Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1993, 1 - ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT UPDATE. II��hII�MVNIIIII��lAklllll'I VJ ME ING ATE: I�Nui► c� o san pais oBispo >° 2°P3 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director• '. PREPARED BY: John Mandeville, AICP; Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of General Plan Open Space Element update. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and consider County comments on Planning Commission Legislative Draft Open Space Element and direct staff to make any appropriate changes; and 2. Adopt a resolution to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and to adopt the July 1993 Draft General Plan Open Space Element. DISCUSSION: At the September 7th, 1993 Council meeting, the Council heard the staff report for the Open Space Element update and took public testimony. The Council directed staff to contact County staff and ask if they have any comments on the Planning Commission Draft Open Space Element. (A County staff person was an ex-officio member of the Open Space Element Advisory Committee.) The Draft Open Space Element was then continued to October 20. In response to City staffs inquiry, three separate responses were sent by different County staff, including comments from the County Department of General Services, the County Parks Facilities Manager, and the County Planning and Building Department. Copies of these letters are attached. In some cases the comments were lengthy, the County Planning and Building Department letter included 52 separate comments alone. Staff is in the process of reviewing these comments and will provide the Council with an item by item response/recommendation for the County comments at the October 20 hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution County Correspondence a T mICH Off 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 WHFREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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 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 September 7th, 21st and October 20, 1993, 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 neantive declaration %vith mitigations; and /3 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 aAt - I At rn 1850 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO bepautment of gcnemt seRvices COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805)781-5200 DUANE P. LEIB. DIRECTOR September 21, 1993 t SEP CITY or SAN LUIS 0816, Arnold Jonas, Director ^RAMI INITV nFVr,-- San Luis Obispo City Community Development Department P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 HAND DELIVERED DRAFT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - SLO CITY Yesterday I became aware of references concerning County owned property known as "Sunny Acres" which are included in your Draft Open Space Element dated July 1993 . I also understand there is a hearing this evening concerning the Plan. Such references are found on page 52 and related map and legend on pages 5 and 6. Item id. on page 52, states "Provide sufficient acreage around Sunny Acres to use the property for a community center, urban garden, natural history museum and adjoining botanical garden, or similar uses". The history of "Sunny Acres" and surrounding property is long and varied. The historical significance of the structure is highly controversial and debatable. The structure has been designated a AAURMA' and is currently undergoing asbestos abatement. The building has also been a source of concern for both law enforcement and fire and sustained structural damage from the latest fire. The County continues its effort to keep the facility secure, but is continually undermined by those wishing to thwart our efforts. The County Board of Supervisors has associated the fate of Sunny Acres to the master plan and operation of General Hospital and related Health Facilities. The County prepared such a master plan in the summer of 1992 with City input. The November 1992 election issue concerning General Hospital has put any facility plans on hold pending further staff options/reports. The County has not endorsed any use of Sunny Acres and adjacent property. To the contrary, the County has admonished groups or organizations purporting some rights or commitments to the property. These include: churches, fraternal groups, museums, gardens, senior housing and other entities too numerous to mention. J Arnold Jonas September 21, 1993 Page two The County wishes to keep its options open at this time and requests removal of any language in the Open Space Element concerning Sunny Acres. We would be happy to open dialog with the City concerning this issue and would assume the City would offer the County the courtesy of such discussion prior to inclusion in your Plan. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call. R. GEORGE ROSENBERGER Deputy Director of General Services c - Board of Supervisors Robert Hendrix, County Administrator yt1A:Vmu.RdR /•6 � � CEld , SEP 195, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO •\,1 WM cm OF SAN LUIS 081ST bepap ment of GEnERat seQMCM__. r g' COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 • (605) r Dl'A\E P. LEIR. DIRECTOR TO: ARNOLD JONAS, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: TIM GALLAGHER, SLO COUNTY, PARKS FACILITIES MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 SUBJECT: DRAFT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT--SLO CITY I would like to compliment you on the effort which went into the Draft Open Space Element for the City of San Luis Obispo. It is a balanced and workable plan which can move towards the goals of protecting the environment and the character of San Luis Obispo. The following comments are offered as they relate to the operations and goals of San Luis Obispo County Park Facilities. • Cuesta County Park, partially located within the City of San Luis Obispo is ignored throughout the Open Space Element. The park should be identified on figure 2--Site Map for the City of San Luis Obispo. Page 13--Item la • Throughout the text and by the City's definition of open space a distinction is made between open space and parklands. Item la reads "Protect the Morros, the Santa Lucias (including Cuesta Ridge and Reservoir Canyon) , and the Davenport and Irish Hills (including Prefumo Canyon) as open space and agricultural land. "Parklands" should be inserted after open space. There are many areas within those sites listed above which are appropriate for many active forms of recreation as defined within the Open Space Element. Page 17--Under Community Goals • Suggest that