to be Protected", contains the goals, policies, and programs
regarding the use of land on which open space resources are located. This material,
with some overlap for the reader's convenience, is grouped by location (inside city
limits or urban reserve, inside the greenbelt, and the outer planning area) and type of
resource: hills and mountains; creeks; wetlands; grasslands; plants and animals;
hazards; historical and archaeological resources; mineral resources; agricultural lands;
scenic resources; outdoor recreation; and, urban edge.
Key concepts of the Open Space Element are:
■ There will continue to be an outer limit to urban development, so rural and open
space uses can provide generous separation between urban communities.
■ Significant natural resources and amenities inside the area planned for urban
development will be protected, and restored where they have been degraded.
In addition, natural resources and amenities within the City are part of larger
natural systems that include areas outside the City limits. These areas are also
important to, and affect, the City. For areas outside the City's jurisdiction, the
City will encourage and work cooperatively with the County and the State to
protect natural resources.
■ The public access to natural amenities will be facilitated, so long as there is
adequate protection of the natural features themselves and of the reasonable
private use of surrounding property.
■ Open space shall be protected and acquired utilizing a variety of methods and
financing techniques. Open space acquisition and individual open space
projects shall be prioritized according to criteria stated in the Element.
Environmental Determination
The Community Development Director has approved, and the Planning Commission
has concurred with, a negative declaration of environmental impact, meaning there
will be no significant impacts with mitigation measures recommended for inclusion in
the General Plan. The mitigation measures are identified in the Negative Declaration
ER 3-93 (Attachment 2).
3
2-3
Public Comment
Many letters have been received regarding the Draft Open Space Element. The letters
cover a range of opinions, from general support to recommendations for specific
changes. A petition was received from the San Luis Drive area residents requesting
that the developed area of San Luis Creek from California Boulevard north to Hwy 101
be deleted from the Urban Trails Plan in the Parks and Recreation Element (and the
future update of the Urban Trails Plan). A petition was also presented at the March
10 Planning Commission meeting from property owners requesting that developed
neighborhoods be eliminated from the creek setback/easement requirements outlined
in the Draft Open Space Element. Several letters were received voicing concern that
creekside property would be taken by the City or that trails would be located on or
adjacent to back yards that abut creeks. The content of the Draft Open Space
Element as it addresses these issues is discussed under the "Issues" heading in this
staff report. Copies of the correspondence received are contained in the reader file
for the Draft Open Space Element which is on file with the City Clerks office.
The Department of Fish and Game. The California Department of Fish and Game
provided comments as the DOSE was being developed. The Department also
reviewed and commented on the DOSE Negative Declaration. Comments on the
negative declaration were supportive of the DOSE and included a reminder of DFG
protocols as the Mission Plaza expansion project moves forward. A copy of the DFG
correspondence is included in the DOSE reader file along with the other
correspondence received.
Staff Evaluation of Draft Update
The City and the surrounding region contain a wealth of natural resources. The Draft
Open Space Element (DOSE) takes an approach of addressing these resources
comprehensively rather than inventorying and addressing only those resources that
occur in the City, as do typical open space elements.
Because open space resources do not conform to jurisdictional boundaries, the
planning area boundary for the DOSE is based on "resource sheds", or areas based
on natural systems. The planning area for the DOSE is primarily.defined by the
watershed and viewsheds of the City. Resources such as plants and animals have
more dynamic boundaries, and are therefore addressed according to their presence or
the ability of an area to support them. If it is the City's purpose to address open
space issues and resources comprehensively, boundaries based upon natural systems
rather than the City's jurisdiction are appropriate.
The organizational format of the DOSE is a result of its comprehensiveness and the
level of specificity with which resources are addressed. The DOSE contains specific
4
policies and programs for specific subareas of the larger planning area (City limits,
urban reserve, greenbelt, and outer planning area). This format is different than the
format used in the current Open Space Element, or the pending updates to the Land
Use Element and the Housing Element. Other General Plan elements do not contain
specific policies for different subareas, although the Draft Land Use Element has
policies for different subareas of the overall planning area, such as hillsides and
expansion.areas.
The different format used among the various General Plan elements will result in a
General Plan that is more easily perceived as a conglomerate of elements rather than
more uniform chapters in a single document. The General Plan as a whole may be
less "user friendly". However, the loss in general plan "user friendliness" is balanced
by the comprehensive approach the DOSE takes in planning for the City's open space
resources.
The DOSE addresses all of the topics required by State law.
Issues
Several issues and concerns regarding some of the Draft Open Space Element policies
and programs were raised during the Advisory Committee meetings, the subsequent
Planning Commission meetings, and in correspondence received on the DOSE. The
key issues that have been raised, including a brief discussion the issue and the Open
Space Element text follows:
■ Perceived loss of orooertv rights for owners of orooerty abutting a creek. The
concern regarding a loss of property appears to be in response to the DOSE's
policies regarding protection of creek corridors, and requirements for creek
setbacks and open space easements.
Section B of Chapter II (Resource Protection) of the DOSE contains the creek
policies. These creek policies are intended to preserve creek corridors as open
space and to maintain creek corridors in an essentially natural state (p. 19,
Policy 1 .a.; p. 22, Policy 3.a.,c.,& e.). To achieve this there are subsequent
policies that limit development within and adjacent to the creek corridor.
The creek setback described in the DOSE policies is not defined by the Draft
Element except for certain City projects, where it is 20 feet. The current City
administrative policy for development setback from creeks is 20 feet (see
Attachment 4). 20 feet is also the distance which determines if review and
approval of building or grading permits require review by the Public Works or
Community Development Departments, or the City Council, before the permits
can be issued (Attachment 5)• The Open Space Element Negative Declaration
5
recommended a 20 foot setback as a mitigation measure, but the distance of
the setback was not established in the DOSE. Instead the DOSE Creeks
Section contains a program that directs the City to adopt a creek setback
ordinance which will establish a standardized creek setback (p. 24, Program
1.b.).
There appears to be a perception that a setback or easement precludes a
property owners use of the land within the setback or easement area. It is true
that some use of the property is precluded, however other uses of the property
remain. Similar to a rear yard setback, most structural improvements are not
allowed. Most other uses, including gardening, landscaping, recreation,etc. are
permitted so long as other creek protection policies are observed (i.e. riparian
vegetation is not removed, creek banks are not eroded, etc.).
■ Is a standardized creek setback, or any kind of creek setback, appropriate for
all areas within the City? The program in the Creek Section of the DOSE states
that the City shall adopt an ordinance that establishes a standardized setback
(p. 24, Program 1 .b.). Several people have commented that an ordinance may
be appropriate in some areas, but that it is not necessary in all areas of the
City, or that the setback distance for developed areas should be different than
the setback for undeveloped parcels. Several creekside residents commented
that a creek setback would be an unwelcome intrusion of government
regulation, and that an education program directed at creekside property
owners would do just as well as regulations to protect creek corridors.
There are several reasons a standardized setback program is recommended.
The primary reason is equity. Setback ordinances are an exercise of the City's
police power. The ordinance must be reasonably related to the public health,
safety, and welfare to be a proper use of police power. A nexus or connection
between the public interest and the regulation must exist. The health, safety,
and welfare issue or nexus in the protection of creeks is stated in the "Purpose"
statement at the beginning of the Creeks Section. The premise of the setback
is that development within a certain distance of the creek has the potential to
adversely impact the creek and creek habitat.
While it can be argued that certain types of uses may have a lesser or greater
impact on a creek, it is difficult to justify that existing development has less
impact than new development or that -certain areas should be exempt solely
because of location. Exceptions to allow property owners to recover their
investment in existing structures can be included in the ordinance for structures
made non-conforming by a creek setback ordinance. The exception would
allow continued use so long as there is no risk to public health or welfare, but
the general ordinance must be based on a solid connection between what is
being regulated (development) and the public good (water quality, riparian
6
habitat, aesthetic resources). The timing or location of a development alone do
not alter its effects on a creek. Therefore they should not be made the criteria
on which regulations are based.
There are good reasons to support creek care education programs, but an
education program cannot be as effective in difficult cases as an ordinance.
Many creekside property owners already take good care of the creek corridors.
Unfortunately, there are some creekside property owners who may not take
good care of the creeks. An ordinance enables the City to enforce creek
protection standards. Without an ordinance the City would be unable to
respond to complaints of creek degradation or improper building practices.
The ordinance should be standardized to the extent possible in order to insure
that it be equitably implemented and understood. The more exceptions and
different standards an ordinance contains, the greater the possibility for
confusion and uneven application. Likewise, the more subjective the standards,
the greater the potential for unintended but different interpretations and
judgements.
Finally, ordinances can be adjusted for property with special hardships through
the variance process. An unusually shallow lot which would have the building
site constrained to less than the sites enjoyed by other structures in the vicinity
could request a variance to the setback standard to allow an equitable use of
the property.
■ Creek setbacks would create a burden for property owners with existing
structures on their property built before there was a setback recuirement.
Existing City standards for non-conforming structures would not allow
rebuilding a structure located within a new setback requirement if the structure
were damaged to an extent of at least one-half its replacement cost. The
Planning Commission has recommended specific protection for property owners
with existing structures (p. 19, Policy 1 .e.(4)), allowing structures which
become non-conforming by the adoption of a creek setback ordinance to
remodel or rebuild within the footprint of the existing structure.
■ When easements would be reauired. Most of the concern regarding easements
also came from creekside property owners concerned that the City would
require easements along the creek and install trails that would disrupt the
property's privacy and safety. The City's requirement for an open space
easement does not mean that a trail will be located on the property. The topics
of easements and trails are therefore discussed sgparately below.
An easement is a less than fee interest in a specified portion of land.
Easements typically consist of development rights. Open space easements
7
2-7
typically involve the restriction of a property's use to open space activities.
Chapter IV, Implementation Mechanism, discusses the various methods for
preserving and maintaining open space used in the Element's policies. The
criteria for determining when open space easements are required are stated in
Chapter IV of the DOSE (p. 91, No. 2). Generally, easements are required for
land designated as open space (in the LUE) when the underlying private use is
compatible with its open space designation and direct management by the City
is not required. The current and draft update to the Land Use Element
designate creeks as open space land uses. Therefore open space easements
are required for creek areas.
There many different types of easements, including maintenance easements,
open space easements, and access easements. The type of easement required
from creekside property owners, as well as owners of property abutting other
open space areas, would typically be an open space easement. Easements to
allow future trails would consist of a typical open space easement with
provisions for public access and maintenance included.
The type of development that would entail an easement requirement was
discussed by the Planning Commission. The Commission recommended that
specific language be added to the DOSE to clarify when an easement would
and would not be required. The Commission's recommendation was that
"easements as a condition of development approval shall be required in creek
corridors and creek setbacks areas only for structural additions or new
structures, not for accessory structures or tree removal permits".
A requirement for public access as part of an easement will depend on whether
the property is designated as a potential trail on the Urban Trails Plan, which
is to be updated as an implementation program of the DOSE, and the ability of
the creek corridor to accommodate a trail, and the desires of property owners.
■ DOSE oolicv for locating and acauirina trails. Section K of the DOSE, Outdoor
Recreation, discusses what kind of recreation should exist on open space land.
The Section contains policies about how the City should acquire trails and how
trail locations should be determined. The basic community goals identified are
to:
"create an integrated trail system that connects City open
space to other public or private lands"; and
"provide recreational uses that are consistent with the
site's environmental features and the area's character".
The policies state that trails should avoid sensitive habitat and neighbor issues
8
2-�
and that "trails and open space should be acquired from willing sellers" p. 73,
Policy 1 .b.). Table III on page 75 of the DOSE discusses trail (active and
passive recreational trail) locations. The parenthetical assumption for the
locational criteria is that there will be no significant environmental, land use, or
neighborhood compatibility impacts or inconsistencies. In other words, trails
should not be located along private property where it is incompatible with or
adversely impacts the neighborhood.
Section K, Outdoor Recreation, contains an implementation program requiring
an update to the Urban Trails Plan in the Parks and Recreation Element
(Attachment 6). The program for updating the Urban Trail Plan requires that
the following criteria be considered in designating future trail locations:
1 ) potential trail locations and connections,
2) the feasibility of constructing trails,
3) expected costs for trail construction and maintenance, and
4) project priorities. .
The existing Urban Trails Plan shows individual trails consisting of on- and off-
street components. Trails through developed portions of the City will need to
include both on- and off-street components, but will likely be largely on-street.
The costs of condemning, clearing, constructing, and maintaining trails make
meeting the criteria listed above in developed areas difficult without significant
support from neighborhoods. Neighborhoods desiring access to an open space
area via a creek corridor will probably have the .greatest support for creek
corridor trails.
■ Protection of privacy along trail locations. The DOSE addresses privacy
conflicts created by trail locations by using potential conflicts as a criteria in
determining trail locations (as discussed above) and through a design policy that
states that passive and active recreation should be designed to provide security
and privacy to adjoining property (p. 74, Policy 4.).
■ Flyer distributed referencing Draft Ooen Soace Element. A flyer containing
statements about the contents of the DOSE has been privately distributed to
creekside property owners (Attachment 3). The flyer claims that the DOSE
would result in a loss of the property owners rights to use their property along
a creek, that a 20 foot setback is being considered for the Creek Setback
Ordinance, that an easement will be required for any additions or repair of
damaged structures anywhere on a creekside property, that the City will control
the creekside property - but will continue to collect full property taxes for the
land, that the easements will be used to locate trails in backyards, and that
these trails will be financed by the property taxes. The discussion of the
individual issues provided above addresses the statements contained in the
9
flyer.
Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The State Government Code requires the general 'plan to be an internally consistent
statement of local government policy. Each element of the general plan must be
integrated and consistent with all other elements. With the exception of the land
use element, the open space element has the broadest scope of all the general plan
elements and therefore the next greatest number of interrelationships with other
general plan elements.
Preparation of the DOSE has been coordinated with the preparation of the other
General Plan elements currently in the update process. The Open Space Element
update will probably be adopted before the Land Use, Circulation, or Housing Element
updates. If the Council adopts the updated Open Space Element now, and later
adopts a change to one of the other elements that would create an inconsistency, the
Open Space Element will need to be amended accordingly to maintain consistency
among the general plan elements.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Commission
On May 5, 1993, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 (3 absent) to recommend
that the Council adopt the July 1993 draft update. As the DOSE went through the
hearing and review process with the Planning Commission, the Commission made
numerous recommendations for changes to address the concerns raised in the
testimony and correspondence they received. In addition, the Commission
recommended many changes to help improve the clarity and readability of the
document. The Commission's recommendations are shown as the strikeout (for.
.deletions) and highlighted (for additions) text. Planning Commission staff reports and
meeting minutes are contained in the reader file for the DOSE.
The Commission had some reservations regarding the length and complexity of the
Element (also see staff evaluation). A consensus was not reached to have any
sections of the document deleted. However, staff was directed to prepare diagrams
summarizing the content of the resource protection sections of Chapter II as a means
of providing the reader with a quick idea of the content of each section.
Parks and .Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Committee (PRC) considered the DOSE on February 3,
1993, but continued making a recommendation until May 5, 1993. The PRC
summarized its comments in the form of a memo to the City Council and Planning
Commission. Staff raised the topic of the PRC's comments at the May 12', 1993
10
Z"/d
Planning Commission meeting and requested any additional direction based upon the
PRC's memo. The Planning Commission directed staff to continue with the direction
given at their May 5 meeting.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Department of Public Works had concerns pertaining to the DOSE creating
possible limitations on the City's ability to do public works projects in the creek
corridors. Several meetings were held with Community Development staff to clarify
the creek policies that were the cause of concern. In response to a DPW
recommendation, the definition of "physical top of bank" was modified to include
creek alterations which are necessary for flood control.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City is required by State law to have copies of the general plan available upon
public request. Adoption of the DOSE will entail publication costs. These costs have
been included in the Community Development Department budget for the current
fiscal cycle. Copies of the Element are distributed to the public for a fee that is
intended to recover the cost of printing the document.
The DOSE contains many implementation programs, each of which will have a fiscal
impact. As a part of the Open Space Element update program, a consultant was hired
to prepare recommendations on funding mechanisms for the protection and acquisition
of open space resources. Chapter IV of the DOSE incorporates these
recommendations as guidelines for implementing the City's open space program.
The fiscal impact of the individual implementation programs will be analyzed as
specific projects and proposals brought to the Council, and as the of the Parks and
Recreation and Community Development Departments develop their annual work
programs and budgets.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may continue action. Council may direct that changes be made to the
element before it is adopted. (Any changed features not considered by the Planning
Commission must be referred back for report before Council action.)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and to
adopt the July 1993 General Plan Open Space Element update.
ATTACHMENTS
11
1 . Draft resolution to concur with negative declaration and adopt Open Space
Element update
2. Initial study
3. Neighborhood flyer discussing Draft Open Space Element
4. Administrative Creek Policy
5. Municipal Code excerpt regarding permits in flood areas and adjacent to
waterways.
6. Urban Trails Plan policy excerpt from Parks and Recreation Element
osstaff.rpt/iml
12
Zr-/.2
La JItCHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO
THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
WHEREAS, on January 7, 1992 the City Council appointed the Open Space Element
Advisory Committee to provide public input and assistance in the preparation of an update to
the City's Open Space Element; and
WHEREAS, eight public workshops were held from February 1992 to May 1992 to
promote public input on the Open Space Element update; and
WHEREAS, a draft Open Space Element was distributed for public review in November
1992; and
WFIEREAS, the proposed Open Space Element update has been reviewed by the Parks
and Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, a negative declaration with mitigation for the draft Open Space Element was
prepared and distributed for public comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act in January 1993; and
.�-�3
MACHMENT I
WHEREAS, following notice as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission held public
hearings on November 18, December 9 and 29, 1992, and January 13 and 27, February 24,
March 3, 10, and 31, and May 5, 1993 to review the draft Open Space Element and the negative
declaration for the draft Open Space Element; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all testimony provided during its
hearings, written and oral, regarding the draft Open Space Element; and
WHEREAS, following notice as prescribed by law, the City Council held public hearings
on to receive comments and recommendations regarding the proposed Open Space Element
update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the mitigated
negative declaration prepared for the proposed Open Space Element update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed Open Space Element update to be
consistent with all other elements of the City General Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby:
1. Concurs with the environmental determination to approve a negative declaration
with mitigations for the proposed Open Space Element update, and hereby adopts
the negative declaration with mitigations; and
2. Adopts the proposed Open Space Element update as revised by the Planning
Commission.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
A
��Ilfillll !Illililll���������I@IIIIIIIIII! I�IIII�� City SlAn 11AIS OBISPO
�=
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
Negative Declaration for the
Open Space Element Update (ER 3-93)
Attached is the negative declaration (ND) for the draft Open Space Element
(DOSE). The draft ND (#ER 3-93) discusses potential environmental impacts associated
with adoption of the DOSE, and incorporates mitigation for potentially significant impacts.
