Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/1997, Agenda wV COUNCIL READING FILE' MAY 691997 MEETING 66gDC" ITEM council M..dmD� A,k_-,Co.20 t 9 9 2A aGEnoa izEpout CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O 0 FROM: Arnold B. Jonas,_ Ommunity Development Director Prepared By: Glen Matteson, ssociate Planner GM SUBJECT: Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Code Amendments CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Introduce an ordinance to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact, to add enabling provisions for TDC to the City's Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations, and to authorize printing the ordinance in summary form for public notice. 2. Direct staff to review the final sample TDC easement forms to be developed by County staff, for consistency with the City's part of the TDC program, and to report back to Council if inconsistencies are apparent. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the attached code additions. REPORT IN BRIEF The General Plan calls for a TDC program, as one of several tools to help protect open space. With TDC, recorded easements permanently reduce or eliminate development potential on sending sites, while receiving sites absorb the development potential by allowing credits to be used for more development than otherwise would be possible. The transfers are accomplished through the sale and purchase of development credits among willing sellers and buyers. The City's TDC program is being developed in conjunction with the County, because much of the open space which could include sending sites is outside the city limits, and it is not feasible for the City to annex all of it. Most of the land with potential for additional development, which could serve as receiving sites, is within the City or the areas which the City plans to annex. The County is considering a package of amendments to the County's general plan and development regulations to enable TDC. City staff has prepared a package of additions to San Luis Obispo's zoning and subdivision regulations to implement the City's part of the program. The additions cover the mechanics of allowing higher density with receipt of transferred development credits in locations identified by the General Plan: the downtown core and identified residential expansion areas. The City's General Plan can accommodate about 500 additional dwellings with TDC, in the urban area (about two percent of the build-out capacity). Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 2 The Council is being asked to determine if the recommended additions to the City's code are a clear and effective way to enable receiving sites in the city. This is also an opportunity for the Council to review the whole proposed program and provide comments to the County on the aspects which the County will be primarily responsible for. The following three major concerns have emerged during public discussion of the TDC program. • Effective protection for sending cites Will the protection be permanent? Will it be complete? The details depend on conservation easements that owners of sending sites will grant to the County or other eligible parties. Current drafts of the County-prepared easement forms would permanently remove residential development potential, but could allow some types of nonresidential development. City staff provided a letter to the County concerning this issue (attached). At the August 6 Board of Supervisors meeting, County staff indicated that the concern could be addressed by having standard easement forms for use with transfers to the City, reflecting the recommendation of the City's letter. The Board did not provide specific direction on this aspect. • Additional build-out capacity Will TDC increase the amount of development that can occur in the San Luis Obispo area? The method for determining the number of credits available from a sending site implies a large but not precisely predictable increase. The limiting factor will be availability of receiving sites. The City's residential build-out would increase by about two percent with TDC. The County could designate additional receiving sites in unincorporated areas, but has not yet done so. • Receiving site impacts What will be the impacts on and near receiving sites? Impacts, addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 Land Use Element update, are expected to be acceptable. Projects receiving TDC credits would be subject to the City's development standards and review procedures. DISCUSSION What is TDC? Transfer of Development Credit, referred to by its initials"TDC," is a way to permanently reduce or eliminate development potential on land in one location, which is referred to as a "sending site." This is done by recognizing development credits that can be sold separately from the land, and used to build more than would otherwise be possible at a "receiving site." The initial buyer of the credits compensates the owner of the sending site for its lowered development potential. The credits can be sold and bought any number of times, but they can be used only once. There need not be a correspondence between sending and receiving sites (for example, multiple credits from one sending site could be used at several receiving sites, and a receiving site might use credits from several sending sites). Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 3 The program proposed for San Luis Obispo County and City would be voluntary. Use of TDC would not be required to develop a site as allowed by its zoning, nor would participation in TDC be required to apply for a rezoning. Transfer of credits would be among willing sellers and buyers. The program is to be incentive-based and market-driven. For the City-County program, regardless of the type and amount of development potential removed from a sending site, each resulting development credit would enable one additional dwelling at a receiving site. In unincorporated areas, a credit would typically be good for an additional lot in a subdivision. The City can stipulate what form the additional dwellings would take within its jurisdiction. The City's recommended code additions would allow additional single-family lots, secondary dwellings, or multifamily dwellings (apartments or condominiums). No potential for transfer of nonresidential credits is proposed. Nonresidential credits were seen as overly complicated for this initial experiment with TDC. The key advantages of TDC are: (1) It can remove development potential from existing, buildable parcels within areas which local government plans designate for little or no future development; (2) Once an easement restricts use of the sending site, changes in the site's zoning would not increase the development that could occur on it; (3) Compensation to the owner of the sending site does not depend on public funds (though a public agency or private conservation organization could acquire credits and not resell them). However, TDC alone cannot be expected to secure the City's desired greenbelt. In some cases, TDC will provide an incentive sufficiently strong that an owner will choose to sell credits rather than pursue a development project for currently or prospectively allowed development. In other cases, high land values or expected ease of development approvals will make TDC a less attractive option. TDC is one of several tools for open space protection which the City is pursuing. Others are growth management policies, consistent land use designations over time by the City and the County, development approvals tied to on-site open space protection, and acquisition of land and easements through gift or purchase. Environmental Determination The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1994 Land Use Element Update addressed the overall impacts of additional development in the urban area that would be enabled by TDC. In certifying the EIR, Council required certain mitigation measures and made certain findings of overriding considerations, related to build-out capacity including TDC. Any further potential for additional dwellings as a result of TDC would be addressed in the environmental review for the necessary amendments to the City's General Plan, or for the approval of specific plans or development plans involving such additional dwellings. Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 4 For the recommended additions to the City code, on June 14, 1996, the Community Development Director approved a negative declaration for public review. No comments have been received. The City Council will make the environmental determination before adopting the amendments. (Initial study attached.) The County has processed a separate environmental determination for its package of TDC-related amendments (Appendix A of County TDC booklet, in Council reading file). The County Board of Supervisors is expected to approve a negative declaration concurrently with adopting the County's amendments (initial hearing conducted August 6 and action scheduled for October 8, 1996). Action Deadline State law does not set a deadline for this legislative act. Situation & Previous Review The Land Use Element and Open Space Element of the City's General Plan, adopted by the Council in 1994, call for a TDC program to help protect land designated as open space (excerpts attached). Much of the land which City policies say should be protected as open space, including hillsides, peaks, and agricultural land within the greenbelt, is under County jurisdiction. It will not be feasible for the City to annex all of this area to bring it under City jurisdiction and to control land use. So, most sending sites will be in the unincorporated area. Most of the land with potential for additional development, which would serve as receiving sites, is within the City or the areas which the City plans to annex. The City's land use designations and availability of utilities will make these areas suitable for additional development. Therefore, the City's TDC program is being developed in conjunction with the County of San Luis Obispo. The County sees TDC primarily as a way to implement its "Settlement Pattern Strategy," an effort to direct development away from open lands in remote or environmentally sensitive areas, and to urban and village areas. TDC can be a particularly useful tool for areas where existing lots of record would allow more development than would land divisions meeting current standards. In our region, TDC has been used in Cambria for several years to help protect parts of the pine forest which were subdivided into small lots many years ago. About two years ago, the County contracted with the S.L.O. County Land Conservancy and convened a Technical Advisory Committee to help draft a TDC program. The technical advisory committee, which included representatives of a wide range of interests, has made its recommendation. The County Board of Supervisors has received progress reports and provided general direction as the Technical Advisory Committee, Land Conservancy staff, and County staff worked through the many necessary details of a TDC program. City planning staff has been involved in this effort, through attending some of the advisory committee meetings, commenting on draft County documents, and providing draft City documents for County staff review. The 1 Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 5 County is now considering amendments to its Land Use Element, its San Luis Obispo Area Plan, and its Land Use Ordinance to enable TDC. On July 27, the County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors the County's proposed package of amendments. The Board of Supervisors considered the package on August 6. At that meeting, the Board voted four to one to introduced the amendments as recommended, scheduled an additional hearing for September 17 to consider specific issues raised by the public and Board members, and scheduled a hearing for final action for October 8. The dissenting Board member had expressed a desire to approve the package more quickly. The City's Land Use Element already identifies the in-city locations and annexation areas which are eligible to receive transferred development credit, in the form of more dwellings than otherwise would be allowed (excerpts attached). A relatively small, but not precisely