sentence regarding recreational uses of creeks be strengthened by adding the word "passive. " New sentence would read: "Provide passive recreational uses adjacent to creeks only when they are sensitive to the creek environment. " 1-7 Arnold Jonas September 20, 1993 Page two Page 23--Item 3d • Sentence would be clearer if it read--"Provide recreation and public access near creeks consistent with this Chapter and the Outdoor Recreation Chapter .._.men. Page 25--Item 3a • Item is very specific regarding where monies should come from to replant creek corridors within the Greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. Item 3a should be broadened to encompass a variety of funding sources. Suggest sentence read: "Identify a_Tari aEe• funding sources in their car_'_=_ _t budgets _ _ __ for replanting creek corridor sections that have been degraded and are in need of creek restoration. Examples would include Soil Conservation Service, Resource Conservation District, community organizations, and grant sources available from California Department of Fish and Game. Page 37--Item 2 • This statement would be counter to the development of park and recreational facilities at E1 Chorro Regional Park and at other future parkland sites. Suggest that this item be modified to read: "Work with and support the County, State, and other applicable agencies to retain conserve grassland communities found within the greenbelt area at their est planned level of use (consistent with other land uses as discussed in the OSE) . " Page 72--Community Goals • Revise the second Community Goal to read: "Create an integrated trail system that connects City open space lands to other r_blie er private lands open to the public. " Arnold Jonas September 20, 1993 Page three Page 73--Item la • It may be in the best interest of the County and the City to consider joint power agreements in park development and the protection of open space. Therefore revise this item to read: "Coordinate park.. camr spars;. and recreation planning and development, including joint Feereatlen projects. " Page 73--Item le • Not all drainage basins, etc. may be cost effective for development as park sites. Consideration must be given to on- going maintenance costs associated with these unique facilities. Therefore revise the item to read: "When financially feasible including on-going operation and maintenance cost r—Require public and private development to combine recreation with hazard control measures. For example, provide trails as part of a bypass channel or airport buffer area, or recreation as part of a detention basins. " Page 74--Item 5b • Sentence could be shortened. Suggest wording read: "By designating preserved areas, or portions of preserved areas as: (1) open space if the area is used for passive recreation, (2) parkland if the area will be used for an active trail corridor, (3) paEkia t€ 4-he aFea will `- used far- active recreation area will be used fer a golf course, botanical garden, or similar recreational facility or as an urban park. " Page 79--Item f • Suggest that a number (4) be added as a recommendation to the be included as part of the Park and Recreation Element. 4 . "A policy that a new golf courses be designed and operated within the guidelines established by The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System. " B:N0ry.TG.cjt �-9 a5 Department of Planning and Building - San Luis Obispo County Alex Hinds, Director Bryce Tingle, Assistant Director Barney McCay, Chief Building Official Norma Salisbury, Administrative Services Officer September 22, 1993 Mr. John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Subject: Comments on the Planning Commission Legislative Draft Open Space Element Dear Mr. Mandeville: Enclosed please find our comments on the proposed Open Space Element of the city's general plan. As you know, Mr. Dana Lilley of our staff has served as an "ex officio" member of the city's open space committee when the first draft of the plan was prepared. Now that the draft plan has been through its review by the city Planning Commission, we offer these comments for consideration by your City Council. In general, the plan appears to be well written and comprehensive in its approach to the future of open space in and around the city of San Luis Obispo. We have looked at the plan in light of how it would relate to adopted county plans and policies, the proposed update of the San Luis Obispo Area Plan, and the draft of the proposed county Agriculture and Open Space Element. There is one point that needs clarification throughout the plan. This is the reference throughout the plan to various actions and policies that are proposed to occur within the city limits, urban reserve line, greenbelt area or the outer planning area. There are several instances where the draft plan recommends mandatory actions in those areas outside the city limits. It should be clarified that the city can only mandate actions and regulations within the city limits, while outside the city limits the county retains authority for land use decisions. This clarification is needed so that the reader will clearly understand where policies and ordinances will be required to be met vs. those areas where the plan can encourage actions by the county in support of city policies and ordinances. Attachment 1 to this letter is an excerpt from the County Land Use Element Framework from Planning that describes the Urban & Village Reserve Line concepts and the appropriate levels of service in these and the rural areas of the county. In addition to the general comment, we offer the following specific comments on the draft plan. County Government Center • San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805)781.5600 • Fax(805)781-1242 ���o John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 2 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Page Comment 1. vi The inclusion of this "How to" description should be very helpful to the readers of the plan. Perhaps this would also be the place to clearly spell out the difference between recommendations applying to lands within the city limits and land outside the city limits, as discussed above. 2. viii The description of the long-range vision for city growth and open space preservation is clear and concise, however, two points should be clarified. First, in the proposed greenbelt area, development of a limited number of new homes other than "farm housing" is inevitable on existing legal lots, or on new parcels approved consistent with county ordinances and plans. Second, housing developed under county jurisdiction cannot be made subject to city standards, but it can be subject to county standards drafted to be consistent with, or similar to, city standards. While this may appear to be an issue of semantics, we do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking that new city plans or ordinances can automatically be implemented in the county, but the county will work with the city to try to establish and implement those compatible standards. 