The City Council must approve ER 3-93 before adopting the Open Space Element
Update. Before the ND is approved, the City must respond to comments raising substantial
environmental concerns. If you wish to have the Council consider your review, comments
should be provided in writing to the Community Development Department during the ND's
30-day public review period, which ends March 1. 1993, 5:00 om Please mail comments to:
City of SLO, P.O. Box 8100, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100, attention Jeanette Di Leo,
Senior Planner.
If you have questions or would like more information please contact Jeanette Di Leo
at (805) 781-7162.
s/Arnold Jonas, Director
Community Development Department
2-1,�i
Clay of San IDIS OBISPO
®` INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION The City & its Planning Area APPLICATION NO 3-93
The Draft Open Space Element would (a) protedt natural
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
resources, (b) provide for open space within and outside the City,
and (c) establish a greenbelt around the City.
APPLICANT City of San Luis Obispo
STAFFxRECOMMENDATION:NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
—EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY
Jeanette Di Leo, Senior Plan er DATE 1-22-93
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE �ZSI9�
. Mt �
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
NONE*
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
NONE*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................
MAYBE*
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
MAYBE*
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
NONE*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................
MAYBE*
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
MAYBE*
G. NOISE LEVELS .....................................................:.............
NONE*
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
NONE*
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
NONE*
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
MAYBE*
K. .PLANT LIFE......................................................................
MAYBE*
LANIMAL LIFE.................................................................. . .
MAYBE*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ...................................................
MAYBE*
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................
MAYBE*
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ............................................................
MAYBE*
P. OTHER ........................................................ ...............
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION - - - - - -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
-1
3.
T -VIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
ER 3-93
DRAFT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Description:
This negative declaration (ND) provides environmental review of the City's Diaft Open Space
Element (DOSE). The DOSE is an official planning document that coordinates planning for open
space and resource protection. As proposed, the DOSE would (a) direct the protection of natural
resources, (b) provide for open space within and outside the City, and (c) establish a greenbelt
around the City. The draft element is organized into five chapters. Chapter I serves as an
introduction to open space planning, identifying why open space should be preserved, a brief
definition of open space, and background information. Chapter II identifies eleven resources that
should be protected and twenty specific sites that should be preserved. The City's management of
open space is discussed in Chapter III. Chapter IV outlines implementation mechanisms (when
open space should be obtained and through what methods), and Chapter V provides definitions.
In each chapter (except Chapter 1), the DOSE identifies open space goals, policies, and programs
for the City and its Planning Area. See Figures 1 and 2 for a depiction of the City Limits, the
greenbelt, the Urban Reserve Line, and Outer Planning Area.
As defined by the DOSE, community resources (such as creeks, wetlands, hillsides) would be
protected within the City. In areas such as the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area where the City
does not have jurisdiction, the City would work with the County and State to maintain rural uses
as well as preserve natural resources. It is planned that the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area
would be maintained in agricultural, rural, open space, and park uses as well as some residential
clustering projects.
Environmental Setting:
The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) is located between the Santa Lucia Mountains and coastal hills
of central California, nestled in a narrow valley surrounded by hills and volcanic peaks (see Figure
3). Land uses outside the City are agriculture and rural lands, including vineyards and field crops.
Numerous creeks run through portions of the City. San Luis Obispo Creek, the primary drainage
system, bisects the City and forms a defining downtown feature. Various plant and animal life is
located within and outside the City.
SLO is characterized by a mild Mediterranean climate, having low rainfall,warm summers and mild
winters. The average annual precipitation is 22 inches, with approximately 93 percent of the
precipitation falling between November and April. The heaviest rainfall typically occurs in January
(average 5.46 inches). The warmest month is September (the average maximum is 78.7 degrees)
and the coolest month is January (average minimum of 41.7 degrees F).
The City's economic base is supported by a combination of sources, including agriculture,
government; and business. Agriculture is one of the County's main economic bases. California
Polytechnic. State University (Cal Poly), the Men's Colony, Camp San Luis, and numerous
government offices (County and.City) also provide a large contribution to the City's economic base.
c2 -»
ER 3-93, Open Space
r
I
1
AI � ;• •J .. .. lIT YYR Y:R
I I �+
/ _. . cR a an w aero coY.wm ntKleYcn xrmnn
Figure I (Above). This figure depicts the City Limits and the Urban Reserve Line (URL). The City's corporate limits
cover an area of approximately 9S square miles. Within the City Limit Line the City has jurisdiction. In 1977 the City
Council established an Urban Reserve Line (URL), this line delineates the area of ultimate City expansion.
Figure 2 (Below). This figure generally depicts the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. The Planning Area surrounds
the City's corporate limits,defining that area that is under County jurisdiction but where the City is particularly concerned
with land use. In general,the Planning Area extends to the ridge of the Santa Lucia Range(Cuesta Ridge) on the north
and east, the southerly end of the Edna Valley on the southeast, the ridges of the Davenport and Irish Hills on the
southwest, and Turd Road and Cuesta College on the west. Outside the greenbelt, the DOSE identifies an Outer
Planning Area. This Outer Planning Area extends from the greenbelt perimeter to the Planning Area's outer edge.The
greenbelt approximates the San Luis Obispo watershed.
c �
ci SAMM
/ Outer Planning Area
/ ...1
UYVIOM t
-L
/ ?><
t—�
/ , 1
.. .
t sw
I l Urban Reserve Line
M4 ^M\ 100'� GreenbeltArea
J
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 3 - The Location of SLO and the Planning Area
46
9
9 PASO ROBLES
Cambria �p
i
1 9 46 O Templeton
41
-sy 01
C
F ATASCADERO,
Cayucos
58
41
Santa Margarita
1
.O K..
Bay
wo.
..
Park
a
Los Osos
N LUIS
X4
N Y
SAN LUIS OB/SPO
S R PLANNING AREA
- _.,.... Avila
- � Beach
ACH:.:::::::.
€G.ROVER;G�T1f€:
ARROYO
pCegp o GRANDE
01
\• SANTA
o_C,ounty MARIA
PACIPIC San Luis
•4 Barber `
OCRAN
00,�
NORTH
OH
0 2.s s
MILES
-3 - !� /�
ER 3-93, Open Space
In addition, a rapidly growing tourist industry augments the traditional institutional and agricultural
sectors of the economy.
The City of SLO has a 1992 population of 42,480 (State Department of Finance). Since 1980, the
City has grown at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent. The City of SLO has an existing inventory
of 18,167 dwelling units, of which 948 are vacant (Department of Finance, 1992). This represents
a vacancy rate of 5.2 percent. In addition, there are 983 dwelling units outside tWCity limits but
within the City's URL. Single-family houses comprise 47 percent of all dwelling units within the
URI., with the remaining 53 percent consisting of various types of multi-family .dwellings,
congregate facilities, and mobile homes. SLO's Planning Area includes extensive rural acreage
surrounding the City. Unincorporated portions of the Planning Area (outside the URL) are
sparsely populated. Such areas are dominated by agriculture and rural lands.
The City is accessible by highway, rail and air. Most visitors use U.S. Highway 101, a regional
route which links SLO to both San Francisco and Los Angeles. State Route 1, provides access to
northern coastal cities such as Morro Bay, San Simeon and Big Sur. The Southern Pacific rail line
is used by Amtrak to provide passenger service to the area; a passenger depot is located at the
southeast end of Osos Street in the City. The City's regional airport provides service to
destinations throughout California.
Other Environmental Review
Environmental review is currently occurring for the City's Draft Land Use Element (DLUE) and
Draft Circulation Element (DCE). The EIR for the DLUE and DCE will discuss impacts
associated with City growth, proposed urban land use designations, and proposed circulation. In
addition, the County's Agriculture and Open Space Element and the San Luis Obispo Area Plan
are presently being updated. Rural and urban land use changes proposed by these documents will
be reviewed in a county EIR.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
1. Consistency with the Land Use Element (LUE) Update
The LUE addresses residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses, resource
protection, archaeological and historical resources, regional planning, City growth and
expansion, and public safety issues (flooding, airports, etc.). The LUE is consistent in
attempting to preserve natural resources such as creeks, hillsides, and agriculture.
Presently the LUE is being updated. This update has minor discrepancies with the DOSE;
however, these discrepancies will be resolved before the updates are adopted.
Conclusion:
-The DOSE is consistent with the LUE.
-4 -
ER 3-93, Open Space
2. Consistency With-the Circulation Element (CE).
The CE describes how the City will provide for the transportation of people and materials
within San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond. The CE contains
policies and programs regarding traffic reduction,traffic management,parking management
and the maintenance of scenic roadways. Each section contains several policies and
implementation programs designed to fulfill the CE's general goals 'and objectives.
Overlap between the CE and.DOSE occurs regarding the protection of scenic resources
and scenic corridors. Although the two documents define scenic resources differently, the
documents augment one another in their protection of these resources.
Conclusion:
The DOSE is consistent with the City's existing Circulation Element as well as the
Circulation Element Update.
3. Consistency With the Park and Recreation Element (PRE).
The 1982 PRE is a 40-year plan for parks and recreation. The PRE addresses park needs,
recreation, urban trails, and open space. The emphasis of the PRE is the provision of
active recreation (recreation typical of urban parks); whereas, the emphasis of the DOSE
is the protection of resources with a secondary goal of providing recreation.
Conclusion: - — - -
The DOSE is consistent with the Park and Recreation Element.
4. Consistency With Other City Elements (Housing, Conservation, Noise, Seismic Safety,
Safety, Scenic Highway, Energy Conservation, and Water and Wastewater Management
Element). Many of these elements are referenced in the DOSE, with the DOSE
amplifying policies within these elements.
Conclusion:
r
The DOSE is consistent with these elements.
5. Consistency With Other Policy Documents (City Administrative Creek Policy, Downtown
Plan). The DOSE contains creek policies that are consistent with these documents. In
addition, the DOSE has programs to augment these documents, such as creation of a creek
ordinance to replace the Administrative Creek Policy, updating hillside policies to further
protect hills and mountains, and designating open space downtown.
In terms of the proposed Downtown Plan, there are slight variations between the
Downtown Plan designations and the DOSE. The DOSE notes two programs that are not
identified in the Downtown Plan (see DOSE, page 52 - 53, programs a (6 and 7). These
programs, according to the DOSE,would occur with an update to the Park and Recreation
- s -
ti:
ER 3-93, Open Space
Element. DOSE program a (6) indicates that the parking lot on the corner of Nipomo
Street/Higuera Street should become a passive park, the downtown plan shows this area
occupied by a combination of commercial development and pedestrian plaza. In addition,
the DOSE indicates Garden Street (between Marsh and Higuera) should be closed to
traffic and utilized as an.area for pedestrians, outdoor restaurant seating, and park-type
landscaping and benches. The Downtown Plan depicts through traffic'on Garden Street,
but restricted volume and parking, while incorporating pedestrian amenities. Both Plans
are in a draft stage and subject to change in these areas. These minor discrepancies will
be resolved prior to the adoption of the DOSE and the Downtown Plan.
Conclusion:
The DOSE and Downtown Plan are consistent.
6. SLO County Clean Air Plan.
The 1991 Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County addresses the attainment and
maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards. These standards are
adopted to protect public health, vegetation, materials, and visibility. The Draft Open
Space Element (DOSE).contains several features that reinforce Clean Air Plan goals,
including: maintaining urban uses within the URL, preserving rural lands, and protecting
resources (such as air quality).
Conclusion:
The DOSE is consistent with the 1991 Clean Air Plan.
7. Airport Land Use Plan
Land development in areas near the SLO County Airport is regulated by the County's
Airport Land Use Plan (1973). The Land Use Plan is based on State and Federal
guidelines relating to land use compatibility with respect to airport operations. 'Be plan
delineates six zones near the airport, and imposes land use restrictions for development
within each zone. Figure 4 illustrates these zones, which range from stringent safety and
noise restrictions, to areas not directly affected. Land use compatibility is considered to
be.a function of potential safety and noise impacts.
The DOSE does not propose any land use changes within this area. In addition, DOSE
policies would require that development adequately mitigate hazards, and goals would
direct urban growth away from areas subject to high hazards (DOSE, pages 32 - 33).
Conclusion:
The DOSE is consistent with the County's Airport Land Use Plan- (1973).
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 4 - Airport Zones
.........................
M.
a
/ �........ ,
! i ;...... �tSr ......•. _
t
e... - :. .. .: :.....:.. .............. :.r
::':::....::..... ` " ; ..>........,......;......... . . rsr.
• <sz'' t
*00 r .:V
% ,X x,'4
wry' �%';:'tftf:,' ? ;'; .�Y ,e:\`,'•• :
i .
i
.e:
•
..... r/tet
........ 'W\ 1, �1.�.�........•
wws_S.:vu.n.
AN
Q
PREDOMINANT FUTURE LAND USE
PROSPOSED BY DRAFT LLE
Single-Family Residential _ ® office Prohibited Land Use
0 Multi-Family Residential ® Industrial Land Use Subject to Airport Land Use
® Retail Commerical 050 Public Facility Commission Review
® Tourist Commercial 3-6 Airport Zone Number
® Specific Plan Area: mostly low-density residential,
but also includes other higher intensity uses. Q
NOTE: Areas of marked will retain existing land use. .eO
- 7 - rm
ER 3-93, Open Space
8. County General Plan Elements
The County's Land Use Plan and Agriculture Open Space Element do not indicate a'greenbelt
around the City of SLO; however, in general, land uses around the City are proposed to be
maintained by the County in rural and agricultural uses. The DOSE does propose that a joint
powers agreement be implemented between the City and County to adhieve consistency
between City and County land use goals. City and County plans should be made consistent to
facilitate additional city-county agreements aimed at maintaining agriculture where it is viable,
and to promote urban growth where it is logical.
Conclusion:
County General Plans may be inconsistent with the DOSE pending the adoption of the
County's (a) SLO Land Use Plan Update, and (b) Agriculture and Open Space Element.
B. Population Distribution and Growth
Impacts relating to population distribution and growth result when a project will significantly
alter existing population distributions or result in significant growth. The DOSE emphasizes
resource protection, the maintenance of urban densities within existing urban areas, and the
creation of a greenbelt. DOSE programs do discuss the creation of a transfer of development
credit (TDC ) program and a clustering program. Such ordinances would be instituted to
protect sensitive areas and may result in (a) cluster developments within the URL, greenbelt,
and Outer Planning Area to protect resources, and (b) increased densities in certain parts of
the City or County. Density increases may occur if TDC or cluster ordinances offered bonus
densities to encourage program participation. With density bonuses, such ordinances could
impact City or County population densities (at least within certain areas) and could impact
growth in certain areas (potentially creating growth inducements).
The intent of these programs is to locate development in appropriate areas, and remove
development activities from sensitive areas. Since no TDC or clustering ordinance has been
written it is difficult to ascertain impacts at this time. However, at the time such ordinances
are written, environmental review must occur and impacts must be mitigated. The program
within the DOSE itself would not result in a potentially significant change in population
distribution or population growth since projects could not occur until an ordinance is in place.
C. Land Use
This section evaluates land use compatibility impacts. Under the proposed project, new urban.
development would be contained within the City's Urban Reserve Line (URL). Areas outside
the URL would be maintained in agricultural uses, rural lands, parkland, and open space.
Minimizing land use conflicts is a primary objective of urban planning. Typically, land use
conflicts occur when impact-sensitive development is located near land uses which produce
negative noise, air quality, or traffic impacts. Such conflicts are generally avoided by separating
incompatible land uses through zoning restrictions. Where conflicting zones share a common
-s -
ER 3-93, Open Space
boundary; creative design solutions can be used to minimize potential impacts..
Agricultural Setting:
Cultivated land near the City provides fresh produce for area residents and visitors and is part
of the City's aesthetic backdrop. There are about 1,200 acres of prime (Crass I and II) soils
in and around the City, comprising about one percent of such soils within the County (Figure
5)
Agriculture Impacts:
Appendix G, subsection (y) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a significant adverse impact
would occur if prime agricultural land is converted to non-agricultural use, or if the agricultural
productivity of prime agricultural land is impaired.
The existing Land Use Element (LUE) and LUE Update (DLUE) designate lands within the
City for urban land uses. The DLUE has designated some lands in the southern part of the
City for urban development that contain agricultural operations. These impacts are assessed
as part of the DLUE's environmental impact report (EIR). The DOSE, conversely, designates
some lands within the URL as agriculture as well as providing policies and programs to protect
agricultural lands located within the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. Impacts reviewed in
this section focus on the impacts of proposed DOSE policies.
Agriculture Within the URL and City Limits. DOSE policies stipulate that. the Dalidio,
McBride, and Madonna properties should remain in agriculture (see Figure 6 for location).
Exceptions contained in this policy include: (a) areas designated by the DLUE as commercial
or residential, and (b) areas of the site which should be designated as open space (i.e., Prefumo
Creek and the heron rookery). The DOSE also states that the City should work with Cal Poly
to preserve the Orchard site (see Figure 6 for the location). Policies in this section also
provide for agricultural buffers.
Agriculture within the Greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. DOSE policies support the
preservation of agricultural and rural uses, mandating that urban uses should locate within the
City's Urban Reserve Line (URL). The subdivision of agricultural land or residential
clustering on agricultural lands is supported only if adjacent agriculture is not impacted and
if the agricultural viability of the subject property is maintained. Agricultural policies call for
buffers between urban uses and agricultural lands. . DOSE programs identify the need for a
transfer of development credit (TDC) and clustering ordinances that protect agriculture in the
greenbelt and Outer Planning Area (DOSE, pages 6 and 43). DOSE policies encourage
passive recreation on agricultural lands to connect other open space, parkland, or trail
resources. Active or passive recreation is permitted only if it (a) does not divide an
agricultural operation, (b) is compatible with adjoining agricultural operations, (c).does not
result in a significant environmental impact, and (d) involves a willing seller.
DOSE policies would afford some protection to agricultural lands within the City's URL and
City Limits by requiring an.agricultural buffer. Outside the City, more protection would be
. 9 .
. � . 0? ?hq
EK 3-93, Open Space
Figure 5 - Class I and II Soils
........................•
... .;
��J I
<
1:
:.. ...:.....:..::
.. ....:......