predictable, number of additional dwellings could result within the Central Commercial area. According to the adopted Land Use Element, up to 100 more dwellings could be built in the Margarita area and up to 200 more could be built in the Orcutt area, with transfer of development credit. Assuming that the central area and expansion areas other than Margarita and Orcutt could in total accommodate about 200 additional dwellings with TDC, the overall total increase in dwellings resulting from use of TDC in the city would be about 500. This would be about three percent of the current 18,400 dwellings, or about two percent of the 24,300 dwellings expected at build-out. Under the recommended zoning text changes, the additional density due to TDC in the Central Commercial zone would be allowed by right (all new commercial and multifamily buildings would continue to be subject to architectural review). For TDC dwellings in expansion areas, the overall allowed increase and the type of any additional required approval would be spelled out in the required development plan or specific plan. All future specific plans and development plans under PD zoning will come before the Council. Once the County's package of amendments is adopted, the County would determine the number of credits which could be sent from sites under its jurisdiction, using the standards of the County plan and code. Under the program, the County would appoint an administrator to verify actual transactions involving TDC. The County's TDC program is proposed to be available throughout unincorporated areas, and within cities which have compatible rules. Certain basic aspects, such as the method of figuring credits, would be consistent countywide (except for Cambria's established program, which would have been difficult to integrate with the current proposal). Other aspects could be modified for individual planning areas or communities. The current proposal would allow transfers of development credit from sites within three miles of the receiving site, or if that is not possible, within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area and the San Luis Bay Planning Area, but not between those planning areas and other planning areas (such as the northern or eastern parts of the county). The City needs to add certain provisions to its Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations to enable receiving sites in the city. Sending sites in the city are not proposed at this time, through they may be considered in the future. . City staff has tried to make the additional provisions simple and direct, while anticipating the questions about standards and procedures Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 6 raised by potential for transferred development credits. Staff has also outlined typical requirements for specific plans to address TDC, which are attached for information. The Council need not act on the specific plan guidelines. Issues Discussion Introduction Opinion surveys and workshops, among others measures, have shown broad public support for protecting open land around the city. While TDC is one of several tools to do this, it is a new concept to many people. Some people have difficulty with the idea of separating development potential from land ownership, which is at the heart of TDC. Actually, land use potential is part of the "bundle of rights" of land ownership, and it often has been voluntarily restricted through means such as easements or separate ownership of, for example, "air rights" or mineral rights. Just as with land ownership, transfer of development credits depends on a stable and predictable system for recognizing, transacting, and recording evidence of ownership. TDC has the added complication of being closely tied, mainly at the receiving sites, to local government's authority to regulate land use. In response to landowner concerns from throughout the county, the voluntary, incentive-based nature of the program has been emphasized throughout the County's meetings. As noted above, the County's proposed package of amendments would set up the standards and administrative procedures for transferring development credits, and the City can employ those mechanisms largely by referring to the County's part of the program. Of course, this means relying on the County to carry out its part of the program in a way that meets the County's original stated objectives and the City's objectives. If the City determined that the County's program would not meet the City's objectives, despite City requests for changes, the City's only recourse would be to not participate. The following issues in particular have prompted some concerns with TDC. Effective protection for sending sites To be effective, TDC must permanently remove from sending sites all potential for uses that would be incompatible with open space protection. Since recorded easements are the vehicle to restrict future use, they are the key to effectiveness. The County's package of amendments refers to such easements, and the County has prepared draft standard easements (Appendix B, at the back of the County TDC booklet, which is in the Council reading file). There has been concern whether the owner of a sending site could in the future simply ask the County to relax or abandon the easement, and whether a future Board of Supervisors might approve. The easement would be granted and accepted, "and it shall remain in perpetuity" (easement form, part 7). "All provisions of[the easement] shall run with the land ... and shall be binding on the Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 7 [original parties] and their heirs, assigns, and successors in interest" (part 9). The County's package of amendments refers to the State's Open Space Easement Act and to the Conservation Easement Act (TDC booklet, page 32, item A). However, the standard easement forms are conservation easements (IDC booklet, Appendix B). State law does not identify a procedure for modifying or abandoning conservation easements (Civil Code, Section 815). Open space easements as recognized by state law (such as the one which covered the Ferrini open space area before it was granted in