3. 7 General community goal #2 and #3 use the term "viable" and "economically viable"when discussing agricultural lands. It has been our exeperience in working with agriculturalists that it is virtually impossible to define what is necessary to remain "viable" or "economically viable" and apply that definition uniformly to agricultural properties. Instead, in the work we have been undertaking to prepare an Agriculture and Open Space Element, we have focused our attention on conserving the land and water resources as the most critical factors for long-term agriculture. 4. 8 General Program 1.a should be slightly amended to reference the only possibility of other types of agreements than just a joint powers agreement. We suggest the following: Work with and support the County, State, and special districts to form a joint powers or other type of agreement that may be utilized to preserve.... 5. 8 We support General Program 1.f. The county is currently working to develop a TDC program and look forward to the city of San Luis John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 3 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Page Comment Obispo (and hopefully the other cities) joining the county in the implementation of such a program. 6. 12 Hills and Mountains policy 2.c cannot require compliance with the policy on lands within the urban reserve line but outside of the city limits. This is the first instance in the plan where the clarification needs to be made as to the relationship between policies and requirements in the city limits versus recommendations for lands outside the city limits (see general comment at the opening of this memo). 7. 13 Policy 4.A is the first of many instances in the plan where easements are recommended to be obtained "...as a condition of development approval..." The definition of development as found on page Def-2 then seems to include activities that would be considered ministerial permits, as well as include agricultural uses that normally do not required any type of land use permit, ie, tilling the soil, grazing, etc. This presents two issues: (1) whether ministerial permits can be conditioned to require the desired easements; and (2) whether the city should move into the arena of reviewing and issuing permits for agricultural activities. The county does not require permits for tilling the soil, grazing or other normal agricutural activities. B. 14 Policy 1.a for Greenbelt and Outer Planning Area recommends the county protect the specified areas as open space and agricultural land. There are several different land use categories that may apply to lands in the general areas described in the plan under the county general plan, including Agriculture, Rural Lands, Residential Rural, etc. Many of these lands may not fit the county's definition of what constitutes agricultural lands,therefore,the other land use categories (zones) have been applied. Our general plan also applies an overlay designation of Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) to many of the identified lands that recognize the special characteristics of the land. Further, the county only designates property in the Open Space land use category (zone) under two circumstances: (1) lands in public fee ownership; or (2) private lands where an open space agreement or easement has been executed between the property owner and the county. Therefore, it is important to understand that the open space and agricultural features of these areas may be protected through a variety of land use programs administered by the county while not designating (zoning) those lands as agriculture or open space. John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element. Page 4 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Pa4e Comment 9. 15 The flow chart format is an interesting way to introduce each chapter of the plan. However, we suggest that the chart be placed opposite the first page of each new section to which the chart applies, thereby improving readability. 10. 19 Clarify the applicability of the policies between the urban reserve line and the city limits, as discussed earlier. 11. 22 Policy 3.a again raises the same concern as noted in comment #7 above as to whether conditions are to be attached to ministerial permits. Further, the wording suggests that any size of structural additions would be subject to the easement requirements. In an effort to provide some "carrots" instead of using only "sticks," you might consider allowing some portion of structural expansion before the easement requirement comes into play, otherwise, there might possibly be a concern as to whether a reasonable nexus has been established between the level of improvements to be allowed and the required exaction (easement). 12. 23 Policy 3.b suggests that a formal general plan amendment or zoning change would have to be made each time an easement is secured. This needs clarification here and in the other portions of the plan that contain similar wording. 13. 24 The programs listed on this page are intended to apply to lands outside the city limits, so there needs to be a clarification that the city and county should work together to accomplish the listed actions. 14. 24 We suggest that Program 1.b be modified to base the creek setbacks on the assessment that would be carried out under program i.a. This would allow the flexibility needed to address individual conditions based on the field survey of the condition. 15. 25 The use of the term "flood prone" in program 1.c should be clarified. The definition found on page Def- 3 is not clear as to how is relates to the 100 year flood areas shown on the FEMA maps. 16. 25 Program 1.e should be clarified as to what steps will be taken if the water removal from creeks continues to the point that it is detrimental to the survival of creeks or wetlands. There also should be some indication as to what criteria will be used in determining that the /-/3 John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 5 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Page Comment removal is detrimental. This policy will require careful balancing with the riparian rights of affected land owners. 17. 