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