fee) can be abandoned by the governing agency which accepted them, upon making required findings (Government Code Section 51070 and following). Enforcement of the easement provisions (part 11) would be through court action brought by the beneficiary of the easement. While the beneficiary is expected to be the County, it could be any qualifying nonprofit organization designated by the owner of the sending site. The City would have standing to enforce the terms of an easement only if the City is the beneficiary. Where the City is not the beneficiary, the City would have to ask the County or other grantee to enforce an easement. There also has been concern about the uses that would be allowed on sending sites. The County's draft standard easements list the following as allowed, in addition to agricultural uses that do not appear to be of concern: farm equipment and supplies (sales and service as a principle use); libraries and museums; membership organization facilities; schools - specialized education and training; wholesaling and distribution (part 1). City staff had previously commented to County staff that these uses did not appear to be consistent with the intent of the program, to "relocate development from environmentally sensitive land, land with agricultural capability, or antiquated subdivisions to more suitable areas" (County TDC booklet, page 30). However, these uses were included at the request of agricultural representatives. The listed, allowed uses would be subject to the definitions and requirements of the County Land Use Element and Land Use Ordinance. All of the uses named immediately above would be subject to discretionary review by the County, though public hearings would not be required in all cases. All the listed uses would be limited to activities associated with agriculture (for example, a country club could not be allowed as a "membership organization," but a grange hall could be; an antique car museum could not be allowed, but an antique tractor museum could be). The easement, by referring to the County's plan and code (but not as they existed on a certain date) ties the use limits to documents which cari be amended. As a result, future County plan or code amendments could deliberately or inadvertently undermine the objectives of TDC. In a recent letter to the County (attached), City staff pointed out this shortcoming and recommended changes to make the easement more effective. This concern was acknowledged in comments by a Supervisor during the August 6 Board meeting. County staff said the issue could be addressed by preparing a different standard easement form for transfers where receiving sites would be under City jurisdiction, reflecting the City's desires. The Board did not object to this approach, but did not give explicit direction on this item. During public comments, the County Farm Bureau representative did not object to this approach for the San Luis Obispo area, but said that it should not apply countywide. City staff will review the revised easement forms that are expected to be made available at the start of the program, and return to Council if further communication with the County is needed. Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 8 Another concern has been partial use restriction on a property, in the sense of transferring away part of the residential development potential but leaving some at the sending site. The proposed County rules would allow a landowner to transfer away all of the residential development potential from part of contiguously owned land, but to retain it on the rest. The boundary between land restricted by a TDC easement and land not restricted by a TDC easement could follow existing or new, legally created parcel boundaries, but it would not need to. Encumbering part of a parcel with a TDC easement would not divide that parcel. This allowance may be necessary to enlist willing senders. While it would be possible to not have complete protection on commonly owned property, some more protection would better than no more protection. Additional build-out capacity Another general area of concern has been the increase in the overall number of dwellings within the planning area that could result from TDC. Several environmental impacts and public service demands occur in proportion to the number of people living in the area, which depends directly on the number of dwellings. TDC could increase the number of residents in comparison with what would happen without TDC. The increase would result from the way the credit is proposed to be determined. A sending site's development value (in dollars, usually as determined by an appraisal) would be divided by a specified amount, to determine the number of credits (additional dwellings) that could be developed at receiving sites. The proposed, specified amount is $10,000. (This is not necessarily the value which the market will give to a development credit.) As a result, for example, a sending site with an appraised development value of $100,0000 would have ten development credits. ($100,000 divided by $10,000 equals 10.) The ten development credits would result regardless of the number of dwellings allowed by current land use rules, which could be more or fewer. Since rural home sites in the San Luis Obispo area typically have dollar values of more than $10,000 each —even allowing for land division and development costs-- the number of dwellings (credits) produced by sending sites is likely to be higher than the number of dwellings which would have been built on sending sites. Also, bonus credits could be approved if the owner of a sending site accepted more than the basic use restrictions. The County's proposed rules would allow a ten percent bonus for each type of special resource protected, up to a combined bonus of 50 percent. Special resources include wetlands, the habitat of endangered species, areas of high fire hazard, and contiguous areas of at least 1000 acres. A majority of the Technical Advisory Committee believed that the relatively high number of dwellings resulting from the$10,000 divisor was a necessary level of incentive or inducement for landowners to permanently forego development potential they might already have or might expect to obtain. It was also recognized that a dwelling at a receiving site would probably have a much lower market value than a dwelling at a sending site. For example, for transfers involving San Luis Obispo's planning area, the dwelling "eliminated" by the transfer is likely to be a custom home on a large parcel, perhaps a hillside, while the dwelling enabled by the transfer is likely to be a condominium, apartment, or other modest dwelling in the downtown or in an identified residential expansion area. Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 9 The total increase in the number of dwellings within the San Luis Obispo planning area cannot be predicted. The capacity of receiving sites is expected to be the limiting factor. Here is why: As noted above, the City's General Plan explicitly recognizes the potential for 300 additional dwellings if transferred development credits are received by identified residential expansion areas. The General Plan also enables additional dwellings through TDC in the Central Commercial area, and does not prohibit use of TDC in other expansion areas. A generous "guesstimate" for citywide capacity is 500 dwellings, which would avoid having 50 to 100 dwellings in the greenbelt, assuming dwelling site values in the greenbelt of$50,000 to $100,000 each. A 1991 preliminary survey by County planning staff of areas outside the urban reserve line found a potential for up to 500 dwellings in sensitive locations. Using the assumed dwelling site value range, those 500 dwellings that could be avoided through TDC would equate to 2,500 to 5,000 dwellings at receiving sites (without sending site bonuses). Even with some receiving sites outside the City's jurisdiction, there is not likely to be enough capacity at receiving sites to offset all the sending potential, so it would not be used. However, not all property owners are expected to participate in this voluntary program. In addition, receiver site capacity will be needed over time. Future City General Plan updates may increase receiver site potential in the urban area. Receiving Site Impacts Another issue is the impact of additional dwellings--higher density-- at specific receiving sites and their neighborhoods. Possible receiving sites can be considered in the following five groups. It is important to keep in mind that any additional dwellings on sites in the city which are enabled by TDC would have to be consistent with the density limits set in the City's General Plan. • Existing city neighborhoods. Additional dwellings are not proposed to be developed within existing San Luis Obispo residential neighborhoods as a result of TDC. • New planned city neighborhoods. The Margarita Area could have up to nine percent more dwellings with TDC. The City must adopt a specific plan for this area before development can begin. A draft specific plan has been under preparation for several years. The specific plan will say what form the additional dwellings could take and where within the specific plan area they could be built. Any additional impacts to adjacent, currently developed areas would be minimal, considering the modest overall allowed increase and the anticipated location and design standards. The specific plan will be a public document. By consulting the specific plan, prospective residents, property buyers, and business operators will be able to understand the potential for TDC in the Margarita Area and how it may affect their concerns. The Orcutt Area could have up to 40 percent more dwellings with TDC. The City must adopt a specific plan for this area before development can begin. Preparation of the specific plan has not started. The specific plan will say what form the additional dwellings could take and where within the specific plan area they could be built. Specific additional impacts to adjacent, currently developed areas will be addressed in further environmental review when the specific plan is prepared. Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 10 The recommended zoning text changes include the Planned Development Zone. Some residential expansion areas identified in the General Plan are not required to have specific plans. Generally, they are seen more as expansions of existing neighborhoods. They are expected to have development plans under PD zoning as part of annexation. With the recommended approach, TDC density increases of up to 25 percent could be considered in these areas (the same increase now allowed subject to "planned development"), but without the specific findings now listed in the PD section of the Zoning Regulations. Note that for the following areas the Land Use Element does not identify different residential capacities with TDC and without TDC (and for the Irish Hills area identifies the same capacity, implying no potential for receiving development credits). - The northern part of the Irish Hills expansion area (also referred to as the DeVaul Ranch), at the southwest corner of Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road; - The Los Osos Valley Road "gap" (Madonna property), on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road between Pacific Beach School and Auto Park Way car dealerships; - Part of the Dalidio property shown as Medium-Density Residential, on the easterly side of Madonna Road between the Post Office and the Oceanaire Drive houses; - The Maino property on the lower flank of San Luis Mountain, northwest of the Highway 101-Marsh Street interchange; - The Foothill saddle, immediately west of La Loma Court; - The Miossi property,just north of the entry to Cuesta Park. • Other new city neighborhoods. During the Land Use Element update hearings, potential additional residential expansion areas were discussed. The adopted plan does not show them, so they could be receiving sites only if future amendments to the General Plan are adopted. • Downtown. The proposed code changes would allow a 50 percent density bonus for projects in the Central Commercial Zone that include TDC. The additional dwellings are not expected to have significant impacts on building mass, because: there are no coverage or setback