.._..... ,
•:r. Iii ....:::':::::..
....................
..
j
1\
PREDONUNANT FUTURE LAID USE � 1 CLASS I & U SOUS
PROSPOSED BY DRAFT LUE
Single-Family Residential ® Office
0 Multi-Family Residential ® Industrial
® Retail Commerical Public Facility
Tourist Commercial NOTE: Areas not marked will Q
-- - ---- -- -- - - -
--- retain existing land use. _ _ \o'". _
m
m
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 6 - Dalidio & Orchard Properties
0
t �
W
f0 ILUL
FR D I v I
r
f004� .� � r•
1. I
an o �j
j
I c �•g`' b I
r
0.
I�'1,\/. /' ... 6.`S.• 8400 S �ry0
S 1 TANK FARM 1P �•�•
�.
/ 9UCKEEY
Agricultural areas proposed within 11 Dalidio, McBride& Madonna Properties ❑2 Orchard Property
the City for protection
- 11 -
.. .. a•aa
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 7 - Agricultural Buffers Within and Outside the LTRL and City Limits
Parcel Parcel
A A
within URL . .....
outside URL
Parcel Parcel
B B
Now Later
Urban Reserve Line (URL) Urban Reserve Line (URL)
A Parcel Proposed for urban A Developed Parcel
development
B Existing agricultural land B Agricultural Operation Ceases
Buffer required Buffer remains
Depicted above is parcel A proposed for an urban use. Parcel A is within the URI, while Parcel B (which is agricultural
la�d) is outside the LTRL Parcel A must provide an agricultural buffer. Since Parcel A is located adjacent to the URL the
agricultural buffer must.remain indefinitely between Parcel A and B until the URL is expanded or the City determines that:
(1) there is no likelihood agriculture will occur on Parcel B in the future, and (2) removal of the buffer on Parcel A Will not
adversely impact other agricultural lands near or adjacent to Parcel B.
Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel
C D C D
within URL
�o u—ts ide URL Now Later
Urban Reserve Line (URL) Urban Reserve Line (URL)
C Parcel Proposed for urban C Developed Parcel
development
D Existing agricultural land D Urban development proposed
Buffer required Buffer may be removed
Depicted above is Parcel C proposed for an urban use and Parcel D presently remaining as agricultural land. In this case
both parcels are within the LJRL Parcel C must provide an agricultural buffer to protect the agricultural land on Parcel
D; however, since parcel D is slated for urban development (because it is within the URL and zoned by the City for
development), at the time Parcel D develops the agricul��ral-buffer on Parcel C may be removed (at the discretion of the
City).
- 13 -
07-0734
ER 3-93, Open Space
afforded by limiting subdivisions, maintaining agricultural lands in agricultural uses, and
providing incentives to maintain land in agriculture (see DOSE policies 1 (d-g)). With
implementation of these policies, and the City actively working with the County to develop
cluster and TDC ordinances, impacts to agricultural lands would not be significant.
Agriculture Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are recommended to clarify DOSE policies regarding
agricultural issues:
1. DOSE policy 1 (a 3 c), page 41, requires agricultural buffers within the City Limits and
URL if development occurs next to agricultural land'. Buffers are to be placed on the
developing land, not the adjacent agricultural land. This policy should be clarified to state:
a. In the case the parcel proposed for development is within the URL, and the
agricultural land is outside the URL, an agricultural buffer shall be provided and
maintained indefinitely until the URL is expanded or the City determines that: (1)
there is no likelihood agriculture will occur on the agricultural land in the future, and
(2) removal of the buffer will not adversely impact other agricultural lands in the
general area. See Figure 7 for clarification.
b. In the case the parcel proposed for development is within the URL or City Limits and
the agricultural parcel is within the URL or City Limits, an agricultural buffer between
the developed parcel and the agricultural land shall be provided; however, once the
agricultural land is developed with urban uses this agricultural buffer may be removed
(at the discretion of the City). See Figure 7 for clarification of this policy change.
However, if a mitigation fee has been paid instead of providing the agricultural buffer,
this fee should not be refunded since it provides compensation for short-term impacts
to agriculture.
2. Table IV (page 50) should clarify when recreation is prohibited on agricultural lands. This
section should clearly state active recreation is not encouraged on agricultural lands
outside the URL, and that recreation should not interfere with existing or adjacent
agricultural operations. In addition, that passive recreation is prohibited when it "divides"
agricultural lands versus the present wording which says it is prohibited if it "bisects an
agricultural parcel."
3. A program should be added to the Outdoor Recreation section. This program should
state: "As part of the Park and Recreation Element Update, the City and County should
identify potential golf course sites within and outside the URL."
Agricultural lands are lands that are viable for agriculture or designated by the County Land Use Ordinance with a zoning or
general plan designation of agriculture.
- 11 -
z
ER 3-93, Open Space
D. Transportation & Circulation
Setting
The Draft Land Use Element (DLUE) and Draft Circulation Element (DCE) EIR reviewed
the City's vehicular traffic characteristics. Existing automobile traffic volumes are based on the
City's 1991 MINUTP traffic model. As noted by the 1992 EIR for the DLUE and DCE, traffic
conditions throughout the City are generally good (Level of Service A and B).
Transportation & Circulation Impacts:
Twe of f Develoopment Impacts
Scattered rural housing Traffic increases on private and county roads could occur
throughout the planning area. Depending on the allowed
traffic development levels, cumulative increases could require
improvements to county roads and may result in longer trip
distances and greater energy use. Such development has very
little potential use of alternative transportation.
Clustered rural housing More focused traffic increases on private and county roads.
Depending on allowed development levels, cumulative traffic
increase could require improvements to county roads. Longer
trip distances and- greater- energy use may occur. . Such
development has limited potential for use of alternative
transportation (primarily reduction in work trips).
TDC housing within URL Depending on level of TDC allowed, incrementally higher
traffic levels in neighborhoods that include receiver sites; no
significant difference in traffic levels on arterial streets when
compared to other options. Reduced trip distances and energy
use may occur. Significant potential for use of alternative
transportation as a trip reduction mechanism.
The draft Circulation Element (DCE) promotes the use of alternative transportation. The
DOSE's support for TDC and cluster programs is generally consistent with the emphasis of the
DCE.
Transportation & Circulation Mitigation Measures:
1. A program statement should be added to DOSE-program 1 (g), page 6: "Incorporate into
this cluster ordinance a trip reduction program."
E. Public Services
This section analyzes impacts to fire and police protection, administration, and public schools.
. 14 -
ER 3-93, Open Space
Fire Protection. The City of SLO Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency
medical protection service in the City of SLO. The department operates four stations
throughout the City and employs a total of 55 persons. Of the 42 fire fighters at the SLOFD,
15 are paramedics. The SLOFD strives to maintain a City-wide average emergency response
time of under five minutes. Current.staffing and facilities are considered adequate to provide
service to all areas within the City limits. Although additional staffing would be required as
the City's population grows,no additional capital improvements are anticipated fo be necessary
to serve new development within the current City limits. The Fire Department states.that
major development would require new facilities in order to maintain adequate emergency
response times.
Fire Protection Impacts:
DOSE policies require that hazards be mitigated, and that mitigation should not result in a
public cost (DOSE, pages 32-33). Such policies would require new development to provide
adequate fire service for new facilities (to mitigate potential fire impacts). With incorporation
of these DOSE policies, impacts to fire protection are not considered significant.
Fire Protection Mitigation:
None.
Police Protection. Based on the City's current population of 42,480, the current level of police
protection service is one sworn officer per 787 City residents. In order to maintain the current
level of police protection, this officers/residents ratio must be maintained. Increased
development without corresponding increases in SLOPD staffing and expansion of department
facilities would constitute a significant impact.
Police Protection Impacts
New,recreation in rural and urban areas, clustering projects, and TDC receiver sites may
require new or additional police protection services. Protection would be provided by the
appropriate jurisdiction or agency. For example, clustering projects located in rural areas (not
annexed to the City) would likely have police service provided by the County sheriff. Rural
trails (implemented by the City) may have some security provided by open space funds,
neighbors, volunteers, or the County sheriff. At the time specific projects are proposed, the
adequacy of police protection services would be assessed and mitigated. With this mitigation,
impacts to law enforcement would not be considered significant.
Police Protection Mitigation:
None.
Administration. Impacts to City administrative services are analyzed on the basis of the City's
current ratio of full-time staff to the current total number of residents and employees in the
City. Given the current City.staff of 196 employees (excluding police and fire services) and the
- 15 -
:-: a-07
ER 3-93, Open Space _
current combined resident/employee population of 75,822, the current ratio .of City staff to
residents/employees is 1:387.
Administration Impacts:
To have an effective open space program, staffing will be required to negotiate open space
purchases, prepare management plans, perform maintenance, provide security', plan for open
space priorities, and comment on individual projects that may affect the City's open space
program. In the beginning the program can be maintained by existing staff; however, as more
lands are acquired program staffing needs may grow. As proposed in the DOSE, funding
sources should be provided for the open space program (see DOSE, Chapter IV). Initially, this
money would primarily be utilized for property acquisition and related tasks; however, as more
land is obtained open space monies would be utilized more for maintenance, security, and
similar tasks. DOSE policies requires that new open space monies be allocated for acquisition
as well as maintenance. Thus it is expected that open space would have a set revenue source
and that staff would not significantly exceed that revenue source, a basic constraint of any City
program.
Administration Mitigation
None.
Public Schools. Impacts to public schools are based upon the capacity of existing school
facilities and planned future facilities to accommodate projected increases in school enrollment.
Impacts are considered significant if the increased enrollment associated with buildout of the
proposed project or any alternative exceeds the capacity of local school facilities.
Public Schools Impacts:
Cluster and TDC projects may result in a need for new or augmented school facilities. The
location of TDC or cluster projects will not be clear until ordinances are created. Such
ordinances and individual projects proposed will require environmental review and mitigation
for school impacts. With this mitigation, .school impacts are not considered potentially
significant.
F & O. Utilities/Energy/Resources
This section analyzes the provision of services and resources.
Water Supply:
The City of San Luis Obispo currently receives its water from three sources: Whale Rock
Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), and local groundwater supplies. The
current estimated water supply from these three sources is 7,357 acre-feet per year (AFY) (see
Appendix 1 for a summary of City water supplies).
- 16 -
ER 3-93, Open Space
Whale Rock Reservoir and Salinas Reservoir constitute 93 percent of the City's current water
supply. In addition, the City has operated six wells [not all active now] from which 1,955 and
1,954 AFY of groundwater were extracted in 1990 and 1991, respectively. According to the
City's Groundwater Basin. Evaluation, between 2,000 and 3,000 AF of groundwater can be
extracted on an annual basis if proper water management steps are taken. However, Policy
3.3 of the City's Water and Wastewater Management Element states that' the City will not
compete with local agricultural use of groundwater or damage wildlife habitat-through reduced
steam flows in obtaining long-term sources of supply. Based on this policy, the City Council
decided in April, 1992, to limit the long-term use of groundwater to 500 AFY.
Water Consumption:
The City will provide water.service to all areas within the City and some agencies outside the
City. Consumption within the City's service area during the past six years is shown in Appendix
1. Water consumption peaked in 1988 and fell off sharply thereafter. The City's total 1991
consumption of 4,640 AF represents a 45 percent reduction from the peak annual consumption
of 8,411 AFY (1988). This decline in consumption is primarily a result of the mandatory water
conservation program that was imposed by the City in 1989 in response to drought conditions.
The City ended its mandatory water conservation program in March, 1992. Despite lifting of
mandatory conservation, water demand is still below the demand experienced in 1987 (the
baseline year for the conservation program). Due to mandatory conservation the past several
years do not represent normal City water consumption conditions. Using typical water demand
rates for the various land uses that exist in the City, City-wide demand is anticipated to be
approximately 8,095 AFY (under normal conditions). This level of demand would exceed the
City's current available water supply of 7,357 AFY by 738 AFY.
Water Supply Impacts:
Impacts to water supplies are considered significant if projected demand for water exceeds
projected available supply at the time of buildout. In general terms, the DOSE could increase
water demands from current levels as a result of water needed for: . (1) active or passive
recreation projects, (2) new plantings or restoration provided along degraded creeks, hillsides,
or similar resource areas, and (3) cluster or TDC projects.
DOSE policies stipulate that recreation is prohibited if (a) a significant environmental impact
occurs, or the project would significantly mar the scenic quality of a site (DOSE, Table III,
page 49). Recreation projects (such as parks or golf courses) may require a significant amount
of water (depending on the landscaping provided and the project's design). At the time such
projects are proposed, environmental review would determine water impacts. Under DOSE
policies, water impacts would need to be mitigated.
DOSE policies encourage restoration and enhancement of creek environments. Water use for
such projects would be minimal in that: (1) water would be necessary for starting the
vegetation (usually two years maximum), (2)'the required native vegetation has a lower water
demand than ornamental .plants, and (3) most restoration projects would be small scale.
- 17 -
ER 3-93; Open Space
Because of the scale and sporadic nature of such projects it is not anticipated that
enhancement projects will result in potentially significant water impacts. In addition, such
projects will be subject to environmental review and mitigation for potentially significant
impacts.
The DOSE programs include the preparation of clustering and TDC ordinances. Such projects
may be dependent on City water, although rural projects would generally provide their own
services (since current LUE policy prohibits City sewer and water service outside the City Limit
Line or URL). TDC projects would likely transfer development from rural areas to areas
within the URL, thus utilizing City services. Clustering projects may occur within the URL,
but such projects would not necessarily significantly increase density as much as protect natural
resource areas. At the time a specific TDC or cluster ordinance is proposed mitigation will
be required for water supply impacts. Programs identifying the need to create such ordinances
(as specified within the DOSE)would not result in a potentially significant impact to City water
supply.
Water Supply Mitigation:
Policies and programs within the DOSE could encourage water conservation or better
utilization of water resources. Doing so may effect the ability of the City and County to
provide for desired development (such as cluster or TDC development) versus allowing
sporadic rural development. The following programs are recommended to be added to the
DOSE Outdoor Recreation Section, to be included in the Park and Recreation Element
Update:
1. The City, County, and State should encourage regional and community parks and facilities
such as golf courses to utilize reclaimed water for landscaped areas.
2. Regional and community parks, golf courses, and similar projects should:
a. Utilize primarily native plants while minimizing turf area, and
b. Prior to project approval, provide a water conservation plan. This plan shall be
updated every five years, and shall detail water supply and demand for the facility
during drought and non-drought years.
Wastewater Treatment and Sewage Collection:
Water supplies from the two reservoirs that serve the City are treated at the Stenner Canyon
water treatment facility located north of the City. Stenner Canyon's current peak water
treatment capacity is 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd). This rate of treatment was regularly
approached during the summer and fall days before the drought and mandatory conservation.
The plant's upgrade (now underway) would increase peak capacity to about 16 mgd.
The City's current wastewater collection system includes approximately 150 miles of sewer
pipes, and eight pumping .stations. Collected flows are treated at the ,City's wastewater
- 18 -
i 2 RP L
'
ER 3-93, Open Space
treatment plant on Prado Road. The sewage collection system in the City is currently in need
of improvements. The system suffers from high infiltration/inflow (I/I) rates,primarily during
wet weather conditions, due to cracks in the joints of older pipes, root intrusion, and pipe
breakage. The City continually replaces sewer pipes as part of its maintenance schedule and
uses television cameras, smoke tests, and manhole inspections to identify problem areas.
The City's wastewater treatment plant currently has the capacity to treat 5.2 million gallons per
day (mgd) of sewage. By 2015, the City plans to increase the capacity of the treatment plant
to 5.8 mgd during dry weather flows and 6.2 mgd during wet weather flows. An upgrade of the
City's treatment plant is currently being conducted. This will allow the plant to treat
wastewater to an advanced tertiary level, which will bring the plant into compliance with
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
In 1989, the average dry weather flow into the City's treatment plant was 4.4 mgd. However,
because of water conservation measures that were implemented during the recent drought,
wastewater flows in the City have been reduced to between 3.1 and 3.5 mgd, on average.
These flows are 60 to 67 percent of current treatment capacity, respectively. Overall flows will,
however, rise as a return to normal water consumption patterns occurs following the lifting of
the City's conservation program. Under conditions of normal water consumption, estimated
wastewater flow for current levels of development in the City would be approximately 4.76
mgd.
Wastewater Impacts:
Impacts to wastewater collection and treatment systems are considered significant if projected
flows exceed projected treatment plant capacity or the capacity of local sewage collection
systems. Clustering and TDC projects may be dependent on City wastewater facilities,
although rural projects would generally provide their own facilities (since current LUE policy
prohibits City sewer and water service outside the City Limit Line or URL). TDC projects
would likely transfer development from rural areas to areas within the URL, thus utilizing City
wastewater facilities. Clustering projects may occur within the URL, but such projects would
not necessarily significantly increase density as much as protect natural resource areas. At the
time:a specific TDC or cluster ordinance is proposed mitigation will be required for impacts
to wastewater facilities. Programs identifying the need to create such ordinances (as specified
within the DOSE) would not result in a potentially significant impact to City wastewater
facilities.
Wastewater Mitigation:
None.
Electricity Setting:
Electrical power is supplied to the City of SLO by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Using
typical electrical power demand rates for the various land uses that presently exist in the City,
current demand for electrical power is estimated at 314 million.kilowatt hours per year
19
ER 3-93, Open Space
(kWh/y). The PG&E system,has an electrical delivery capacity of approximately.65 megawatts
(MW). Peak demand for electricity in the City is estimated at 57.3 MW. Therefore, a surplus
peak demand capacity of approximately 7.7 MW currently exists.
Electricity Impacts:
Impacts related to the provision of electrical power would be considered significant if project
demand adversely affects the ability of PG&E to maintain adequate.service. Since the DOSE
does not involve significant new areas for development that would require electrical service,
project impacts would not be considered significant.
Natural Gas Setting:
Southern California Gas Company, a privately owned company under the jurisdiction of the
Public Utilities Commission, provides natural gas service to the San Luis Obispo area. The
availability of natural gas service is dependent upon current natural gas supplies and regulatory
policies. Using typical natural gas demand rates for the various land uses that presently exist
in the City, current demand for natural gas is estimated at 1.51 billion cubic feet per year
(d/yr). Under present conditions, Southern California Gas Company has the capacity to meet
all demand for natural gas in the City.