25 Program 2 should be expanded to be an overall program applied to all aspects of open space, not just creeks and wetlands. Mitigations banking has the potential to offer significant benefits to open space preservation and enhancement. 18. 26 Program 4.d needs to be revised; brochures cannot regulate or limit any activities. They can be used for public education and information, however. You may wish to modify this program to be one aimed at education and information rather than limitation and regulation, and expand the list of participating agencies to include the County Agricultural Commissioner, the Farm Advisor, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, or other appropriate agencies. 19. 29 As noted earlier, clarify the heading for the policies as to the difference in actions that may be required by the city vs. the county. Unless the city is going to annex the areas discussed, there will need to be cooperative programs developed between the city and the county to carryout the proposed policies. Also, if these areas are not to be annexed, how does the city intend to see these policies put into effect? Should the city, county and property owners work towards conservation easements or some other type of long-term protection? 20. 31 Policy 2.f recommends that the Community Development Director should be able to make the determination that new infrastructure can be built in a wetland or wetland buffer. Since such a project would be a new construction project rather than a repair and maintenance of existing facilities, we suggest that a review authority other than staff make the determination that such projects may proceed. Perhaps the zoning administator or the planning commission should review and approve such projects. This would allow for public awareness of the proposal and would enable public involvement in decisions that could adversely affect wetlands or wetland buffers. 21. 31 Policy 4 should be expanded to note the involvement of other agencies (such as the county) that will need to consider implementing these recommendations. Again, clarify the John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 6 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Page Comment expectations for the city vs. the county if the affected areas are not to be annexed to the city. 22. 36 Clarify the diffences between those actions that can be taken by the city vs. the county in the introduction to the policies, as well as throughout the policy statements. 23. 37 Clarify policy 2 regarding maintaining grasslands within the greenbelt area "at their current level of use..." Is this suggesting that the county should regulate agricultural activities or regulate the intensification of agriculture in these rural areas? 24. 40 Clarify the heading for the policies regarding within the city limits vs. outside in the urban reserve. 25. 48 See comment #24. 26. 51 See comment #24. 27. 52 Policy 1.b suggests that the county owned Sunny Acres has been declared to be an historic site or structure; it has not. The county Department of General Services will be providing a letter of comment on this particular issue. 28. 52 Should policy 2.a be expanded to included conditional use permits, general plan amendments or rezonings as actions that could require easements or dedications? The present wording of the policy could be narrowly interpreted such that it would only apply to building permits, thereby loosing other opportunities to protect resources when considering other types of proposed projects. 29. 53 Since the recommended programs are all proposed to apply to lands outside the city limits, they should be clarified to state the the city encourages the county to carry them out, and that any such guidelines and standards be similar or compatible with those adopted by the city. 30. 56 Policy 1 should be modified to note that the city can only request that the county not allow commercial mining operations within those portions of the urban reserve area that are outside of the city limits. /-/S John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 7 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Page Comment 31. 56 Policy 2 seems to be based on a misunderstanding of existing county policies and regulations regarding lands containing significant mineral resources. The section should be revised to accurately reflect the county general plan description of these areas as described in Attachment 2 to this letter. No such lands have been designated anywhere in the San Luis Obispo Planning Area. Even if there were such lands, it does not seem reasonable to expect that merely keeping them outside the city limits but inside the urban reserve line would do anything to lessen conflicts between adjacent uses. As explained in Attachment 1, the urban reserve area defines the urban growth area for the next 20 years. Prohibiting the annexation of such lands could have the undersired result of seeing mineral resources developed in close proximity to the city, but the operation and control under county jurisdiction. 32. 56 Policy 1.a and 1.b needs to be clarified. It seems that the use of the term "significant," as defined in this plan, it not the correct word to use in describing the mineral resources. The same clarification needs to be made to policy 2 on page 57. 33. 57 Programs need to be clarified as to their application in the various areas being discussed. The city can prohibit actions within the city limits but cannot do so in the other area outside the city. These programs should be re-written to clarify the expected coordination and cooperation from the county in implementing the programs. 34. 59 We suggest that you update the data about agricultural lands and activities to the year 1992. The county Agricultural Commissioner has more recent data available than what is presently cited in the plan. 35. 60 The first community goal for agriculture should be modified to include a reference to the county's agricultural economy. 36. 61 Policy 2.c should be modified to note that the city can only require urban uses in certain locations if the land is within the city limits, but can request or recommend that they be located in certain locations outside the city limits but within the URL The county has agriculture buffer policies that would be used when reviewing projects involving agricultural properties. f'l�o John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 8 otherpl\r9301841.ltr Page Comment Further clarification is also needed regarding the mandatory requirement for developers to pay mitigations fees if an adequate buffer is not provided. For lands outside the city limits the county would have to adopt an ordinance that would enable us to require such fees. However, a proposal for yet another fee on development _ at this time may not receive much favorable reation. Perhaps the recommendation should be modified to recommend that the city and county jointly undertake the preparation of the necessary ordinance to implement this policy. That study should probably also consider designating candidate sites that would be purchased with these funds so that there is a clear nexus between the fees to be charged and the acquisition of agricultural lands. 