limits for this zone; the building height limits would not change with TDC; all projects will be subject to architectural review and policies on protecting views and sunlight. However, in order to accommodate a higher number of dwellings, the buildings containing them almost certainly will have more volume than if TDC was not used. (Most recently built downtown commercial buildings have not occupied the full space allowed by zoning.) The additional residents are not expected to have noticeable impacts in relation to the number of people who already work in or visit downtown. Despite City policies encouraging more housing in the downtown commercial area, there have been few proposals and no new construction. The additional density enabled by TDC may be an Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 11 inducement for such construction. Also, downtown's attractive appearance, convenient walking routes and public transportation, and safety may make it a desirable living place for the expected increasing numbers of students and retirees in the area. • Sites outside the city limits. The County could designate receiving sites near the city. The County's draft area plan update which has been under review for several years discusses this potential. Possibilities include new rural residential areas, and higher density in existing rural residential area (such as making the O'Connor Way area more like the Los Ranchos area). In the San Luis Obispo area, no specific receiving sites which would be under County jurisdiction have.been designated, and none are proposed as part of the County's current package of code changes to enable TDC. If residential densities are increased within the City's greenbelt, the result could be more urban type development near the City. The City's General Plan says allowed densities should not be increased, except for certain types of cluster projects which permanently protect large portions of their sites as open space. Advisory Body Review The Planning Commission on July 10, 1996, voted six to one to recommend the attached package of code amendments. The dissenting Commissioner did not specifically object to the proposed package of City code amendments, but thought the County's part of the program was too general and subject to change in ways that would not meet City objectives for open space protection. Commission concerns expressed at that meeting are addressed in the Issues Discussion above. Public Comment No public testimony was presented at the Planning Commission hearing. The staff director of the Land Conservancy answered questions from Commissioners concerning several aspects of the proposed program. No correspondence has been received. FISCAL RVIPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action. CONCURRENCES The Natural Resources Manager concurs with the recommendation. Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions Page 12 ALTERNATIVES The Council may introduce the ordinance with different provisions from those recommended. Substantial changes to the proposed regulations may need additional staff work or environmental review, so continuation with direction would be appropriate. Council rejection of any code changes to implement TDC would result in the need to delete from the General Plan those policies and programs which call for TDC. Such amendments would have to be considered at a future hearing. The Council may continue action. Attachments Draft ordinance amending zoning and subdivision regulations Legislative draft of code changes Draft ordinance synopsis Initial Environmental Study General Plan excerpts --adopted policies related to TDC Staff letter to County concerning easements Draft specific plan guidelines for TDC Council Reading File County TDC booklet "Transfer of Development Credits ... Public Hearing Draft" CAR-820.TDC ��Il�lhlllllnlll�lllll���! �IIIIIIIIIIII cityO S�►1'11�,11S oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: TDC Code Amendments (ER 85-96) 2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3.. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson; 805 781-7165 4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: same as lead agency 6. General Plan Designation: not applicable 7. Zoning: not applicable 8. Description of the Project: The City's General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element call for a "Transfer of Development Credit" (TDC) program, to help preserve land designated for open space uses. The intent is to have allowed development occur where it will have the least impact on open space resources and public services. Under a TDC program, development potential can be permanently reduced or eliminated on a sending site and moved to a receiving site which is designated as being eligible for additional development. The transfer can be accomplished through the sale and purchase of development credits. Unlike some other techniques for locating development to protect open space, the sending and receiving areas need not be owned by the same party. Participation in the TDC program would be voluntary, involving willing sellers and buyers. Much of the land which City policies say should be protected as open space (including land with agricultural value) is under County jurisdiction, and is not likely to be annexed by the City. Therefore, most sending sites will be in the unincorporated area. Most of the land with potential for additional development, which would serve as receiver sites, is within the City or the areas which the City plans to annex. Therefore, the City's TDC program is being developed in conjunction with the County of San Luis Obispo. it t I The Citv of San Luis Obisoo is committed to include the bisabled in all of its services_ mmnrams anrl art v roo The County is considering amendments to its Land Use Element, its San Luis Obispo Area Plan, and its Land Use Ordinance to enable TDC. The County has prepared an initial environmental study and negative declaration (ED 96-001, dated May 3, 1996). No impacts are expected to result from reduced development potential on sites under County jurisdiction. The City's Land Use Element already identifies the few in-city locations