Natural Gas Impacts:
Impacts related to the provision of natural gas are considered significant if projected demand
adversely.affects the ability of SCG to maintain adequate service. Since adoption of the DOSE
does not involve significant new areas for development that would require natural gas service,
project impacts would not be considered significant.
Recycling/Solid Waste Disposal Setting:
An estimated 97,726 tons of solid waste were generated in 1991 by.residential, commercial,
industrial, and other customers in the City. Given the City's current population of 42,480,
current per capita generation is 12.6 pounds per day, or approximately 2.3 tons per year. Of
this'total, 82,314 tons (84%) were disposed in area landfills and .the remaining 15,412 tons
(16%) are diverted from landfills either through source reduction or recycling activities.
Cold Canyon Landfill receives all of San Luis Obispo's solid waste. The landfill is nearing
capacity; however, there are plans to expand this landfill. This expansion will increase capacity
by 3.49 million tons. At current disposal rates, this would provide adequate capacity for the
next 10 to 15 years. Further expansion of Cold Canyon Landfill or development of an
alternative site would be required at the time this capacity is reached.
Recycling/Solid Waste Disposal Impacts:
Impacts related to solid waste generation are considered significant if projected solid waste
disposal exceeds the projected capacity of available disposal facilities. Since adoption of the
20
ER 3-93, Open Space
and implementation of the DOSE does not involve significant new areas for development that
would require solid waste disposal, project impacts would not be considered significant.
G. Noise Levels
Noise Setting:
Excessive noise can not only be undesirable but may also cause physical and/or psychological
damage. The amount of annoyance or damage caused by noise is dependent primarily upon
three factors: the amount and nature of the noise, the amount of ambient noise present before
the intruding noise, and the activity of the person working or living in the noise source area.
Generally, noise levels diminish as distance from a noise source increases. The duration of
noise and the time period at which it occurs are important factors in determining noise impacts
to sensitive land uses (such as residences, schools, etc.). Noise is more disturbing at night than
during the day and noise indices have been developed to account for the varying duration of
noise events over time as well as community responses to them.
The primary sources of noise in the City of SLO corporate boundary and URL includes
vehicular traffic on roads and highways, train operations from the Southern Pacific Railroad,
and airport activities at the SLO Airport. Two major stationary sources of noise near the City
are the Southern Pacific Milling Company, which produces concrete, and Air-Vol Block which
manufactures concrete blocks.
Noise Impacts:
Noise standards contained within the City of SLO Noise Element (1991), identify noise as a
significant impact if sensitive land uses are exposed to an (a) interior noise level greater than
45 dBA, or (b) exterior noise levels of greater than 60 dBA Ldn. Noise sensitive land uses are
generally defined as residences, transient lodging, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches,
meeting halls, office buildings, and mortuaries.
Noise impacts are assessed in terms of long and short-term impacts. Long-term impacts result
from a noise source which is constant or re-occurring (such as traffic or train noise,
respectively). Short-term noise impacts occur for a limited duration of time. Construction and
maintenance equipment noise are examples of short-term impacts, once construction or
maintenance is completed the noise impact is removed. Long-term noise impacts result largely
from transportation facilities (such as airports, roads, trains) or stationary.sources (such as
manufacturing plants).
With implementation of the DOSE, noise impacts could result from: (a) the construction of
recreation, cluster, or TDC projects (short-term noise impacts associated with construction),
and (b) open. space maintenance activities (short-term impacts associated with mowers and
other heavy equipment required to maintain open space). Potentially significant noise impacts
would occur if (a) sensitive uses are located adjacent to noise sources, and (b) the noise,
.
generated exceeds City or. County Noise Element standards (depending on the project's
-21 -
aa 7t
Eft 3-93, Open Space
jurisdiction). Within the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area, the likelihood of noise impacts
is decreased because there are few noise sensitive uses. Within or near the URL, because of
the density of sensitive uses (i.e., residences), the potential for impacts is greater. At the time
individual projects are proposed CEQA review will occur. In addition, in order for cluster or
recreation projects to be approved they must be consistent with the City (or County) Noise
Element standards. Such consistency would guarantee that significant noise impacts do not
occur.
Noise Mitigation Measures:
To clarify that City construction and maintenance activities on open space do not result in
potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors the following policies should be
incorporated into.DOSE, Chapter III (Management of Open Space and Greenbelt Areas by
the City):
1. If open space uses are proposed adjacent to noise sensitive uses they shall include the
following mitigation measures (unless there is an emergency which requires immediate
action by the City):
a. Construction and maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to
4:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
b. All construction and maintenance equipment, fixed or mobile, should be in proper
- operating condition and fitted with standard silencing features.- -
c. In areas where construction or maintenance equipment (such as diesel generators and
air compressors) is operating for more than one day within 50 feet of a sensitive land
use, temporary portable noise barriers should be erected and located between the
piece of equipment and the sensitive use.
d. During construction or maintenance operations within areas located near a noise
sensitive land use, only one piece of equipment should be allowed to operate. [Using
150 feet as a reference distance, the reduction from two pieces of equipment to one
could reduce noise levels by approximately 3 dBA].
H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications
Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications Setting:
The SLO area is subject to several types of related but distinct geologic hazards, including
earthquakes, liquefaction, and landslides. Within SLO County, small to moderate earthquakes
(magnitude less than 5.0 on the Richter Scale) are common. The potential for liquefaction (a
phenomenon whereby unconsolidated or near saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted
to a fluid state as a result of severe-vibratory motion) varies considerably over the study area,
dependent on local soil types and conditions. Much of the Laguna Lake area, for example,
rests on recent alluvium which is considered to carry a high liquefaction potential in the event
.22 .
ER 3-93, Open Space
of an earthquake.
Landslides are influenced by a number of factors, including slope angle, soil moisture content,
vegetative cover and the physical nature of the underlying strata. Landslides can be triggered
by one or more specific events including development-related construction,seismic activity, and
fires. The primary factor in determining landslide potential is an unstable 'slope condition.
Other potential geologic hazards are tsunamis and seiches. Tsunami and seiches are
seismically induced waves which occur in the large bodies of water. No known tsunami or
seiches have affected the City of SLO, and their future possibility of posing a hazard to the
City is extremely remote.
Geologic, Seismic, & Topographic Modifications Impacts:
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant impact
if it "exposes people or structures to major geologic hazards." Therefore, if new development
is located in areas of high seismic, liquefaction, landslide, or erosion potential, a significant
impact would occur.
DOSE programs encourage the creation of TDC and cluster ordinances. In addition, DOSE
policies recommend the preservation of historic structures (DOSE, page 34). Such structures
could be impacted by geologic hazards. According to State and City guidelines, new or
renovated facilities (such as adobes) would be required to comply with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, the-City's Seismic. Safety Element, and local.ordinances. Such
compliance would mandate that project-related geologic risks be mitigated to a less than
significant level. These requirements include the preparation of soils engineering and
geological engineering investigations prior to development in areas of moderate, high, and very
high landslide risks and in areas of high and very high liquefaction and subsidence potential.
In addition, the DOSE, in the Hazard Section (pages 32-33), does provide policies regarding
development in hazard areas. These policies mandate that lands proposed for development
should provide adequate mitigation for hazards. DOSE Outdoor Recreation policies encourage
combining recreation with hazard control measures (DOSE, page 48, policy 1 (e)). Such
recreation uses are allowed only if they do not increase the hazard. State and City guidelines,
and- DOSE policies would adequately mitigate potentially significant geologic impacts
associated with DOSE adoption.
I. Air uality
Air Quality Setting.
Ozone and particulate matter less than 10 microns are the primary pollutants of concern in the
SLO area. Although the City has not exceeded Federal ozone and particulate standards,
occasionally State standards for both ozone and particulates have been exceeded. The City
of SLO, during the period of 1989 through 1991, did not exceed.State or Federal standards for
carbon monoxide, nitrogen.dioxide or sulfur dioxide.
a-a8�
ER 3-93, Open Space
Air Quality Impacts:
Air quality impacts occur as a result of(a) construction emissions (from equipment, materials,
and grading activities), and. (b) exhaust emissions (from vehicles and stationary sources).
DOSE air quality impacts could occur from emissions generated by (a) construction of
recreation facilities, cluster projects, TDC projects, or roads associated with'facilities, and (b)
vehicles traveling to or from such facilities or projects. '
In terms of construction emissions, DOSE policies do require that sound soil conservation
techniques be utilized in all construction activities. These policies require planting graded
areas (to stabilize dust emissions), minimizing cut and fill; and limiting graded areas (see
DOSE page 45, Policy 4). Noise mitigation proposed in this negative declaration would also
diminish air quality impacts by requiring that construction and maintenance machinery be kept
in good working order.
In terms of vehicle emissions, DOSE policies encourage recreation, clustering, and TDC
programs. Such projects, once implemented, would likely generate vehicle trips and associated
emissions. DOSE recreation policies encourage park projects such as Mission Plaza and the
Murray Street linear park (DOSE, page 52-53), some active recreation, and open space uses
such as trails and viewing stations. For the most part, recreation encouraged in the DOSE
would not generate significant traffic or air quality concerns. Recreation encouraged in the
DOSE would tend to generate little to no traffic, and, for the most part, should encourage
pedestrian traffic. Since DOSE policies require that proposed recreation not result in a
significant environmental impact (DOSE, Table III and IV, page 49-50), DOSE recreation .
policies would not be considered potentially significant in terms of air quality impacts.
Cluster and TDC projects (once an ordinance is created) may generate.additional vehicle
traffic and thus create air quality impacts; however, the impacts of such projects would have
to be reviewed in terms of(a) the density of proposed cluster or TDC projects, (b) existing hot
spots', (c) potential hot spots, and (d) vehicle trips generated by proposed projects. Cluster
and TDC development would group development (versus allowing sprawl), thus potentially
facilitating car pools, bus service, or other alternative modes of transportation. Since the City's
cluster and TDC ordinances must receive environmental review at the time these ordinances
are drafted, and because environmental review and mitigation will be required at the time
individual projects are proposed, impacts to air quality are not deemed potentially significant
at this time.
Air Quality Mitigation:
None.
2 High concentrations of carbon monoxide usually occurring at a traffic intersection.
- A -
. 2-� 9
ER 3-93, Open Space
J. Surface Water Flow & Quality
Water Flow & Quality Setting:
The major drainage system within the City is the San Luis Obispo Creek system. This drainage
system originates in the Santa Lucia Range north of the city and drains southwest to the Pacific
Ocean. Major creeks within San Luis Obispo's Urban Reserve Line (URL) include: San Luis
Obispo, Stenner, Brizzolari, Prefumo, and Old Garden Creek. Water quality within the San
Luis Obispo Creek system is generally characterized as good. Water quality generally
decreases in the summer months due to reduced flows.
The major groundwater basin within the City, its greenbelt, and Outer Planning Area is the San
Luis Obispo groundwater basin. There are currently groundwater quality problems with
nitrate, iron and manganese levels within the basin. These levels are related to surface water
degradation in San Luis Obispo Creek from municipal waste and business discharges, and
agricultural runoff.
Natural flooding in the Planning Area is most severe along the course of San Luis Obispo
Creek, particularly downstream of its confluence with Stenner Creek. Additional areas of
flooding include the upper reaches of Stenner Creek and its major tributary, Brizzolari Creek.
Areas within the Planning Area that are vulnerable to flooding during a 100-year event are
shown in Figure 8.
Water Flow & Quality Impacts: -. --
The DOSE identifies numerous policies related to protecting creek corridors, wetlands, and
hazard areas (DOSE, pages 13, 22, and 33). Such policies require that development (a) locate
outside of a creek corridors or wetland, and (b) provide an adequate setback or buffer from
a creek or wetland. An adequate setback (as defined by the DOSE) provides for the creek's
storm design capacity and potential natural changes to the creek or wetland. Hazard policies
stipulate that hazards should be mitigated and mitigation should not result in a public cost to
the City or adjacent property owners. DOSE outdoor recreation policies encourage active and
passive recreation in hazard areas where the recreation use is consistent with the hazard, and
prohibit recreation in hazard areas if it would increase the hazard (see DOSE, page 50).
In terms of water quality, the DOSE specifies that development should "utilize design,
construction, and maintenance techniques that ensure that development near a creek will not
cause or make worse natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, flooding, or water
pollution); . . ." In addition, creek enhancement as well as erosion and sediment control
practices are required (DOSE, page 19, policy e). Existing DOSE policies adequately mitigate
potential surface water flow and quality impacts, thus impacts to surface water flow and quality
are not considered potentially significant.
Water Flow & Quality Mitigation:
None.
-25 .
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 8 - Areas Vulnerable to Flooding
Sterner Geek
Oki Garden Geek
. . :.........: .
San Lus Obispo Geek
•>j::j3; :i::'�p3'�:f�Y:<'lii<7vW. b.• •p4
� M.
.Ilrfry�.�A�.•�.�jY•IYi.
».::
Pfur10 Geek 4M}3 d<::<:3:: ;::a< n>, ,.....
re 'io::: ::i: <<< �::,:,;;'��::-;::'%:
........... ,....
LEGEND
700-Year Floodplain
1
-26 -
ER 3-93, Open Space
K & L- Plant and Animal Life
Plant & Animal Life Setting:
The City of SLO is situated between the Santa Lucia Mountains to the east and the Pacific
Ocean to the west. The region is considered to be a valuable ecological resource due to the
presence of contiguous blocks of relatively undisturbed natural areas ar[d the unique
assemblages of plant and animal species supported by them. The variety of plant communities
within this region provides for diverse habitat types which enhance biological values. Seven
major vegetation types are common within the San Luis Valley region: non-native grassland,
ruderal (introduced or disturbed vegetation), riparian, chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodland,
and oak savannah.
The potential variety and abundance of animal species in the URL, greenbelt, and Outer
Planning Area is determined by physical parameters such as soils, slope, exposure,
precipitation,evaportranspiration and vegetation. Vegetation also reflects physical parameters
to a great degree, and consequently provides a suitable framework for identification of animal
associations. The plant communities described above provide habitat for a variety of mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. To protect wildlife in the region, it is
essential to protect the variety of habitats required by each species.
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)lists several sensitive plant communities
and plant and animal species within the San Luis Valley region. For purposes of analysis,
sensitive taxa (named species, subspecies) are considered to be: . (a) plant communities and
species of plants and animals which have been designated as rare, threatened, or endangered
by federal or state agencies; (b) candidates for such designations; and (c) taxa otherwise
considered sensitive by the state (Department of Fish and Game), recognized monitoring
organizations, or local observers with area flora and fauna expertise. A total of 3 sensitive
communities, 14 sensitive plant species and 24 sensitive animal species have been recorded in
the general vicinity of the URI., greenbelt, and Outer Planning Area. A summary of sensitive
plant communities and taxa is presented in Appendix 2. A summary of sensitive animal taxa
is presented in Appendix 3. The majority of species occur outside the City of SLO's URL.
Plants and Animals Impacts:
When development occurs in natural areas, the site's biological resources and the surrounding
area are affected. Biological impacts may be direct, indirect, or both. Direct impacts include
habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction of barriers to movement, and native plant and
animal communities converted to buildings, roads, and decorative landscaping. Development
may also result in indirect impacts which affect the habitat quality within and outside the URL.
Indirect impacts may include the invasion of non-native weedy or landscape plants into natural
areas (see.Appendix 4 for a list of invasive plants), the introduction of feral predators or other
exotic animals, light intrusion into natural areas, noise disturbances, declines in air quality,
changes. in the quality and quantity of water resources, erosion and sedimentation, and
intentional or accidental depredations by human beings.
r-
-27 .
ER 3-93, Open Space
Project impacts are assessed in view of the quality and extent of biological resources in the
proposed development area and regional biological issues. Thresholds of significance were
developed to provide a standard against which the proposed development and cumulative
projects can be measured. Development impacts are discussed in terms of generalized changes
in the structure and function of the biological community, and specific impacts to plant and
animal associations, sensitive taxa and habitats, and wildlife networks.
Significance thresholds were identified based on the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA, Appendix G), and local and regional plans and ordinances. See Appendix 5 of this
negative declaration for these guidelines..
Federal and state regulations require development projects to mitigate an unavoidable loss of
wetlands and riparian habitats. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), US
Army Corps of Engineers, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determine the
location and type of mitigation that should be performed. Federal and State agencies typically
prefer protecting a resource as it exists. A second alternative (when unavoidable impacts
occur) is the creation of a resource (such as a wetland or creek corridor) on the same site
where the impact occurred. This resource should maintain a composition and functional value
similar to the habitat or resource impacted. This is known as 'onsite/inkind" mitigation. A
third (less desirable) alternative is to provide a new resource on another site (in the same
general area), which maintains a similar composition and functional value. This is known as
"off-site/in kind" mitigation. Mitigation which creates a different type of resource or habitat
on a site (either on the site where the impact occurred or on another parcel) is generally not
considered acceptable mitigation. This is known as 'onsite/out of kind"_or-"off-site/out of.kind"
mitigation.
The DOSE recommends coordination of City staff with State and Federal agencies to
guarantee that proper mitigation is implemented. The DOSE Plant and Animal section
provides for coordination between local agencies by defining the category of resource that must
be protected and what agency is responsible for that listing (see DOSE, Tables I and II, page
28 and 29). The DOSE includes policies to protect and designate as open space wetlands,
sensitive plants and animals, hills and mountains, and creeks. Policies in the DOSE would
restrict development within or adjacent to such resources unless (a) no practicable
altemative;3,, is available, (b) alterations are necessary to protect public health and safety, or
(c) alterations are necessary for the location of infrastructure. In the case of new
infrastructure, it may be located in sensitive areas only if the Community Development
Director determines the project has minimized environmental impacts through project design
and infrastructure placement. DOSE policies also state, that if encroachment occurs (for
example if there is no practicable alternative), the City may require replacement vegetation or
payment of a mitigation fee.
3 Practicable 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.
-28 .
ER 3-93, Open Space
DOSE policies stipulate an adequate.creek setback and buffers for wetlands, plants, and
animals. Policy 8.6 within the Draft Land Use Element (DLUE) states that "the City should.
establish creek setback lines. The lines should include: as a minimum, the first 20 feet from
the edge of the wetland or the top of the creek bank; significant riparian plants or wildlife
habitat; space for paths called for by any City-adopted plan" (see DLUE, page 53, policy 8.6
A). The DOSE stipulates that recreation is prohibited within a creek, wetland, sensitive
habitat area, and unique resource except portions of Mission Plaza,Laguna Lake, and Meadow
Park (DOSE policies 1 (a), page 15; Table III and IV, pages 49-50; and program a (1), page
52).