37. 62 Policy 2 for lands within the URL and city limits needs to be clarified as to where actions can be required by the city (inside the city limits) vs. recommended (outside the city limits but within the URL). For those lands under county jurisdiction, development proposals affecting agricultural lands would be reviewed for consistency with the county's ag buffer policies. The city would have the discretion to remove the buffer only if the land was annexed. The issue of refunding ag mitigation fees should be carefully considered and definite criteria established as part of the establishment of the ag mitigation program as suggested in comment 36 above. 38. 62 Policie 1.d regarding the Farm Bureau should be clarified. The Farm Bureau cannot engage in direct activity to retain adequate groudwate for agricutural uses, but could play an important role in providing public information and education about the importance of protecting the water resources for agriculture. 39. 63 Policy 1.g needs further evaluation as it raises potential legal and practical issues to implement. The county already offers qualified lands the option of entering into Williamson Act contracts to obtain reduced property taxes in exchange for a long-term commitment to agricultural use of the property. This is fair and specifically enabled by state law. However, in the absence of a commitment not to pursue non-agricultural land uses, the county should not reduce property taxes. Instead, it may appropriate to consider tax breaks if agricutural land preservation occurs through the implementation of a Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) program, the granting of long-term conservation easements, or some other type of agreement John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 9 otherpl\r9301841.ftr Page Comment is entered into by the property owner and the county or city to keep the land in agriculture. The county assessor should be consulted if programs are to be developed that might offer tax reductions. In the meantime, the county can ill afford to reduce proerty taxes for all agricultural lands in the SLO planning area without being compensated for the loss in revenue. The only method currently available is the Williamson Act, whereby the county receives subvention funds from the state to partially offset the lost property tax revenues. If tax reductions were to be offered to landowners without going under ag contract, perhaps the city should consider compensating the county for the lost revenues in order to carryout the desired city policy. 40. 63 Policy 2 is unclear as to what role the state has regarding ag cluster projects; we suggest deleting them from the policy. It should also be noted that ag cluster projects outside the city limits would have to be consistent with the county's adopted general plan and ordinances. However, we would certainly refer any proposed projects to the city for review and comment prior to taking the proposals through the review process. 41. 64 Figure 8 needs to be revised to better show the relationship between the city limits, urban reserve line and adjacent rural areas. Implementation of this policy will require the county adopt similar policies for those areas outside the city limits. There also seems to be a conflict in the upper right diagram; why should the ag buffer be retained if parcel A develops into urban uses and the adjacent ag operation ceases on parcel B? There also seems to be a problem with the lower right hand diagram; if both parcel C and D develop with urban uses the buffer should be removed rather than noting that it may be removed. 42. 65 A reference to the state should be clarified if they are expected to have a direct role in agricultural protection. Is this policy suggesting that new state legislation should be sought to define a role for the state in this issue? 44. 65 Policy 3.a should be revised as discussed in comment #7 above. 45. 65 Program 1.c should be clarified as to what purpose would be served by the proposed low-interest loan program. Hir John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 10 oth a rp I\r9301841.Itr Page Comment 46. 70 Program 1.c suggests that the city and county should work towards obtaining state designated scenic highway or corridor status for the identified gateways. As you may know, there is only one roadway in the county that has been through the process to become a state designated scenic highway, Highway G-14 in the Lake Nacimiento area. That designation occured in the 1970's. Since that time, there has been significant resistance in the county to trying to designate other roadways throught the state process and meet their criteria. Therefore, we suggest that more emphasis be placed on cooperative efforts between the city and county to establish scenic corridors and appropriate design standards for land uses in those areas. The first step in that process should be to work towards both agencies adopting general plans that recognize these corridors, then work toward some mutually agreed upon set of standards and design criteria. We support the idea of the gateways, but feel there will be little opportunity to achieve state designation status for those portions of the gateways in the unincorporated area. 47. 73 Differentiate the policies as to inside the city limits vs. outside. 48. 79 Program 1.f.1. should be clarified as to what differentiation should be made between projects within vs. outside the urban reserve line. If there are to be projects outside the URL, there should be some discussion of the expectations for compatability of the projects with the greenbelt or outer area that is expected to remain under long- term county jurisdiction. 49. 82 Policy 1.a seems to conflict with policy 1.e as to the desired location of proposed urban uses. Policy 1.a should be the desired situation and policy 1.e should be modified to not encourage urban uses outside the URL. Policy 1.e is also unclear as to what it is trying to accomplish. If urban development is located within the URL and if urban development is to be allowed adjacent to it outside the URL, the proposed buffer between the two urban uses seems to perform no useful purpose. Urban development outside the URL is contrary to adopted county policy. John Mandeville September 24, 1993 Comments/Draft Open Space Element Page 11 otherpl\r9301841.1tr Page Comment 50. Def-1 The use of the term "viable" in the definition should be reconsidered as noted in our comment #3 above. 