and annexation areas which are eligible to receive transferred development credit, in the form of more dwellings than otherwise would be allowed. A relatively small, but not precisely predictable, number of additional dwellings could result within the central commercial area. According to the adopted Land Use Element, up to 100 more dwellings could be built in the Margarita Area and up to 200 more could be built in the Orcutt Area, with transfer of development credit. The City currently has about 18,400 dwellings. At build-out, it is expected to have about 24,300 dwellings. The potential impacts of the additional dwellings enabled by TDC under City jurisdiction have been addressed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update. Any further potential for additional dwellings to increase receiver site capacity in the city would be addressed in the environmental review for amendments to the City's General Plan, or for the approval of specific plans or development plans involving such additional dwellings. No potential for transfer of nonresidential credits is proposed. The project that is the subject of this environmental evaluation consists of additions to the City's Municipal Code, including Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations, which would provide the details of receiving and using transferred development credits. A copy of the proposed code changes is available at the Community Development Department in City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Item 8 above provides an overview of the context for the TDC program. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The County of San Luis Obispo is expected to adopt amendments to its plan and code to enable transfer of development credits. Once the program is operating, the County would determine the number of credits which could be sent from sites under its jurisdiction. Under the proposed code, the County would appoint an administrator to verify actual transactions involving TDC. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics X Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 3 Signature: Date: (9 ado Jo r andeville, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that.an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoningl x b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? As discussed under"Project Description"above, additional dwellings and population in areas under City jurisdiction which may receive transferred credits have been generally addressed in the Land Use Element update EIR. Also, density increases for any future land development project in the City would be subject to separate environmental review. Two aspects of the overall TDC program pose issues of growth inducement. [continued next page] 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated First, TDC is expected to increase the potential total number of dwellings within the planning area (and the County as a whole). .The increase would result from the way the credit is proposed to be determined. A sending site's development value (in dollars) would be divided by a specified amount, to determine the number of credits (additional dwellings) that could be developed at receiving sites. The specified amount is $10,000. (This is not necessarily the value which the market will give to a development credit.) As a result, for example, a sending site with an appraised development value of 5100,0000 would have ten development credits. The ten development credits would result regardless of the number of dwellings allowed by current land use rules, which could be more or fewer. Since rural home sites in the San Luis Obispo area typically have dollar values of more than $10,000 each —even allowing for land division and development costs—the number of dwellings (credits) produced by sending sites is likely to be higher than the number of dwellings which would have been built on sending sites. The likely increase within the San Luis Obispo planning area cannot be predicted at this time. Second, if the County designates receiver sites within the City's greenbelt, receiver sites not under City jurisdiction could result in more urban type development near the City. Such designations are not proposed as part of the County code changes. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? . X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Expansive soils? X 1) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fre protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x e) Other governmental services? x 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations.to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? x b) Communications systems? x c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? x d) Sewer or septic tanks? x e) Storm water drainage? x f) Solid waste disposal? x g) Local or regional water supplies? x 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x c) Create light or glare? x 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources. Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources) x b) Disturb archaeological resources? x c) Affect historical resources? x d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 13 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (August 1994; State Clearinghouse #92101006), which is available at the Community Development Department in City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The overall capacity of the urban area for dwellings and population (including TDC), and resulting impacts and service demands, were addressed in the previous EIR. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. Not applicable. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES None. 19. Mff1GATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM None required. IES.TDC GM 5-31-96 14 City of San Luis Obispo ADOPTED TDC POLICIES Land Use Element Growth Management Policies 1.7.1 Open Space Protection Within the City's planning area and outside the urban reserve line, undeveloped land should be kept open... Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land should be permanently protected as open space. 