As a result of this exclusion, and the fact that policies and programs are not clear regarding
these.sites, potential expansion of these projects may significantly impact sensitive resources
(creeks,wetlands, sensitive habitat, or unique resources). In addition, DOSE policies state the
City may require replacement and/or a mitigation fee. This policy should clarify preference
(in terms of onsite/inldnd versus offsite/out-of-kind) and when replacement may be required.
To mitigate potentially significant impacts to creeks, wetlands, and plants and animals, DOSE
policy should be clarified in these areas.
Plants and Animals Mitigation:
DOSE creek, wetland, plant and animal, and Outdoor Recreation policies or programs (as
applicable) shall be clarified to indicate:
1. When significant-impacts occur to creeks,wetlands, or plants and animals, the City should
approve and the developer should implement a mitigation and monitoring plan that is
designed to avoid or ameliorate impacts (in the case that no practicable alternative is
available or similar circumstances as discussed in the DOSE). If avoidance is infeasible,
the mitigation plan shall be used to replace habitat values. The monitoring portion shall
provide for -a guarantee (such as a security) that the prescribed mitigation is successful.
The mitigation and monitoring plan should be (a) in accordance with official CDFG
guidelines, and (b) prepared and implemented by qualified professionals under funding by
the applicant.
2. Alterations or expansions to Mission Plaza, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park facilities
should not result in significant biological impacts. Expansion of these park facilities should
allow for the maintenance of existing habitat value as well as human enjoyment. Buildings
and ancillary uses (such as parking) shall maintain a minimum 20 foot setback from top
of creek bank, and a 20 foot buffer from a wetland or sensitive habitat or unique resource.
New recreation facilities (benches, trails, viewing stations) shall be located to preserve
sensitive resources while providing some public access. If impacts occur, habitat values
shall be replaced onsite or offsite (inkind only) at a 2:1 ratio.
3. The priority of habitat replacement. Mitigation should be provided to offset significant
biological impacts, and first priority mitigation should be utilized unless a lower priority
will result in substantially more resource protection or a first priority mitigation is not
feasible.: If encroachment results in a significant biological impact, the first priority shall
-29 -
a-S/
ER 3-93, Open Space
be the provision of onsite/inkind mitigation. A second priority is offsite/inkind mitigation
(within the same general area), and a third priority is a mitigation fee.
4. The standardized setback indicated in the Draft Land Use Element (DLUE), i.e., a 20 foot
setback.
M. ArchaeologicalJHistorical
Archaeological Resources Setting:
The following archaeological resource summary is conditioned by certain constraints:
V Very little of the Planning Area (estimated less than 10%) has been examined for
archaeological resources;
V Many of the designated historical landmarks which potentially include subsurface cultural
resources have not been recorded as archaeological sites; and
V There may be sites known to local or non-professional researchers which have not been
recorded in the archives.
In the SLO Planning Area there are 85 recorded archaeological sites. Some of the historical
landmarks, in particular, nineteenth or early twentieth century residences of SLO citizens and
early commercial buildings, have the potential for subsurface archaeological resources. The
prehistoric sites comprise the range of predictable resources; milling stone sites, villages,
cemeteries,camps,and lithic scatters from the Chumash and Salinan speaking Native American
tribes that lived in the San Luis Obispo area (their territory stretched from Malibu to northern
San Luis Obispo County and inland as far as the western edge of the San Joaquin.Valley). Of
the archaeological sites that have been recorded,22 are within the Urban Reserve Line (URL),
and seven sites (four prehistoric, three historic) are within or close to areas which would be
considered for development under the Draft Land Use Element.
Historic Resources Setting:
A number of significant historic resources have been identified in the Planning Area. These
include local, state, National Landmarks, and Historical Preservation Districts. Historic
Resources are listed in Appendix E of the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines.
In 1987, the City Council created three Historic Preservation Districts: Downtown, Old Town,
and Mill Street (Figure 9). These districts identify the older parts of SLO which exhibit an
important part of the community's history. In addition, three additional Historic Zoning
Districts be may be established by the City. If approved these new districts would include the
Mount Pleasanton/Anholm District, the Little Italy/Railroad District, and the Monterey
Heights District (Figure 9).
The three Historical Preservation Districts have been comprehensively surveyed and most of
-30 - .
- - -2-3z
ER 3-93, Open Space
the city has been subject to at least a cursory historic inventory survey. However, the majority
of these studies addressed only the merits of standing structures and did not address the
potential that some of the older buildings may also contain archaeological resources. Historic
and/or surface resources may exist in other parts of the Planning Area that have not been
recorded. Any future changes to these areas would require a comprehensive survey of historic
resources to determine their significance.
,
Archaeological and Historical Resources Impacts:
Potentially significant unknown archaeologic and historic resources could exist throughout the
Planning Area that could be significantly impacted by future development. Such resources can
only be identified through site-specific research, survey, and inventory. The significance of an
archaeologic or historic resource is most appropriately determined during the site-specific
project planning and review stages of the development process. More detailed and conclusive
testing and evaluation should be conducted at that time based on state and national guidelines.
The significance of site specific impacts can be identified by deciding if the resource would be
demolished or altered or if the surface would be significantly disturbed.
The DOSE policies and programs recommend preserving significant historic archaeological
resources as open space or parkland unless no practicable alternative is available. DOSE
policies also discuss preserving local adobes and other important historic structures as open
space or parkland, and providing sufficient acreage around such structures to maintain and
enhance the historical character (DOSE, page 34 and 35). Further, DOSE policies stipulate
that recreation is prohibited where it will harm the historical or archaeological resource.
In addition to DOSE policies, the City's Historical Preservation Guidelines and the Draft Land
Use Element provide policies and programs for the protection of historical resources. Since
the Draft Open Space Element proposes that historical, archaeological, and cultural resources .
be protected as open space or parkland, and that recreation be prohibited where it will harm
the resource, impacts to such resources are not considered significant.
Archaeological and Historical Resources Mitigation:
Add the following policies to the DOSE Historical, Archaeological, or Cultural Resource
section (pages 34 -35) to be consistent with the protection language contained in other sections
of the DOSE and to provide adequate mitigation:
1. In the case that an archaeological or historical resource is protected as open space or
parkland, the City should require public or private development to:
a. Preserve such resources through easements or dedications. Parcel lines (in the case
of a subdivision) or easements (in the case of a subdivision or other development)
shall be located to optimize resource protection. If a historic or archaeological
resource is located within an open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and
maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement should be clearly defined
and conditioned prior to map or project approval.
-31=
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 9 - Existing and Proposed Historic Preservation Districts
N y
J. uw.uL : Y4Y•
• S
Existing .Historic
Preservation Districts
I
i..s•••...��,� 1 MILL 4TAEET ry
DISTRICT y
r
r
•Y•W `•"r
YYY DOWNTOWN
rf DISTRICT OLD TOWN e .
-'• DISTRICT
Q�
y:
J= •''sem;,,.°`.
.....
MONTEREY NE]GMS
DISTRICT
�—MOUM iLELSAMOW
_ ANNOLM DISTRICT ,
...... _
Proposed Historic
Preservation Districts
♦r
LITTLE ITALY/
RAILROAD DISTRICT
------ ••.��.••''r-- - -- -- - -- .— .............
—-32 - -
-J.0
32 -33
ER 3.93, Open Space
b. Designate such easements or dedication areas (as enumerated in a above) as open
space or parkland as appropriate.
c. Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade the
resource.
2. In areas where it is suspected that archaeological resources may exist, surface surveys,
literature searches, and sub-surface testing should be conducted prior to site development
or grading.
Add the following policies to the DOSE Outdoor Recreation section:
3. Have Table IV(page 50)reference cultural&archaeological resources as well as historical
resources.
N. Aesthetics
Aesthetics Setting:
The City of SLO lies in a valley ringed by hills and morros. Inland and north of the City,
livestock graze the grass-covered rolling hills, interrupted by farmland,vineyards and orchards.
In the winter and spring the oak dotted hillsides surrounding the community become vivid
green accented by a multitude of wildflowers. In the summer and autumn the hillsides turn
tawny, creating a stark contrast between the dark green oaks and the golden-brown grassland.
Visual resources within SLO are defined and protected through primarily two planning
documents: the Land Use Element and the Scenic Highway Element. In addition,architectural
review is conducted.by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for most development
proposed in the City.
Land Use Element. The existing Land Use Element contains goals and policies for the
preservation of scenic resources. The Element also contains standards and policies for hillside
protection. Hillside policies provide protection and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural
features. They do this by (a) setting boundaries for commercial and residential development
in sensitive hillside areas, (b) creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the community's
edge, and (c) directing development away from hazard areas.
Scenic Highway Element. The Scenic Highway Element (SHE) focuses on the scenic value of
local roads and identifies policies and programs that will protect and enhance their scenic
qualities.A map of the designated scenic highways identified in the SHE is presented in Figure
10. Table 1 lists streets in the project area that are designated as scenic in the SHE.
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). ARC examines a proposed project's layout,building
design, its relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, landscaping, parking, signage and
other features affecting the project's appearance. The purpose of ARC review is to recognize
the interdependence of land values and aesthetics, preserve and enhance the City's beauty and
-33 -
— -
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 10 - Scenic Highways Identified in the Scenic Highway Element
I I i t i
r•
LL
I
i
P i
I
•V
I I UMM
I 1 r
.%
I :p�D ' '7i'7 lT •
.r I •9
' hQ !71Wit PUd S�� �` �� J �•A
i . I eueA.er
N
i
I
V VISTA
- ROADS OF HIGH SCENIC VALUE
ROADS OF MODERATE SCENIC VALUE
��•••••••••� ROADS OF HIGH OR MODERATE SCENIC
VALUE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS
.34 -
ER 3-93, Open Space
Table 1 - Scenic Roadways
ROADWAY SCENIC VALUE DESIGNATION
Santa Rosa Street Moderate to High
U.S. Highway 101 Moderate to High '
Johnson Avenue Moderate to High
Foothill Boulevard Moderate
Los Osos Valley Road Moderate to High
Madonna Road Moderate
Higuera Street Moderate to High
South Street Moderate
Broad Street Moderate to High
Prado Road Moderate
Orcutt Road Moderate to High
an Farm Road Moderate to High
Buckley Road - - -- Moderate to High
environmental amenities, and promote and protect the general welfare of the community.
Aesthetics Impacts:
The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (a) states that a project will normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it will "conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the
community were it is located." Therefore, the project is considered to result in a significant
aesthetic impact if it conflicts with the visual resource goals, policies and guidelines outlined
in the City's adopted Land Use Element or Scenic Highway Element.
The City's Scenic Highway Element states: "the City may consider the total or partial blocking
of a view along a Scenic Highway as a "significant environmental impact." For.the purpose of
this analysis, the total or substantial blocking of views is considered to be a significant impact.
Additionally, the SHE states that development along scenic highways should not detract from
the quality of the views. Therefore if the project would result in development that would
reduce the visual quality of a scenic roadway viewshed, a significant aesthetic impact is
expected to result.
The DOSE for the most part regulates development in sensitive areas. DOSE policies
-35 -
0?
i
ER 3-93, Open Space
augment the SHE and the LUE by containing policies to preserve scenic resourcee and
protect view corridors, viewsheds, and gateways. The DOSE further prohibits structures along
ridgelines, steep slopes, or in other highly visible locations unless no practicable alternative is
available, or such a location is necessary to protect public health and safety. Other policies
within the DOSE regulate grading and design of development.
To guarantee that development along scenic highways is consistent with the intent of the SHE
and the DOSE, the following mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated into
the SHE, DOSE, DLUE or ARC guidelines.
Aesthetics Mitigation:
The following programs should be incorporated into the SHE, DOSE, DLUE, or ARC
guidelines:
1. The City should develop: (a) precise scenic corridor boundaries located along designated
scenic roadways, and (b) specific setback distances, height limitations, lot coverage
standards, architectural standards and landscape standards for all property within scenic
roadway corridors to ensure that views from the roadway are maintained.
P. Other Impacts
This section examines the increased potential from danger due to wildland fires as well as
hazards associated with electrical transmission lines.. .
Wildland Fires:
Fires in undeveloped areas that result from the ignition of accumulated brush and woody
material are known as "wildland fires." Such fires are most likely to occur during the warm,
dry summer months in areas of SLO County that are dominated by species adapted to dry
conditions (such as chaparral and grasslands). The rugged topography of the SLO area affects
wildland fire behavior and the ability of fire fighters to suppress such fires. Development and
human encroachment in fire prone areas aggravates the wildland fire problem. Studies have
indicated that people furnish the ignition source for wildland fires an estimated 67 percent of
the time.
Four levels of wildland fire danger are identified within the City of SLO: extreme, high,
moderate, and low. Areas at extreme risk include particularly steep slopes covered with highly
flammable chaparral. Areas of high and moderate risk are generally flatter and with less dense
vegetation. Low risk areas are generally developed areas that do not include native vegetation
or areas along streams where vegetation maintains moisture. Most of the City is at low or
moderate wildland fire risk while many of the steeply sloped areas surrounding the City are
at primarily high or extreme risk.
° Scenic resources are defined as-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.
-36 -
. ..T
ER 3-93, Open Space
The California Department of Forestry (CDF) has primary responsibility for.the prevention
and abatement of wildland fires in and around the City. The CDF maintains 13 stations
throughout the County, including one near SLO. The CDF has entered into a mutual aid
agreement for fire protection, in which a number of fire protection agencies share personnel
and equipment during emergency situations..
Wildland Fire Impacts:
The DOSE contains policies encouraging passive recreation and clustering projects in the
greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. Such policies may introduce human activity where it did
not occur before. DOSE policies do prohibit recreation in hazard areas if it will increase the
hazard (DOSE, page 50, Table IV). In addition, the DOSE requires that passive recreation
be located such that public access is restricted or limited in sensitive areas (as necessary to
protect sensitive habitats or to prevent erosion during the rainy season) (DOSE,page 48,policy
f (2)).
In terms of clustering development or other development in hazard areas, the DOSE contains
numerous policies that state development should avoid, adequately mitigate, and not increase
hazards. Thus clustering or recreation projects would be required to mitigate wildland fire
dangers prior to project approval. Mitigation may include water storage facilities for fire
safety, providing additional fire suppression facilities or stations, and restricting access to
certain areas. In addition, the City's Safety Element prohibits development in areas of extreme
or high wildland fire risk. DOSE and Safety Element policies would provide adequate
mitigation for potential wildland impacts, thus wildland impacts are not considered potentially
significant.
Wildland Fire Mitigation:
1. The DOSE should include additional hazard policies requiring areas that cannot be
developed due to high hazard risks be preserved as open space, interim open space, or
parkland (as appropriate), and that such areas be preserved through easements or
dedications.
2. Change DOSE Table IV (page 50) to clarify where recreation is encouraged in hazard
areas. This policy should be changed to read: Passive a-Rd or active recreation where
hazard control and recreation can both be beneficially provided.
High Voltage Transmission Lines
High voltage transmission lines, low-voltage distribution lines, substations, electrical service
vaults, and household appliances all generate electromagnet fields (EMFs). These fields are
generated laterally from the power lines, tending to diminish with distance from the source.
The rate of decay depends on the source. EMFs from appliances fall.off quickly, while those
-37 .
35 t9
ER 3-93, Open Space
from power lines do.so more slowly'.
More than forty studies have found a positive association between long-term exposure to EMFs
and disease (usually cancer). One study showed that adult subjects whose house had magnetic
fields of about 2 milligauss (mG) exhibited a 28 percent increased risk for cancer, compared.
with subjects who lived in a field of 0.5 mG. Another study showed that children who lived
in the 2 mG field exhibited a 133 percent increased risk for cancer when,Compared with
children exposed to a 0.5 mG fields.
Despite the indications from the epidemiological studies, there is as yet no precise threshold
for EMF effects. It is still not clear what particular aspects(s) of the EMF is (are) responsible
for the observed higher rates of cancer and other health effects. Progress will be slow until
more is known about the mechanisms of EMF interaction.5
Various jurisdictions have established their own guidelines. The California Department of
Health Services has recommended the application of"prudent avoidance," described as follows:
"The best response is a prudent one, to avoid unnecessary new exposure to
electromagnetic fields if such avoidance can be achieved at a cost which is
reasonable in light of the risk identified."
The California Board of Education's School Facilities Planning Division has adopted setbacks
for locating schools near high voltage power lines. These setbacks range from 100 feet to 250
feet from the edge of the utility easement, depending upon the line voltage (magnetic fields
of 2 mG may extend 100 feet from a 115,000 volt power line). The City of Irvine has used
measurements of EMFs emitted from existing power lines to regulate new land uses. In the
consideration of a proposed subdivision and rezoning,Irvine used a Southern California Edison
report to define 4 mG as the acceptable level and prohibited residential or school development
in areas where the measured magnetic field was greater. The City of Wilmette, in approving
a new transit facility that included an electric substation, required that there be no increase in
EMF exposure at the project property line and set an absolute level of 2 mG for the project's
field strengths.
High Voltage Transmission Lines Impacts:
One high voltage transmission line runs through the City. Figure 11 depicts the location of this
transmission line. The DOSE discusses the establishment of natural resource open space
corridors (some with trails) along existing easements (see DOSE, page 48, policy 1 (b)). In
addition, cluster or TDC projects may be located near transmission lines. Although the Hazard
Section of the DOSE provides hazard mitigation, there is no clear reference to EMF fields in
the initial discussion (DOSE, page 32) or in the policies. From preliminary information it
would appear that there may be a potentially significant health impact if land uses (such as
residential, commercial, or industrial uses) provide long-term exposure to EMF fields. To
5 Slesin, Louis, et al., -Bectromagnetic Fields and Land-Use Controls;American Planning Association, PAS Report# 435,
American Planning Association,
-38 - Q
ER 3-93, Open Space
Figure 11 - High Voltage Transmission Line Within SLO
.......................
on
N
,
sr
s ..,:.
. .... .. . .
�C.41-9,0 �..,���.-w_ •, ..�/:. .'��.
t
r ..._
oa
.. .� :.
yc-
•
t-
>,
.. •' `. ,. - .:iii€iilii: _ ,
...::...........::.
� NK FARM ROA �
A
N ,
41
�� • Q,
c
PREDOMINANT FUTURE LAND USE
PROSPOSED BY DRAFT LUE HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS
Single-Family Residential ® Office High Voltage Transmission Line
Multi-Family Residential ® Industrial
® Retail Commerical ® Public Facility
Tourist Commercial Recreational
NOTE: Areas not marked will retain existing land use.