51. Def-3 Clarify the definition of Flood Prone as to its relationship to the flood hazard areas designated on the FEMA maps. 52. Def-7 The definitions for Urban Reserve Line and Village Reserve Line need to be modified if they are going to be consistent with county definitions. The URL definition should also reflect that the city would have jurisdictional control only upon annexation of those lands. While I recognize that this is an extensive list of comments, please understand that they are intended as clarifications that would hopefully make it easier for the city and county to work together in future years towards accomplishing our land use goals in the San Luis Obispo planning area. Please call me at 781-5613 if you have questions about any of these items. Again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to submit our comments on your proposed Open Space Element. ,silIcerely, BRYCE NGLE, AICP Assistant Director A771kC.44Hat% r 1. Pro ditional public resources, services and facilities in sufficient time to avoid overbu existing resources, services and facilities. Objective: Schedule development t mr when needed services are available or can be supplied concurrently. This could inc lying the use of"holding zones" where development could initially be limited below the in um density permitted, until service improvements are available. Goal: 2. Maintain a distinction between urban and rural opment by providing for rural uses outside of urban and village areas which are pr antly agriculture, low-intensity recreation, residential and open space uses which will rve and enhance the pattern of identifiable communities. Objectives: Direct the extension of urban services to areas within urban and village rese es, and restrict urban services from being provided outside urban or village areas. Fund improvements that would primarily benefit the residents or users of new develop and that are necessary to maintain an adequate level of public services, through impact fees. D. URBAN RESERVE LINES A basic problem in providing services is defining appropriate boundaries between urban and non-urban areas, and proper levels of service for each. The Land Use Element establishes such boundaries through the urban reserve line, urban service line, and village reserve line. The Urban Reserve Line (URL) is a boundary separating urban/suburban land uses and rural land uses. It is based upon both the needs of individual communities for areas of additional growth during the term of the LUE, which is a 20 year period. It relates to the capacities of community resources to support such growth. The urban reserve line defines growth areas around urban centers in which the county, or the county and affected city, will actively coordinate plans, policies and standards relating to building construction, subdivision development, land use and zoning regulations, street and highway construction, public utility systems, and other matters related to the orderly development of urban areas. The amount of land included in each community URL by the Land Use Element is based on the following factors: PUBLIC SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS 5-2 FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING (INLAND) GENPLANkv920091 I.PLN n 1. Community population projections. Z. The land absorption rate (how much land is actually being converted to urban uses each yam) 3. Existing and planned capability of local services such as water and sewer systems committed in actual capital improvement programs to support continuing local development. 4. Community preferences about the character of growth. The land use policies in the LUE area plans give particular attention to identifying suitable areas within the urban reserve line for the full range of urban and suburban land uses, where such uses can be readily supported by services. Urban reserve lines are reviewed in the five-year plan update cycle to determine the continuing validity and need for change of those boundaries. Any changes in an urban reserve line require an amendment to the Land Use Element. When the amendment is located within the coastal zone, the amendment must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Urban Reserve Lines are established by the Land Use Element for the following cities and unincorporated communities: Arroyo Grande Paso Robles Atascadero Pismo Beach Avila Beach San Luis Obispo Cambria San Miguel Cayucos Santa Margarita Grover City Shandon Morro Bay South Bay Npomo Templeton Oceano E. URBAN SERVICE LINES Within the urban reserve line of each community is the urban services line (USL). The USL encompasses areas where urban services are now provided or where such services are expected to be extended during the next five to 10 years, as the community expands toward the full development potential represented by the urban reserve line. Placement of the USL is based upon existing and planned (committed in capital improvement programs) service system capacities and upon community plans. FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING (INLAND) 5-3 PUBLIC SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS GENPLAN\v9?0091I.PLN The urban services line allows for orderly phasing of community expansion within an urban reserve line, as illustrated in Figure 5-1. The USL is reviewed every 5 years in the LUE update• process, along with the growth projections and service capabilities on which it is based. That review updates conditions within the community, correlating community growth with available resources. Review of the USL thereby allows for orderly expansion of the community with timely extensions of necessary urban services as they are available. The USL defines area where capital.improvement programs and community plans should schedule extensions to public services and utilities needed for urban development. As improvements are scheduled and constructed, the USL may be expanded accordingly. Areas of communities located between the urban service and urban reserve lines are sometimes designated on the LUE maps for urban uses, at Residential Single-Family densities or greater. In such areas the land use categories applied are "holding zones," where development of designated uses would be appropriate when urban services and facilities can be provided and the USL is amended to include those areas. The area plans