Q
.ems
-39 -
:j . a 3160 1
ER 3-93, Open Space
mitigate potentially significant impacts additional policies should be added..to the Hazard
Section to clarify where'development should occur and under what circumstances.
High Voltage Transmission Lines Mitigation:
The following shall be added to the Hazard Section of the DOSE:
1. The introduction to. the Hazard Section should reference Electromagnetic Fields.
2. The DOSE should contain a policy similar to the State Department of Health Services
recommendation stating: If a project will result in long-term exposure to EMF fields, the
City should avoid unnecessary new exposure to electromagnetic fields if such avoidance can
be achieved at a cost which is reasonable in light of the risk identified."
3. A program which states. "Develop standards for new development proposed adjacent to
EMF fields based on research and actions taken by other communities."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a negative declaration with mitigation.
Mitigation is summarized below:
1. DOSE policy 1 (a 3 c), page 41, requires agricultural buffers within the City Limits and URL if
development occurs next to agricultural land. Buffers are to be placed on the developing land, not
the adjacent agricultural land. This policy should be clarified to state:
a. In the case the parcel proposed for development is within the URI., and the agricultural land
is outside the URL, an agricultural buffer shall be provided and maintained indefinitely until
the URL is expanded or the City determines that: (1) there is no likelihood agriculture will
occur on the agricultural land in the future, and (2) removal of the buffer will not adversely
impact other agricultural lands in the general area. See Figure 7 for clarification.
b. In the case the parcel proposed for development is within the URL or City Limits and the
agricultural parcel is within the URL or City Limits, an agricultural buffer between the
developed parcel and the agricultural land shall be provided; however, once the agricultural
land is developed with urban uses this agricultural buffer may be removed (at the discretion
of the City). See Figure 7 for clarification of this policy change. However, if a mitigation fee
has been paid instead of providing the agricultural buffer, this fee should not be refunded since
it provides compensation for short-term impacts to agriculture.
2. Table IV (page 50) should clarify when recreation is prohibited on agricultural lands. This section
should clearly state active recreation is not encouraged on agricultural lands outside the URL, and
that recreation should not interfere with existing or adjacent agricultural operations. In addition,
that passive recreation is prohibited when it "divides" agricultural lands versus the present wording
which says it is prohibited if it 'bisects an agricultural parcel.".
-40 .
?-37
ER 3-93, Open Space
3. A program should be added to the DOSE Outdoor Recreation section. This program should state:
"As part of the Park and Recreation Element Update, the City and County should identify potential
golf course sites within and outside the URL."
4. A program statement should be added to the DOSE program 1 (g), page 6: "Incorporate into this
cluster ordinance a trip reduction program."
5. The following programs are recommended to be added to the DOSE Outdoor Recreation Section,
to be included in the Park and Recreation Element Update:
a. The City, County, and State should encourage regional and community parks and facilities such
as golf courses to utilize reclaimed water for landscaped areas.
b. Regional and community parks, golf courses, and similar projects should:
1. Utilize primarily native plants while minimizing turf area, and
2. Prior to project approval, provide a water conservation plan. This plan shall be updated
every five years, and shall detail water supply and demand for the facility during drought
and non-drought years.
6. The following policies should be incorporated into DOSE, Chapter III (Management of Open
Space and Greenbelt Areas by the City):
a. If open space uses are proposed adjacent to noise sensitive uses they shall include the following
mitigation measures (unless there is an emergency which requires immediate action by the
City):
1. Construction and maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 4:00
pm, Monday through Friday.
2. All construction and maintenance equipment, fixed or mobile, should be in proper
operating condition and fitted with standard silencing features.
3. .In areas where construction or maintenance equipment (such as diesel generators and air
compressors) is operating for more than one day within 50 feet of a sensitive land use,
temporary portable noise barriers should be erected and located between the piece of
equipment and the sensitive use.
4. During construction or maintenance operations within areas located near a noise sensitive
land use, only one piece of equipment should be allowed to operate. [Using 150 feet as
a reference distance, the reduction from two pieces of equipment to one could reduce
noise levels by approximately 3 dBA].
7. DOSE creek, wetland, plant and animal, and Outdoor Recreation policies or programs (as
applicable) shall be clarified to indicate:. -.
-41 -
237A
ER 3-93, Open Space
a. When significant impacts occur to creeks, wetlands, or plants and animals,..the City should
approve and the developer should implement a mitigation and monitoring plan that is designed
to avoid or ameliorate impacts (in the case that no practicable alternative is available or
similar circumstances as discussed in the DOSE). If avoidance is infeasible, the mitigation plan
shall be used to replace habitat values. The monitoring portion shall provide for a guarantee
(such as a security) that the prescribed mitigation is successful. The mitigation and monitoring
plan should be (a) in accordance with official CDFG guidelines, and (by prepared and
implemented by qualified professionals under funding by the applicant.
b. Alterations or expansions to Mission Plaza, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park facilities
should not result in significant biological impacts. Expansion of these park facilities should
allow for the maintenance of existing habitat value as well as human enjoyment. Buildings and
ancillary components shall maintain a minimum 20 foot setback from top of creek bank, and
a 20 foot buffer from a wetland or sensitive habitat or unique resource. New recreation
facilities (benches,trails,viewing stations)shall be located to preserve sensitive resources while
providing some public access. If impacts occur habitat values shall be replaced onsite or offsite
(inkind only) at a 2:1 ratio.
c. The priority of habitat replacement. Mitigation should be provided to offset significant
biological impacts, and first priority mitigation should be utilized unless a lower priority will
result in substantially more resource protection or a first priority mitigation is not feasible. If
encroachment results in a significant biological impact, the first priority shall be the provision
of onsite/inkind mitigation. A second priority is offsite/inkind mitigation (within the same
general area), and a third priority is a mitigation fee.
d. The standardized setback indicated in the Draft Land Use Element (DLUE), i.e., a 20 foot
setback.
8. In the case that an archaeological or historical resource is protected as open space or parkland, the
City should require public or private development to:
a. Preserve such resources through easements or dedications. Parcel lines (in the case of a
subdivision) or easements (in the case of a subdivision or other development) shall be located
to optimize resource protection. If a historic or archaeological resource is located within an
open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and 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 enumerated in a above) as open space or
parkland as appropriate.
c. Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may.significantly degrade the resource.
9. In areas where it is suspected that archaeological resources may exist, surface surveys, literature
searches, and sub-surface testing should occur prior to site development or grading.
- 42 -
ER 3-93, Open Space
10. Add the following policies to the DOSE Outdoor Recreation section:
a. Have Table IV (page 50) reference cultural & archaeological resources as well as historical
resources.
11. The following programs should be incorporated into the SHE, DOSE, DLUE,or ARC guidelines:
14
a. The City should develop: (a) precise scenic corridor boundaries located along designated
scenic roadways, and (b) specific setback distances, height limitations, lot coverage standards,
architectural standards and landscape standards for all property within scenic roadway
corridors to ensure that views from the roadway are maintained.
12. The DOSE should include additional hazard policies requiring areas that cannot be developed
due to high hazard risks be preserved as open space, interim open space, or parkland (as
appropriate), and that such areas be preserved through easements or dedications.
13. Change: DOSE Table IV (page 50) to clarify where recreation is encouraged in hazard areas.
This policy should be changed to read: Passive amd or active recreation where hazard control and
recreation can both be beneficially provided.
14. The following shall be added to the Hazard Section of the DOSE:
a. The introduction to the Hazard Section should reference Electromagnetic Fields.
b. The DOSE should contain a policy similar to the State Department of Health Services
recommendation stating: "If a project will result in long-term exposure to EMF fields, the City
should avoid unnecessary new exposure to electromagnetic fields if such avoidance can be
achieved at a cost which is reasonable in light of the risk identified."
c. A program which states: "Develop standards for new development proposed adjacent to EMF
fields based on research and actions taken by other communities.
Monitoring:
Recommended mitigation (from this Negative Declaration) incorporated into the Final Open Space
Element.
Current Building Code Regulations, City Elements, and ARC guidelines.
-43 -
a-38 r
APPENDIX 1
CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES
SOURCE AVAILABLE SUPPLY PERCENTAGE OF
(ACRE FEET PER YEAR) 'TOTAL
Whale Rock 2,057 28.0
Salinas Reservoir 4,800 65.2
Groundwater 500 6.8
TOTAL 79357 100.0
Source: City of SLO
CITY WATER CONSUMPTION IN ACRE FEET PER YEAR (AFY)
YEAR SURFACE SOURCES GROUND WATER TOTAL
(AFY) (AFY) CONSUMPTION
(AFY)
1986 8,367 0 8,367
1987 8,399 0 8,399.
1988 8,411 0 8,411
1989 5,524 480 6,004
1990 2,831 1,955 4,786
1991 2,686 1.954 49640
1992 3,761 1,543 5,304
Source: City ot San Luis Obispo.
2-39
APPENDIX 2
CITY OF SLO PLANNING AREA SENSITIVE PLANT TAXA
STATUS*
SPECIES
COMMON/NAME CALIFORNIA FEDERAL CNPS
Arctostaphylos cruzensis — F2 . 1B
Arroyo de la Cruz Manzanita
Arctostaphylos morroensis -- F1 1B
Morro Manzanita
Calochortus obispoensis -- 3C 1B
San Luis Mariposa Lily
Camissonia hardmaniae "" F2 1B
Hardman's Evening Primrose
Carex obisponensis -- 3C 1B
San Luis Obispo sage
Chorizanthe breweri -- 3C 113
Brewer's Spineflower
Chorizanthe rectispina -- F2 1B
One-awned Spineflower
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense -- F2 113
Chorro Creek Bog Thistle
Dudleya bettinae -- 3C 1B
San Luis Serpentine Dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae -- -- 1B
Blochman's Dudleya
Layia jonesii -- F2 113
Jones Layia
Quercus lobata -- -- List 4
Valley Oak
Sanicula maritima SR F2 --
Adobe sanicle
Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala . SR F2 113
Cuesta Pass Checkerbloom
*Refer to page iii for legend.
Appendix 2 continues on next page.
ii
0?
APPENDIX 2 CONTINUED
CITY OF SLO PLANNING AREA SENSITIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITIES
Serpentine Rock Outcrop
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Sargent Cypress Forest
LEGEND:
F2 - Category 2. Species may warrant listing but.sufficient biological information to support a proposal rule is
lacking.
3C - Withdrawn from candidacy as too abundant, widespread and/or without sufficient threats, to warrant Federal
Listing.
1B - . Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere.
SR - Listed by the State of California as rare.
List 4- Plants of Limited Distribution. A work list.
FE - Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government.
3B - Withdrawn from candidacy for Federal Listing because this name does not represent a distinct taxa meeting the
Endangered Species Act definition of"species." The status could be reevaluated in the future based on new
information.
CSC - California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern.
BL - Blue List;Avian Species of concern Identified in American Birds.
CFP - California Fully Protected Species.
LC - Local Concern.
iii
APPENDIX 3
CITY OF SLO PLANNING AREA SENSITIVE ANIMAL TAXA
SPECIES STATUS*
COMMON/NAME
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL OTHER
Ambystoma tigrinum californiense CSC F2 --
California Tiger Salamander
Rana aurora draytoni CSC — ~
California Red-legged Frog
Rana boylei CSC -- --
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
Clemmys marmorata pallida -- F2 --
Southwestern Pond Turtle
Phrynosoma coronatum frontale CSC -- --
Coast Horned Lizard
Elanus caeruleus CFP —
Black Shouldered Kite
Accipiter cooperi CSC — BL
Coopers Hawk
Accipiter striatus CSC -- BL
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Aquila chrysaetos CSC -- --
Golden Eagle
Buteo lineatus -- -- BL
Red-Shouldered Hawk
Buteo regalis -- F2 BL
Ferruginous Hawk
Circus cyaneus CSC -- BL
Northern Harrier
Falco peregrinus CE FE --
Peregrine Falcon
Falco mexicanus CSC -- --
Prairie Falcon
*Refer to page iii for legend.
Appendix 3 continues on the next page.
- iv -
i'
APPENDIX 3 CONTINUED
CITY OF SLO PLANNING AREA SENSITIVE ANIMAL TAXA
SPECIES STATUS*
COMMON/NAME
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL OTHER
Athene cuniculdda CSC -- BL
Burrowing Owl
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis CE 3B --
Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo
Empidonax traillu CSC --
Willow Flycatcher
Lanus ludovicianus -- -- BL
Loggerhead Shrike
Dendroica petechia CSC --
Yellow Warbler
Icteria vixens CSC -- --
Yellow-breasted Chat
Plecotus townsedii towsendii CSC F2 --
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Eumops perotis californicus CSC F2 --
California Mastiff Bat
Tazidea taws CSC -- --
American Badger
Danaus plexippus -- -- LC
Monarch
*Refer to page Hi for legend.
APPENDIX 4
PLANT'S TO BE AVOIDED IN LANDSCAPING IN NATURAL AREAS'
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima Grasses:
Pampas grass Cortaderia spp
Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon
Beach grass Ammophila arenaria
Kikuyu grass Pennisetum cladestinum
Fountain grass Pennisetum setaceum
Mat grass Phyla nodiflora
Giant reed Arundodonax Hottentot fig; ice Carpobrotus edulis
plant
brooms: Garland Chrysanthemum
Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius chrysanthemum coronanum
French broom Cydw
Easter broom monspessulanus
Spanish broom Cytisus spachianus
Sparticum junceum
Eucalyptus: - Bermuda buttercup Oxalis pes-caprae
Blue gum Eucalyptus globus
Red gum Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
Acacia Acacia decurrens Gorse, Furze Ulex europaneus
Sydney wattle Acacia longifolia Tamarisk, Salt cedar Tamarix ramosissima
Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon Artichoke thistle Cynara cardunculus
Ivy: Water hyacinth Eichhomia crassipes
Algerian Ivy Hedera canarieusis
English ivy Hedera helix
German ivy Senecio mikanioodes
Black locust Robina pseudoacacia Everlasting pea Lathyrus latiflorus
Big Leaf Yznca major Castor bean Ricinus communis
Periwinkle
Himalaya berry Rubus procerus (Muni)
'Based on the California Native Plant Society list of undesirable species.
APPENDIX 5
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO PLANTS AND ANIMALS
A proposed development would have a significant impact to the biological resources of the site or region if it would:
Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals in the community where it is located (CEQA Guidelines,
Appendix G [a]);
Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or habitat of the species(CEQA Guidelines,
Appendix G [c]); , 4
Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species (CEQA
Guidelines, Appendix G [d]);
Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants (CEQA Guidelines,Appendix G [t]);
Involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to animal or plant populations in the
area affected (CEQA Guidelines,Appendix G [v]);
Involve the alteration or conversion of biological resources within the City,region or state(City of SLO General
Plan). These resources include: Locally important species and Locally important communities.
For purposes of this analysis, a plant or animal taxa are considered locally important if they meet any of the following
criteria:
C Taxa (species, subspecies or varieties) that are limited in distribution in the county or region, or are endemic
(limited to a specific area) to the region;
o Taxa that are at the extremes of their range, or are disjunct from the known range of that taxon;
o Taxa whose habitat requirements make them susceptible to local extinctions as a consequence of development,
the introduction of barriers to movement, and/or accompanying increases in human activity;
o Populations of particular species which exhibit unusual adaptations or are quality examples of the species; and
o Taxa which are considered sensitive by recognized monitoring groups(i.e.,Audubon Society,California Native
Plant Society, California Department of Fish and Game, etc.).
Communities are considered locally important if they meet any of the following criteria:
V Plant communities or habitat types that are of singular or limited occurrence within the county or project area;
V Plant communities or habitat types that are critical or essential habitat for rare, threatened, endangered or
locally important species;
V Plant communities, habitat types, or geographic areas which link substantial, intact open space areas;
V Plant communities or habitat types that exhibit characteristics approximating pristine conditions;
V Communities considered sensitive by recognized monitoring groups such as the Audubon Society, California
Native Plant Society, California Department of Fish and Game; and
V Ephemeral or perennial wetlands.defined as areas which sporadically, seasonally or perennially serve to emit,
conduct, or impound water,making it available to water-dependent and/or facultative associations of plants or
animals.
-vii -
Z `+lZ
u �L
rl
CREEK-SIDE PROPERTY OWNERS
TRACHR-WRT AUG 203
YOUR PROPERTY ERTY RII(CHTSS ARE BEING CHALLML§T;&
Are you aware that the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - CITY COUNCIL
is currently preparing to vote on the OPEN SPACE ELEMENT on
AUGUST 17th at 7:00 p.m.?
You are probably_ .a king what this means to you. Please read on ---
1 . Youill loose a right to utilize your property along the creek;
�'2. You ue to pay full property tax - they will control your
property;
3. Proposal includes a set back along all creeks in SLO
-A 20 ft. setback is being considered as a creek ordinance;
UP�4. They will demand an easement in exchange for any additions,
replacement or repair of damaged ,structures or any new
structure ANYWHERE on your property;
They now want our property setback and want easements or what -
a future trail?!?) in your backyard and demand YOU pay for it allu(�ll
property tax payment). What will they want us to pay for next!
The OPEN SPACE ELEMENT DRAFT is available for your review
at the City Planning Department and the library. Refer to Section B
(Creeks) & Section K (Outdoor Recreation i.e. trails)
Voice your concern at the City Council meeting. This may be your last
chance to protect your home and what we all paid for with our hard
earned money.
If you do not get involved WE ALL LOSE! Please be at the meeting
August 17th at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers! Thank you.
2- Y3
II!!!il!I�IllilIlilli''��I���IIIIII!i I!I II�'� Clty
of sAn tuis oBispo
_
_.
IM
gi.
_ _ "' 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 8100
.4n xv—M I sa�� iC� ly_
A"TACHWItil . F.s.
Date: November 10, 1988
To: Planning Commission and ARC
From: Community Development Director
Subject: Administrative Policies for Staff Recommendations on Projects near Creeks
For the past few years, we have all been working toward (evolving toward?) a more
protective treatment of creeks when reviewing project proposals. This is reflected in
the staff recommendations and decisions by the ARC and PC (as well as those of the City
Council). Randy Rossi will be working on a set of comprehensive creek policies as part
of the Open Space Element update. Until that work is complete, I am proposing the
following administrative policy be employed by my staff when reviewing projects near
creeks. The purpose is to protect creeks and increase consistency in staff
recommendations.
Clearly, this policy will not work well unless it is generally supported by the two
commissions involved most in project review. Please review this and give me your
comments. Thank you.
cc: John Dunn
Dave Romero
Wayne Peterson
Jim Stockton
City Council
Planners
ADMINISTRATIVE CREEK POLICY
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be departed from when
the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent can be met through
alternative approaches. They do not replace, but are in addition to, other existing
policies, standards and ordinances.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels should
be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian corridors to be preserved
or enhanced).
In general, such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could include:
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie together lined
or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation,
reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted
before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if there is any
significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be consulted, too.
2. New structures, including parking lots, should generally be set back at least 20 feet
from the top of bank. "Top of bank" means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more
steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the terrain not cut by the water
flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any
intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will not be apparent; the Director,
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine a
reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the
creek, the extent of riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-foot line;
2. a setback line which is farther from the bank has been adopted or proposed by
Public Works;
3. the 100-year flood plain extends beyond the 20-foot line.
B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant riparian corridor
or likely to be part of the urban trails system;
Draft Creek Policy
Page 2
2. the lot is small, and reasonable development without some exception is
impossible;
3. the lot is a small inf ill site where a clear pattern of lesser setbacks has
been established on both sides of the lot along the creek.
Note: in determining if a channel is minor or if a riparian corridor is significant,
the staff should consider variables such as size, area drained, volume/capacity,
topography, context (urbanized or open), soils and hydrology, relation to other creek
stretches and the creek system generally, existing vegetation and potential for
restoration.
In determining what is "reasonable development", the staff should consider comparable
uses on similar-sized lots in the area as well as the practicalness and feasibility
of smaller-than-comparable projects.
In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director and
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted.
3. If the site is considered by the Long-range Planner to be a possible link in the
urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access should be required as
a condition of any discretionary permit.
4. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a condition
of approval of any discretionary permit.
5. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as a
condition of approval for any discretionary permit.
6. Sites with creeks are considered to be "sensitive sites" for architectural review
purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review should be taken
in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the guidelines above are met; if they
are not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that
the guidelines be followed.
POP
1�kAT
15.04.030-15.04.030
shall hold office at its pleasure. The shall serve as the"local appeals board"
board shall adopt rules of procedure for specified in Section 19957.5 of the Cal-
conducting its business and shall ifornia Health and Safety Code in ap-
render all decisions and findings in peals relating to accommodations for
writing to the appellant with a dupli- the physically handicapped. The au-
cate copy to the building official. thority of the board shall consist of the
2. Limitations of Authority.The Board ability to consider appeals filed relating
of Appeals shall have no authority rel- to requirements for handicapped ac-
ative to interpretation of the adminis- cess and to authorize reasonable aiter-
trative provisions of this code or the natives to disabled access requirements
technical codes nor shall the board be imposed by Title 24 of the California
empowered to waive requirements of Administrative Code.
either this code or the technical codes. C. Amend section 301 by addition of new
B. Delete section 204(b). Add new subsec- subsection (c) to read as follows:
tion (b) to read as follows: (c) Permits in Flood Areas and Adja-
(b) Appeals Board for Disabled Access. cent to Waterways. 1. General. No
1building or grading permit shall be is-
. General. For the purpose of consid- �
- sued for any activity upon land desig.
Bring appeals to the standards con /
rated as
faired in Title 24 of the California Ad- Flooded or Flood Prone (/
on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps,
ministrative Code regarding
identified by Community Panel
accommodations for the physically
handicapped, there is hereby estab- Number 060310 0005C, on file in the
office of the City Engineer and Com-
fished the Appeals Board for Disabled
munity Development Department, or
Access,consisting of two members who upon land situated within 20 feet of
shall be physically handicapped as de- the top of the banks of designated wa-
fined in Section 417, Title 24, Part 2 of terways shown on the map on file in
the California Administrative Code, the offices of the City Engineer and
and the Board of Appeals established Community Development Department,
by Section 204(a) of this code. The prior to review and approval by the Di-
building official shall be an ex officio rector of Public Works,Director of Com-
member and shall act as secretary of munity Development, or City Council.
the board but shall have no vote upon
any matter before the Board. EXCEPTIONS:
The Appeals Board for Disabled Ac- 1. Public works projects.
cess shall be appointed by the gov- 2. Rehabilitation or repair work
erring body and shall hold office at its which is reasonably necessary to
pleasure.The board shall adopt reason- restore buildings or premises
able rules and regulations for con- which have been damaged by flood,
ducting its investigations and deliber- fire, earthquake or other natural
ations. All decisions of the board shall disaster.
be rendered in writing. 3. Emergency work necessary for
2. Responsibilities and Authority. The the protection of public health,
Appeals Board for Disabled Access safety and welfare.
(San Luis Obispo 7.921 302
2- `/7
15.04.030-15.04.030
4. Private projects specifically ap- codes shall be made by the building
proved by the City for the construc- official. The value to be used in com-
tion of retaining walls, culverts, puting the building permit and
bridges, drainage improvements building plan review fees shall be the
and similar public works type fa- total value of all construction work for
cilities. which the permit is issued as well as
5. Projects exempted in the City's all finish work, painting, roofing, elec-
Policies and Standards for Flood trical, plumbing, heating, air condi-
Plain Management. tioning, elevators, fire extinguishing
systems and any other permanent
For the purpose of this section, "top of equipment.
the bank" shall mean that point on ei-
ther bank which represents the water In addition to grading permit fees, sep-
level at full capacity of the waterway arate permits and fees shall apply to
without flooding or overflowing on ei- retaining walls or other major drainage
ther side of said waterway. The dis- structures. There shall be no separate
tante of 20 feet subject to review shall charge for standard terrace drains and
be measured horizontally from top of similar facilities.
bank and perpendicular to the wa- E. Amend section 304(c) to read as follows:
terway.
2. Policies and Standards for Flood (c) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or
Plain Management. The review by the other data are required to be submitted
City Engineer, Community Develop- by Subsection(b)of Section 302, a plan
ment Department and City Council review fee shall be paid at the time of
shall be in accordance with the "Poli- submitting plans, specifications or
cies and Standards for Flood Plain other data for review. Said plan review
Management" document, dated Jan- fee for buildings, structures,or grading
shall be as established by resolution of
nary 7, 1974 and June 21, 1983, the City Council. Separate plan review
adopted by Resolution x5138 (1983 Se- fees shall apply to permits for retaining
ries) and such amendments thereto as walls major drainage structures in
may-be adopted by resolution of the conjunction with grading. For excava-
tion and fill on the same site, the plan
copies of said Policies and Standards review fee for grading shall be based
shall be maintained on file in the of-
(i (ices of the City Clerk, City Engineer w the volume of excavation or fill,
and Community Development Depart-
ment as public records. The plan review fees specified in this
D. Amend section 304(b)to read as follows: subsection are separate fees from the
permit fees specified in Section 304(b)
(b) Permit Fees. The fee for each permit and are in addition to the permit fees.
shall be as established by resolution of
the City Council. Where plans are incomplete or changed
so as to require additional plan review
The determination of value or valua- prior to the issuance of a permit, an
tion under any of the provisions of these additional plan review fee may be
303 (San Luis Obispo 7.92)
• 2- �9
7. Develop Parks Within New Subdivisions: When a site designated for a park is part of
a subdivision map submitted to the city, the city may require the subdivider to
dedicatd the park area and prepare plans for its phased development. The park
proposal must be judged consistent with the intent of this element. Park plans will
be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and must receive approval by the
City Council.
8. Develop Parks Within Maior Growth Areas: Specific plans for the major growth areas
of the city must include designs for neighborhood or district parks. The specific
plans may propose park locations and designs other than illustrated in this element,
provided that they satisfy the planning and design standards of this element and are
shown to perform as well or better than those proposed in this element.
9. Use of Schematic Designs of Parks: The park plans shown in Technical Report #2 will
be used as guides for preparing final park designs. The general allocation of land
for passive and active areas should be as portrayed by these schematic plans. Final
plans should ensure that new parks are compatible with surrounding residential areas.
10. Planning Special Park and Recreation Facilities: The following policies will
direct the planning and development of other recreation facilities in San Luis
Obispo:
'
Laguna Lake Park: The city will adopt a master plan for Laguna Lake Park.
The park will be designed to function as a community park serving residents
of San Luis Obispo. The park will also contain facilities which meet the
neighborhood park needs of people living in PSA's #14 and #15.
' Recreation Cente . The city will continue to provide a centralized
recreation building in downtown San Luis Obispo. For now, the city will
update and remodel the existing building at the corner of Mill and Santa
Rosa Streets. If a new structure is needed at some point in the future,
the following alternatives (listed in order of priority) will be
considered:
Build a new recreation center at the existing site;
Expand the existing site and build a new facility;
Select a new site in the downtown that functions as well and build a
new facility there.
* Golf Course: The city will continue to own and operate the 9-hole Laguna
Lake Golf Course.
'
Mission Plaza/Cultural Facilities: The city will proceed with the
extension of Mission Plaza along San Luis Obispo Creek between Broad and
Nipomo Streets. This project may be done separately or combined with city
or county construction of other public facilities on property fronting the
creek.
' Urban IEga System: A map of the urban trail system is included - shown on
page 11. As part of the development review process or in separate city
actions, the city shall in all cases attempt to secure access rights needed
to carry out the trail plan.
•• 4
r �- �G
9 7
0 .5 1.0
URBAN TRAIL SYSTEM
ONE MILE
EXISTING PARK OR RECREATION FACILITY
�(E PROPOSED PARK OR RECREATION SITE
t TRAIL ACCESS POINT
cna ON-STREET TRAIL
OFF-STREET TRAIL
S a� CAL POLY
P FAK
FLL y
i
C ,/Vi
5ah1 LU 16 icy/ '.:
C
=reR
i
b 1
h
4a G
4
O. •�
`' 00
� A
ti.....
9�<`S O
15 L.S.Y
� HILL
NORTH
CAIN Of PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT
ENGs san LUIS OBISPO 2- so
The city will continue to refine the urban trail plan and develop precise
design standards that control the type of access to and use of specific
sections of the trail- system.
'
Public Utility Easements. Rights-of-Way. and Other Public Lands: should be
maintained in a safe and orderly state and, where appropriate, used as part
of the city's open space and recreation system.
' Reservoir Canvon and Looez Canvon: Public access to these sensitive areas
will be allowed when consistent with-sound resource management. Minimal
facilities might be provided. These areas should be preserved in their
natural states. Local nature groups and other organizations that use the
canyons should be asked to help provide periodic clean up.
' Access Imorovements: The city will work on improving access to existing
city recreation facilities. Examples of these types of projects include:
Building sidewalks and bike paths to join housing areas with schools
and parks.
Creating creek-side_trails.to connect housing areas with parks while
avoiding major arterial streets and the railroad tracks.
'
Open Space Planning: As part of its Hillside Planning Program, the city
will develop specific programs to preserve scenic hillside areas. Similar
programs will be developed for major creeks in San Luis Obispo.
1 }
S1�t3t•`���� -
S'''fP1
s-
may! i
The city's creekways provide routes to parks and schools
for many people. The city should seek to develop safe,
1 maintainable creek access points and paths wherever possible.
1
'v.
o
MEETIN�G. �/���j AGENDA C E ,
DATE.. ff A #
September 6, 1993 SEP 71993
CITY OF
^rMAMUN p CDD DIR
Mr. john Mandeville, AICP CAO ❑ FIN DIR
Long Range Planner ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo ATTORNEY ❑ Ply Din
990 Palm Street. CLERKIORIC ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ MGMTTEt'.hi ❑ REC DIR
RE: Draft Open Space Element (Greenbelt Expansion) 11 C READ FILE ❑ UTIL C!R_ ❑ PERSDIR
Dear Mr. Mandeville:
This letter is in strung protest Of the Ci.ty's proposed Draft. Chen Space Element.
On the surface, the proposed plan seems to be a reasonable docinent. However,
based on your recent letter of September 4, 1993, to the County of San Luis Obispo
(RE: D900171P, Bunnell Project) , it is clear that your real intentions are to
use this document to further down zone properties within this proposed greenhelt
area.
This attempt at taking of property without just compensation, can not and will
not be tolerated by the property owners. For twenty years our properties have
been down. zoned by zoning changes, scenic: resource overlay:3, and by gross imquse
of envirurmiental and governmental regulations. Enough is Enotigh.
Your letter to the County of SIA) regarding my project suggests that you really
knew nothing about it and apparerlLl.y wrote the letter in rcnponse to some special
interest pressure. Had you investigated the facts, you would have found the. following:
I . The project meets all the current Ag zone and SRA standards.
2. The two homesite.s arc more than twice the distance from Bishops
Peak than the upper portion of Highland Drive and the recently City
approved Rosemont Development.
3. The project addressed and satisfied all the noncerns of the City
as expressed in the City's 1991 Commcnt Letter.
4. The City wad given advance informaLlon regarding the issuance of
a negative declaration by the County, and made no response or appeal.
5 . My architect, Tim Woodle of Pu1L-L and Az^oc. , made personal contact
with the CiLy during the negative declaration advertising period,
and was given indication that the City had no concerns with rtry
project as proposed.
6. My project does in LKCL meet the requirements of t.hc City's proposed
DOSE.
Bunnell Construction,Inc. `
141 Suburban Road,A-5 A
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805/544-4300 FAX 805/541-3985 ! . . 'o` . o .
Pagp 2
Your attempt to use the DOSE to stop good, properly zoned development even before
it is formally adopted is a gross misuse of government regulation. If the DOSE
is to be used in this maruier, then a full EIR should be required of the City before
this document is considered for final approval .
Tt is unbelievable that you could support the requirement. for an EIR for two,
well planned Ag Toned residential homesites while giving yc:nLrself a negative declaration
for such n large, far reaching undortakins,.
Your proposed negative declaration does not oven discuss the cumularAve impact
issue that you raise in your letter conc:urning my prOJer.t. I believe that further
study should be required ()f the City before Lhis DOSE can be approved. ThP City
will conpeiisatc property owners for the taking,
should be required to study how it
of property for open Space.
Enclosed is an analysis of the City's August 4, 1993, Comment Letter to the Caunt.y
of SLO. This analysis was prepared by Role Strong, AICP, for the County Board
of supervisors. Please include th s analysis as part of the record in support
of my opposition to the City's DOSE.
Sincerely,
Ray Bunnell
RBB:gw
Enclosure
cc: Rob Strong
Tim Woodl.e
August 23, 1993
Board of Supervisor$
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Courthouse,County Government Center
San Luis Obispo,CA 93408
Attention: Mr.john Nall,Acting Environmental Coordinator
Subject; "Appeal"of Negative Doelaration ED 91.490(D920054))
Bunnell Minor Use Permit re two homes on 40-awe parcel,
Highway 1 northwest of San Luis Obispo(August 24 Agenda)
rt•Comment Letter
Despite 1991 comment and recommendations from the City, and several staff referrals or the proposed
negative declaration earlier this year,the City of San Luis Obispo submitted an August 4, 1993 letter
concluding"The Bunnell Project(1390017 0)has the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts and
conflict with established City policy regarding development in the City's (proposed) greenbelt area." This
statement Is not, however, supported by the summary of City policies contained in the draft Open Space
Element excerpts anaehod for reference, nor explained ins he letter itself. The conclusion contradicts the
County staff initial studies without providing any evidence for the statement.
It is evident that Bunnell's four parcels are within the proposed grconbeit surrounding the City as part of the
pending draft Open Space Element and General Plan update. But the proposal to protect the MOrros as"Open
spec" specifically recognizes that 'Open space Includes cattle grazing or other agricultural and rural
residential uses." The potential impacts of structures and access roads were carefully examined and mitigated
by the County required initial studies and found individually insignificant
If the City and County want to work together to adopt similar (proposed) hillside development standards
within the groenbe t area, as suggested in the Draft Open Space Element(DOSE), this cumulative concern
should be studied in detail. Nothing in the various sections of the DOSE indicates Bunnell's proposal would
conflict with these policy statements or produce any adverse impacts. To the contrary,Bunnell's project would
avoid any change to grasslands,would preserve 99%of the subject site as permanent open space to prtmerve
the scenic resources, and does t1W propose structures in highly visible locations. The SRA and prescribed
mitigation measures assure compatible design, density massing, building materials, colors, textures and
prevents silhouetting. The Bunnell proposal for two homes on 40 acres of Agricultural land maintains and
implements the"sharp contrast between the incorporated urban area of the City(which is closer and marc of
m impact on Bishop Peak) and the unincorporated area Aaccnt to it (which includes all four of Bunnell's
developed and undeveloped properties).
The statement that"the cumulative impact of the Bunnell project,and others like it,will be to change the very
rural character of the gmcnbolt ansa to a more suburban character, reducing the distinct urbanlrural edge the
City is promoting,"Is unsubstantiated. lu fact,the City lencr adds insult to injury.
If two homes allowed on 40 acres by current Agricultural designation, developed in conformance with the
County's SRA standards which Control Bunnell's proposal 00nscitut6 a"change"to"suburban" oheracter the
DnR Open Space Element is going to be a very controversial and cxpeasive"taking"of private property.
The City expresses concern for the cumulative impact of the development of one 40 acre AgricultunaUSRA
parcel,yet 1$proposing to adopt its own Draft Open Space Clement by utilizing a negative declaration without
any discussion ofprecedent seuing issues,cumulative impacts or apparent alternatives.
13unnell and the County considered all of the 1991 City cemmenta. Bunnell's project proposes to locate
allowed development to minimize grading and visual impacts; and protect the Morros utilizing natural
landforms and vegetation for seroening structures,access roads,building foundations and cut and All slopes,
miMmizing land alterations,and consistent with the design standards of the SRA(similar to those proposed by
the City's DOSE). -
The definition of'practicable alternative" included in the City attachmrnts states,"tin project's basic purpose
Could still be accomplished"...and"reasonable use of the property considering site constraints and the existing
development's scale, design, or density' allowed. Bunn0l has considered practicable alternatives and is
proposing rc"onable use—NOT a change nor contributing to any cumulative impact inconsistent with the —
City's proposed greenbelt.
Rob Strong,A.I.C.P.
F.aclosvres
GLEN NANCY PRIDDY 960 MONTALBAN, SAN LUIS OBISPO September 2, 1993 .