contain standards identifying appropriate interim uses and densities where particular uses could not be compatibly established in advance of full urban services. Expansion of a USL is accomplished through an amendment of the Land Use Element, and should occur after LAFCO has amended the corresponding sphere of service line (see also Section H below). F. VII.LAGE RESERVE LINES There are many areas in the county where homes are grouped in settlements of greater density than surrounding rural areas, but which are not self-sufficient communities. In past planning studies, such communities have often been overlooked, remaining undistinguished from the surrounding countryside. The LUE recognizes these villages as having both individual character and unique problems, as well as needing specialized solutions to their problems. People living in these villages identify with a local character and often feel protective of their village life-style. The village reserve lines (VRL) distinguish developed area from the surrounding rural countryside. A land use plan has been developed for each village, with particular attention given to their unique problems, opportunities and development potentials. Village plans are found in the LUE area plans and village reserve lines are established for: California Valley Los Ranchos/Edna Callender/Garrett Oak Shores Creston Palo Mesa Garden Farms Pozo Heritage Village San Simeon Acres Los Berros Whitley Gardens PUBLIC SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS 5-4 FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING (INLAND) GENPLAN\v9200911.PLN /-� 3 c � r • • • _ • j- / G. APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF SERVICE The urban and village reserve lines establish the boundary between urban and rural (city and country) land uses and the different types of public services needed for area residents. Table H indicates the types of services that generally would be appropriate in area with urban, suburban and rural densities as shown in the Land Use Element area plans. TABLE H LEVELS OF SERVICE Urban Densities Suburban Densities Rural Densities Community Water Community Water System Individual Wells System Public Sewers Septic Tank Maintenance Septic Tanks Police Service Police Service Police Service Fire Protection Fire Protection Fire Protection Parks Parks Parks Street Improvements Street Improvements Road Improvements Street Trees Lighting Street Sweeping Drainage Drainage Drainage Solid Waste Pickup Solid Waste Pickup Solid Waste Pickup Ambulance Ambulane Ambulance Libraries Libraries Libraries (Mobile) Improvement Districts Improvement Districts Improvement Districts Open Space Open Space Maintenance Maintenance Cultural Facilities Schools Schools Schools PUBLIC SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS 5-6 FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING (INLAND) GENPLAN\v920091LPLN h r �ocJ In rural areas outside the urban reserve line that are experiencing long term physical hardship due to local groundwater shortages, it may become appropriate to establish an urban level community service system for water service only. Consideration should be given to the goals provided above in Section C. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Prior to establishment of community water service within a rural area, the affected area plan must be amended to identify a specific water hardship area, to provide policies that explain the justification and objectives for allowing the establishment of community water service, and to provide the standards by which to implement these policies. [Added 1993, Ord. 2614] LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS The C is Government Code (Section 56301) states that one purpose of the Local Agency Formation mmission (LAFCO) is "...the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encourageme the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies based upon local con s and circumstances." In order to see that such orderly formation and development is out, the code further directs that "...the Local Agency Formation Commission shall dev and determine the Sphere of Influence of each local governmental agency within the county. The San Luis Obispo County CO has adopted general policies and criteria for spheres of influence. Those criteria contain following definitions: Spheres of Influence: Lines adopt y LAFCO that will delineate the probable ultimate physical boundaries and limits of local g 1-rnmental agency service areas for a 10-20 year period. Many factors are considered, includi the general plans of the various cities, boundary lines of existing special districts and the coun an reserve lines. Sphere of Service: The area around a community, 'ty or special district where short-term growth (10-year period) will be considered, and within 'ch urban services are planned to be provided. An agency's capital improvement program is in determining the sphere of service. The definitions of the sphere of influence and sphere of service lin correspond directly to the definitions of the urban reserve and urban services lines (respectively) the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element provides data useful to LAFCO in establishing res of Influence and fulfilling its mandate to ensure that local governmental agencies undergo o rly formation and development. Once spheres of influence are adopted by LAFCO they become "...a factor in m g regular decisions on proposals over which it has jurisdiction. The commission may r mend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of in erice FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING (INLAND) 5-7 PUBLIC SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS GENPLAN\v920091 1.PLN 8. To recognize the importance of protecting agricultural land for agricultural uses (including the production of food and fiber) in the application of the combining designations and the siting of development. Summary of Designations The LUE uses the following seven combining designations: AR Airport Review: Applied to areas identified in the various county airport land use plans where proposed developments receive special review (to avoid land uses incompatible with airport operations), as well as areas within airport approach and departure patterns. GSA Geologic Study Area: Applied to: areas identified in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act as "Special Studies Zone" (Public Resources Code Section 2622); to areas within urban and village reserve lines subject to "moderately high to high" landslide risk or liquefaction potential (as identified in the Seismic Safety Element of the county general plan); and to lands outside urban reserve lines subject to high landslide risk potential (also according to the Seismic Safety Element). FH Flood Hazard: Applied to flood-prone areas identified through review of available data from various federal, state, or local agencies. Also includes flood elevations of existing lakes and reservoirs. H Historic Site: Applied to areas of unique historical significance. SRA Sensitive Resource Area: Applied to areas having high environmental quality and special ecological or educational significance. LCP Local Coastal Program: Applied to areas subject to the California Coastal Act of 1976. EX Energy or Extractive Area: Applied to areas where oil, gas or mineral extraction occurs, is proposed, or where the State Geologist has identified petroleum or mineral reserves of statewide significance; and areas of existing or proposed energy-producing facilities. EX, Extractive Resource Area: Applied to areas, including active mines, which the California Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology has classified as containing or being highly likely to contain significant mineral deposits. Any such areas which are subsequently formally designated by the State as containing mineral deposits of statewide significance should be included in the EX combining designation subject to an amendment of the Land Use Element (Amended 1991, Ord. 2498). COMBINING DESIGNATIONS AND PROPOSED 8-2 FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING (INLAND) PUBLIC FACILITIES T 92OO9k=744+kHS4Q .2 N �� 'TING AGENDA UWE 10-20— ITEM # ' ASSOCIATED STUDENTS, INC. JULIAN A. MCPHEE UNIVERSITY UNION CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93407 BUSINESS OFFICE (805)7561281 October 19, 1993 C�.I^,c::. CDD DIR Hon. Pe Pinard �c 'S FIN Dl , Peg 1 � r:nECH!E;= Mayor, San Luis Obispo �i a+' Members of the City CouncilD ,( LI''c cHFI) Ladies and Gentlemen: ya a `' = �" :;71E.L I!'r' �I Please be advised that we are very supportive of your plan to save the Morros. As an art historian and arts educator, I am committed to the idea that the visual arts can play an important part in community affairs. To that end, we are developing a project to be presented in the University Union Galerie at Cal Poly which will involve an entire new series of large format oil paintings of the Seven Sisters volcanic peaks by San Luis Obispo artist Jack Artusio. Mr. Artusio has been active in a variety of environmental projects over the years. His stunning paintings can provide a "loud voice" which will help raise community awareness of the irreplaceable natural treasure that we call the Morros. Possible adjuncts to the exhibition include a symposium where scientists such as geologists and vulcanologists and other professionals from various disciplines relating to the Morros can present lectures for public edification. It would also be possible to develop a brochure (perhaps in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce) to inform visitors and residents about the history and the attraction of these unspoiled peaks. Lastly, a potential international expansion of the project involves our application for an Arts International grant to enable Mr. Artusio to do a comparative study of seven volcanic peaks in Central and Southern Italy (including. Mf Vesuvius). If we are awarded the grant, Mr. Artusio will observe and absorb the effects of the older culture on the famous Italian natural landmarks, and interpret them in a companion series of large format paintings to the Seven Sisters. The resultant exhibition, Seven Sires and Seven Sisters would thus share the knowledge gained on an international basis to the benefit of both the Italian and San Luis Obispo communities. For additional information please contact: Jeanne LaBarbera, Ph.D. Director, Julian A McPhee OCT 2 "' 1993 University Union Galerie I COUNCIL 756-1182 AN LUIS OBISPO. Cr; OCT 1 1993 dlfY COUNCILIL :;flN LUIS OBISPO. C � � MEF?1NG GENDA ' ITEM # 21111101 STRONG ONE PLANNING SERVICESONE BUENA VISTA SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93405 805/563-9560 October 20, 1993 ��CotJ�:c:L DO DIR ICAO ❑ FiM Di.9 Mayor Pinard and Council Members ° p ❑ FlfiE CHIEF CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO �ORNEY ❑ Pirr DM City Hall, 990 Palm Street aLERKCR;r 0 POLICE CHF. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ NAC T TFA , r; F_C DIS ❑ C F.c.AD FZ:L:: I_3 UTIL NR Attention: Mr. Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director ;' ❑ PES;;D{R Subject: Adoption of Draft Open Space Element and related negative declaration Dear City Council Members: I am as anxious as you are to see improved general.plan elements and the general plan.update process reach fruition, but not at the expense of public support and due process. In the case of the Draft Open Space Element, it is apparent that many text changes are necessary to integrate County and recent public hearing comments, such as changes regarding the segment of San Luis Obispo Creek parallel with San Luis Drive. Even more evident, based on land use policy and precedent concerns expressed by the City regarding development of Agricultural and SRA designated property outside the Urban Reserve Line (URL), in proximity to the Morros, is the City's "negative declaration" for the adoption of this important new policy document. Many of the programs and various alternatives which may have been considered are NOT adequately addressed in this questionable environmental determination. As previously stated during the September 7, 1993, City Council hearing, professionally I consider an EIR essential according to CEQA. The prior letter from Ray Bunnell regarding a 40- acre parcel development with a maximum potential for two homesites is a current case in point. The City staff suggested that this project prepare an EIR while the much broader and substantial impacts of the City's Draft Open Space Element are.dismissed by negative declaration. Please correct this injustice and prepare the EIR rather than complicate small individual private developments which comply with adopted policies. Wy, , .P. cc Bunnell yc - OCT 1993 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA October 20, 1993 City Council San Luis Obispo, Ca. City Ilali To the City Council: My .name is Joan C. Beck. I live with my children at 1720 San Luis ]hive, San Luis Obispo. My home is on the creekside of San Luis Drive. I do not want to give 20 feet of my backyard to the city. I purchased my property and I pay taxes on it:. I feel that I have the right to take care of, and maintain ownership of, every foot of my property. Sincerely, 9 0--0'-�o C. &X'1kb