City of San Luis Obispo-City Council MEETING AGENDA
Mayor Peg Pinard DATE -T-9 3 ITEM # Z
Council Member Penny Rappa
Council Member Bill Roalman
Council Member Dave RomeroJCOUNCIL CDD DIR
L� CAO ❑ FIN DIR
Council Member Allen Settle 2ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
EY ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIP,
Subject: Proposed Open Space Element - Creeks dCLERKK?RIG ❑ POLICE CHF
(September 7, 1993 Agenda - Public Hearing '� ❑ C READ F[LE ❑ UTIL DIR
j ❑ PERS DIR
Honorable Council:
We have been creekside property owners since 1980. Our property has, in
the past, been damaged by creek erosion causing us to spend a very large
amount of time and money to protect our home (with habitat sensitive
bank protection), Our home is located close to the creekbank and may be
made non-conforming by implementation of the proposed Open Space
Element. We are currently planning a remodel project that could be in
conflict with the policies presented in the current draft of the Element.
The proposed Element presents policies that may be disastrous to
creekside property owners and will not protect the creek system riparian
open space. The document focuses too much on the creek corridor and
ignores the effects of the city-wide watershed on the flood peaks that
damage creek vegetation and on the groundwater that supplies the creek
flow during the dry season. The policies present goals of idealized
fantasy rural riparian creek habitats. The reality is that the creeks are in
an urban setting and cannot be pristine and natural. Protection of private
property from erosion and flooding must be the primary consideration in
all creek policies.
In a naturalstate, creeks erode their banks during high flow conditions.
This is a natural geologic process. In an urban setting this natural bank
erosion destroys private and public property. No amount of set back will
mitigate this destruction. Also urban development increases the rate of
runoff into the creek system so the erosion rate increases with each new
roof and each new paved street. This increase in flow destroys the
riparian vegetation unless it is protected by non-erosive bank
stabilization. The proposed open space policy which requires the creeks
to be maintained in a natural state will not protect the community's
t
GLEN NANCY PRIDDY 960 MONTALBAN, SAN LUIS OBISPO September 2, 1993
watel-quality, wildlife diversity, and aesthetic value Th i s po 1Icy w i 11
cause increased erosion and destruction of riparian vegetation. If you
wish to have riparian habitat in the city, you must require that the
vegetation be protected from erosion and you must pass regulations that
reduce the flows into the creek system. , .
The creeks cannot be looked at alone. The damaging effects of all
development in the watershed must be mitigated if any approximation of a
natural creek habitat is to be achieved. Propagation of regulations
restricting the rights of the creekside property owners will do nothing to
protect the creeks from the erosive flood flows and decreased dry season
flows caused by the proliferation of impervious development throughout
the watershed.
Please consider the following comments in your development of the city's
General Plan creek policies:
1 . Creekside property owners must have the same rights to remodel
their homes as all other property owners in the city, unless there
will be demonstrated damage to substantial existing riparian
vegetation.
2. There must be no restrictions on the creek property owners ability
to protect their property from damage from erosion and flooding.
3. Alterations within the creek corridor must be allowed if they are
not detrimental to the creeks flood carrying capacity or to
substantial riparian vegetation.
4. The complexity of the creek hydrology must be recognized. The
entire watershed of the creek system must be regulated if the
creekside properties are to be regulated. Detention and infiltration
facilities must be constructed throughout the creek watershed to
reduce the peak flood flows and recharge the groundwater basin so
that damage to riparian habitat and creekside properties is reduced
and dry season creek flows are improved.
S. The proposed standardized creek setback stretches the police
powers of the city. The protection of riparian habitat and aesthetic
resources do not reasonably relate to public health, safety, or
2
GLEN NANCY PPIDDY 960 MONTALBAN, SAN LUIS OBISPO September 2, 1993
welfare. Environmental regulations must be reasonably related to
the effects of the development being regulated. A uniform setback,
with no consideration of the specifics of the development site, is
arbitrary and a taking of private property.
Thank you for your consideration. Do not penalize the creek owners. We
are the guardians of the city's flood drainage facilities and riparian
habitats.
Sincerely,
Glen & Nancy Priddy
960 Montalban
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405
CC:
Arnold Jonas
Jeff Jorgensen
3
Ivc-L.ElING AGENDA
[k��ArrORNEY
NCIL CDD DIR ATE ' ' �' ITEM #
August 2, 1993 ❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEFCity Council Members ❑ Pw DinSan Luis Obispo City KCRIG ❑ POLICE CHF990 Palm Street TTEAM ❑ RECDIRSan Luis Obispo, CA 93403 AD FILE ❑ UTIL GIFlF ❑ PEHS D!R
Dear City Council Members,
It is encouraging to learn that the Draft Open Space Element for San Luis
Obispo gives considerable attention to the preservation of Grassland habitat
in the City. I was particularly pleased to learn that both Upland (hillside)
Grassland Plant Communities as well as Valley Grassland Plant Communities
were included in the 4/25/93 draft, page 35. Valley Grasslands, in addition
to having greater plant productivity than upland grasslands, often intergrade
with wetlands and riparian corridors which give then even greater wildlife
value because the plant productivity in these areas is considerably greater
than it is on the drier rocky slopes.
Native Grasslands as well as introduced, Naturalized Annual Grasslands both
should be recognized as distinct wildlife habitat types in California.
Furthermore, both of these Grassland Communities should be managed from
the standpoint of their wildlife habitat value rather than from the viewpoint
that naturalized grasses have displaced native grasses and are therefore
characteristic of poor range conditions (Kie, John G. 1988. in Kenneth E.
Mayer and William F. Laudenslayer Jr. (Editors). A guide to Wildlife Habitats
of California. California Resources Agency, California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection).
Even a casual drive along the valleys leading into the City of San Luis Obispo
reveals a rich assemblage of wildlife species which are either foraging
directly on the grasses and forbs or preying upon the less conspicuous
insects, mammals, and birds that utilize these same plants.
Hopefully both the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo
will adopt Open Space Elements that provide for grassland communities as
described in your 4/25/93 draft.
Respectfully Submitted,
Roger Gambs, Certified Wildlife Biologist (The Wildlife Society)
7460 Encinal Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
- -- - SEP- 2- 1993
CITY courXIL
SAN LUIS 08ISF0,CA
p �Ls � 616PD 1T� 15F6CZL)LN&IL MEMOO-6 '4-,r,�F5 pw � GrTA CT,-
5 -11741 tf H6ME. )
cold r--nr ":�-To --H a Ct Ty -
C�UNCIL OIJVIEJCM-�� OPF-tj
�-t�►�� ��1� �1-11e9C.�l__-�1/.��v_t135' �1V.a �i CFI' � - -. - -
--
ti
12..-- IT !°s1'�D-!.(��JY Ul-- `��-GaCvtN?" -i�•� Gf'7 -_
tSl� 4C 1tt PV- --1 6-F-ATE.b Ili j -iA.:r HD��
_�---
- 16 7p)-
-
r tCAAf r- �UjF-T�AM�>S , 73- -AV6. Lt>
---
P1 O G -6�IM&I)='�b l V I TH (:51wt, V EMFI
ORES RU ANb N6I P 6 VEJ> OUEP, BIC DF-VE")PAAF-IJ'r7 CO J
PREUC—tJI- 7T+F. U Bf)m 6 - 01F TFtt W0
l Tz.�1 rrzM, 'i�mom f ECG 551 Vl-e f f�.� O VAR F&Ar= .
6o�or'
T�We'-
G�6Th�e ui the hotter it gets
sF �.. sP. 4'43
By Dale Vargas 1 p )
McClatchy News Service r - lc 3
SACRAMENTO — It is not your
imagination: It is hotter downtown
than in the suburbs - and slowly but
surely, year by year, it's getting
hotter.
Scientists at the Lawrence Berke-
ley Laboratory have charted tempera-
tures in most urban areas and -found
they are generally 2 to" �8 ' degrees
-Fahrenheit higher than in the areas
,that surround them.
And over the past''40 years, the
,researchers have concluded, summer
=afternoon temperatures' have in-
creased 2 to 4 degrees in communi-
ties throughout the country.
The reason,- essentially, is civiliza-
tion. The more pizysically civilized' -
people become, the more they build
,buildings and install pavement over
*as 'slands and other vegetation.
"As the cities grow larger and
larger, there is a tendency for the
.cities to get warmer and warmer,"
said Hashem Akbari, a Lawrence
Berkeley scientist and co-editor of a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy report on how to cool the country's
.warming communities.
The phenomenon, known as urban
heat islands, "is basically a man-made
effect," he said. "It is coming (from)
development and the way we devel-
op."
For decades, no one was concerned
about knocking down trees to put up
offices and homes — and paving over
'Yueadows"to build roads for the cars
'and trucks to carry humans and their
.needs. If it got hot, everyone just
switched on the air conditioning.
But now, there_.Are worries that the
greenhouse effect -may smother the
earth and that our energy sources,
whether they be the Middle East or
our own diminishing supplies, may
not be reliable in the future.
More electrical usage for air condi-
tioning also means more pollution.
And motor vehicles and the buildings
that block air movement also contrib-
ute to urban heat.
Stopping development is not likely.
But scientists and other experts have
`A lot has to do with
surface reflectivity,
the ability of the
surface to reflect the
sunlight.'
— Willem Bos
some ideas to help eliminate the
problems created by urban heat.
"The technology was'around thou-
sands of years ago," said EPA senior
policy adviser Michael Stenburg. "It's
sort of recycling of what some of the
earlier generations already knew
about."
The idea, he said, noting the
historic pueblos and white -washed
buildings in the Mediterranean, is to
reverse the trend of removing trees
and replacing them with dark -sur-
faced buildings, blacktop streets and
parking lots that are virtual heat
sponges.
Several scientists, utility officials
and government administrators are
looking. into programs that will pro-
mote light-colored surfaces and pro-
per shade trees. The 217-page EPA
report "Cooling Our Communities"
includes detailed information on heat
islands and how to combat them.
The report lists the strategy used
for mapping the placement of trees
and the types of trees to plant. While
evergreens can be placed as barriers
to winter winds, deciduous trees are
recommended in areas where shade
is needed in summer but sunshine is
desired in winter.
So far, a -few municipalities and
cities have amended building codes to
reflect measures that will help elimi-
nate or avoid the heat island effect.
Most have only limited tree require-
ments.
Researchers and the EPA hope to
see more communities adopt the
cooling techniques, such as white
-paint, that they say work and are
reasonably inexpensive. '
Throughout the country, research-
ers have realized as much as 50
percent savings in air conditioning
costs in structures that have been
modified simply by coloring their
roofs white. Smaller savings — up to
30 percent — are being recorded
when mature shade trees are planted
appropriately.
"A lot has to do with surface
reflectivity, the ability of the surface
to reflect the sunlight," said Sacra-
mento Municipal Utility District spe-
cialist Willem Bos. One recent experi-
merit showed that when mature
shade trees were planted in a pre-
viously barren landscape around a
house, the house was considerably
cooler when the trees cast shadows
on the west and south sides of the
building.
Scientists have calculated that as
much as 8 percent of the electricity
consumed in urban areas is used to
compensate for the heat island effect.
"We estimate nationwide the heat
island man-made effect is costing us
over over $1 billion a year in in-
creased electricity costs," said Akbari.
In Los Angeles alone, he said, -the
estimated cost is $100 million a year.
A
(A)&
aNALW At/t &M-rtlkl J�EKM atrl'
5 16-PK) F4 W- 1W W) C4
6Nj-
W5MIV jt
.. I f,4j Z (Y-
IUE
ov {.�
WArT R FRoM Cam-
P xaf e+'Y�`l'PNOT 1J WU(I : rl dL' trJfr� j ;'
����"""r1.1 F7klI►Jrfik{) �.1:'.�: j T 1 [`_; r�1'=� _ ! ;' , t
i-3 C.3 �`�a.Al��.1y+�� lti j�c1 C�y.f�l JJrT� 1]r�,arnlr �� dot
Fib (,Q0 l
Si-IoGUc� rv,�iG�1t3��•l.D �r-�� I�.s
0/00 of-:-,0 vF-g ulur4alcw)i
PUAkPIIlZ-.' CSC? t71G)V- kVF7M FA4,(+rj 6kg-,
Lia �ij'�'+��aI(�rs�C1aC-i�fu iv'l%
NfraA+rUN11 & Cei<' 11j'f74>!
Ste-o-xC9Tec
D cF
� x
pe.
AL
N
September 6, 1993
SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Attn: Mayor Peg Pinard and Council Members:
Subject: Open Space Element of the General Plan
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club is very pleased with most of the
recommendations set forth by the Planning Commission concerning the Open. Space
Element. The fact that there is a new Grassland Section and many ideas on how to
obtain the City's goals concerning open space preservation. There area few changes
and additions to die Open Space Element which will make it stronger and a more viable
document. These items are outlined in sections to follow.
Section 1: Hillsides:
Add a section as follows:
111rogram5 within the Ur1?an Rp5erve Line, the Greenbelt and the Quter Planning,
Area:
1. The City Shall:
a. Make sure all development is consistent with the Land Use Elements
Hillside Planning Policies.
b. Adopt an ordinance that establishes standards for hillside development
consistent with the goals of the Open Space Element. These guidelines
should be a match with existing County and State Guidelines.
C. The City shall work with the County on its update of the Estero Bay
Planning Area and San Luis Obispo Planning Area to ensure protection
of scenic resources and habitat in all areas under the City's influence.
d. Develop a program which can help developers relocate building sites to
other locations protecting valuable resources.
Section 2. Creeks
Change the words on page 24, Programs within the Urban
Reserve Line, Greenbelt, and the Outer Planning Area.
Was: 1. The City should:
1 of 2
To explore. enjoy. and protect the nation's srenic resources
Is: 1. The City shall:
Section 3. Marshes , Seeps, Vernal Pools, ETC.
On page 29, Policies Within the Urban Reserve Line and Ci y Limit Lire
Was: 1. The City should preserve the following sites as open space:
Is: 1. The City shall preserve the following sites as open space.
On page 31 add a section 3.c.
C. Require public or private development to identify and develop an alternative
wetland resource equal to or in greater value•of the w� sYte being impacted.
Section 4. Programs
On page 92, Programs
Was 1. The City should:
Is: 1. The City shall: Cdall
Add item 3.3. The city shall maintain an accuratublic and private open space,
greenbelt and agricultural parcels along with their current use. This will provide
a blueprint and progress of the City's for providing a Greenbelt area, around the
city.
Add item 4.
4. The City shall work with the County, Cal Poly and other government agencies
to establishes a program which creates a hard edge and greenbelt area around
the city and provides and equitable solution for property owners.
By adding these policies, programs and goals the Sierra Club believes this will greatly
improve the Open Space Element of the General Plan. If there are any question please
contact us.
Sincerely,
Gary S. Felsman, Chairman
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box 15755
San Luis Obispo CA 93406
(805)549-0532, Eves
(805)541-0488, Days
2 of 2
September 7,1993
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
From; League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo
Re: Open Space Element
The SLO League of Women Voters strongly supports the preservation of
open space and the protection of creeks as a part of the General Plan.
Specifically, we believe the City should protect and preserve scenic and
open spaces by acquiring land through purchases, easements or similar
measures. We also firmly support the development and management of
water resources in ways that protect the natural environment by
preserving streams in their natural state, by prohibiting stream
channeling, and stringently controlling adjacent land uses to protect the
natural stream environment. We support this update of the Open Space
element based on these positions.
We note that the draft is comprehensive in its view and includes all the
significant open space resources in and around San Luis Obispo. We
specifically endorse the goals in Sections A (Hills), B (Creeks), C
(Marshes), D (Grassland Communities), E (Plants), G (Historical), I
(Agricultural) and J (Scenic).
We have some concerns with Section B - Creeks which deals with the
protection and enhancement of creek corridors. Although we support the
Goals and Policies on pages 19 to 26 , we have a reservation about the
creek setback, policy within the Urban Reserve Line, the Greenbelt, and the
Outer Planning Area, pg 24. Program 1. b. recommends a standardized
setback but omits a specific recommendation. The Initial Environmental
Study assumed a 20 foot setback (p. 42) but failed to give any
environmental support for the 20 feet. We asked the Planning
Commission what setback was being used in the proposed developed areas
of the Margarita Specific Plan but never received an answer. There was
considerable testimony at the PC Hearings calling for a MINIMUM 50 foot
setback for urban development based on usual CA. Dept. of Fish and Game
recommendations.
2.
We ask for creek setbacks that are wide enough to protect the streams
from erosion and to support creekside vegetation in both developed and
undeveloped areas. All the testimony we have heard indicates that a
setback of at least 50 feet should be considered, We want to emphasize
that we are speaking of the setback policy NOT within the existing City
boundary, but in the Urban Reserve, the Greenbelt and the Outer Planning
Area.
And we again ask - What setbacks are being used in the Margarita Specific
Plan Area?
We have additional concerns and ask that the following adjustments be
made in the document.
1. Chapter 1, pg 2 - We specifically endorse the City's definition of
open space in Appendix A and read it as a mission statement. It clearly
expresses the "whats" and "whys" of open space and provides a good
framework for policy development . It is the best statement of "vision"
within the Open Space draft. It should be moved from the Appendix, where
it seems to be an afterthought,and become the main focus of Chapter 1.
2. We are surprised by the lack of an Open Space Element map. The text
suggests that an element map would consist of the Greenbelt Map, the
Site Map and the Creek Map. We ask for a single Open Space Element map
showing all the proposals, their location and extent (for instance the
location as well as the configuration of the Reservoir Canyon holding ).
Without an Element map, we are not sure of what is being proposed.
3. Appendix C discusses four existing open space holdings and refers to
others. A review of the map of open space holdings shows the beginnings
of a greenbelt around the city, especially when other public lands are
included such as the Cal Poly campus. We feel this is important
information and should be included in the body of the report rather than
merely in an Appendix. We ask that a map and listing of all open space
holdings (easements, ownerships, etc.) be included.
4. See Site Map,pg 9 - There are no open space proposals in the
southern part of the Urban Reserve area with the exception of the Unocal
Wetlands. Specific planning is now underway in the Margarita Expansion
$1
Area which includes part of the South Street Hills and some creek area.
We think that significant open space features in the Urban Reserve and
especially in the Expansion Areas should be designated in this Element
and on the Open Space Map.
5. Chap 1 1-pgs 4-6 Goals, Programs, etc. Although we support the
greenbelt concept, we feel the goals and programs need more
explanation and definition before we can endorse them. Although
Appendix D has been added , we feel there is still not enough information
about a TDC program to include it in a document that has the legal
standing of a General Plan. For instance, should we assume that a TDC
program outlined will be that adoped by the City? Will all TDC's be
limited to residential activity? We also feel the Land Bank proposal
needs more detail.
These are our major concerns and we ask that the Council consider
them.
Lorna Brown, President
LWV of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 4210
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403