1.7.4 Parcel Sizes & Density The City will encourage the County to create no new parcels within the greenbelt, with the exception of those permitted under the following cluster incentive. Outside of clusters, allowed parcel sizes within the greenbelt should be no smaller, and the number of dwellings allowed on a parcel should be no more, than designated by the 1989 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Element. 1.8.2 Prime Agricultural Land Development of prime agricultural land [within the urban reserve line] may be permitted, if the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one or more of the following methods, or an equally effective method: acting as a receiver site for transfer of development credit from prime agricultural land of equal quantity; .... Growth Management Programs 1.17.1 Means of Protection The City will pursue a wide range of means to protect the surrounding open lands, including: ...transfer of development credits... Residential Policies 2.3.4 Transfer of Development Credits For each major expansion area, Table 3 [immediately below] indicates a low capacity which may be developed without transfer of development credits and a high capacity which may be used with transfer of development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas in the City, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less appropriate, generally those designated Open Space or, on the County's map, Agriculture or Rural Lands. l�uzSfIIwelli�;i's< 4"4:�ii::4ji:�i�v :i:4i::i:<4:Cii......: t.9.` :.:.::::it } Irish Hills 500 500 LMar1,100 1,200 Orcutt 500 700 2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project which will: A. Be a receiving site, within expansion areas or the downtown commercial core only, for development credit transferred to protect open space; 3.1 General Retail 3.1.6 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0, except that downtown sites which receive transfers of development credits for open space protection shall not exceed 4.0... 4.2 Downtown Residential 4.2.1 Existing and New Dwellings Downtown residential .... Commercial core properties may serve as receiver sites for transfer of development credits, thereby having higher residential densities than otherwise allowed. 6.2 Hillside Policies 6.2.4 Development Credit Transfer Any residential development credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or development limit line should be transferred to land inside the lines. 6.2.6 Hillside Planning Areas Hillside policies apply to all hills in and around the City. Specific policies to address particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 6 [are] listed below. For each of these areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space. B. The Woodland Drive area includes vacant land where residential development may occur in the vicinity of the high school ... Before further subdivision or development of any of certain vacant land near Woodland Drive (Figure 7) a specific plan or development plan should be approved. This plan should address the following, in addition to relevant items as noted in policy 2.3.1. (6) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with these hillside planning policies; 6.3 Hillside Programs 6.3.2 Transfer of Development Credits The City will add a "development transfer" section in its Zoning Regulations, to encourage the transfer of residential development allowed on land outside the urban reserve line to suitable land within the line, regardless of land ownership. Airport Area Programs 7.14 Open Space Dedication and In-lieu Fees Airport Area properties..., to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line... Open Space Element General Programs 1.F Work with the State and County to jointly develop and adopt a transfer of development credit (TDC) program. This program should target as sender sites: (1) agricultural lands within the greenbelt which are experiencing or will likely experience conversion . pressures, (2) hill and mountain areas, and (3) other areas considered appropriate to a TDC program. Receiver sites should be designated within the City and appropriate County areas within the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. Agricultural Policies 1.A.3 Consider a transfer of commercial development potential from the Dalidio site's commercial area to the Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Plaza sites. Such a program could (A) form one viable shopping center versus three largely independent centers, and (B) allow additional prime farmland to be preserved as agriculture. 1.13 Work with Cal Poly to determine if the Orchard area should be preserved as agricultural land and as an entry into the City (see site #13, Site Map). If appropriate, examine the possibility of a transfer of development credit between the Orchard area and the Dalidio open space area. Definitions "Transfer of Development Credit" is a program that allows a landowner (located in the City, the greenbelt, or Outer Planning Area) to transfer a property's development potential to another property located within the City, the greenbelt, or Outer Planning Area where development is encouraged. Such a program transfers development from a site where development is discouraged (sender site) to a site where development is encouraged (receiver site). ADOFFML.TDC ��►���������►►►i��i►►►IIIIlIIIIIIIII�►►a����i�� 1111CItY ® S�1'1 lollS OBISPO® 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 July 18, 1996 Board of Supervisors County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Subject: Proposed Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) amendments (August 6, 1996, agenda item) Honorable Board Members: The City of San Luis Obispo supports the establishment of a transfer of development credit (IDC) program. TDC can be an effective tool to shift development from land containing sensitive or agriculturally valuable resources to areas designated for development. The City's General Plan calls for preparation of a TDC program, and identifies several potential "receiving sites" within the city limits and the areas designated for annexation. The San Luis Obispo City Council is scheduled on August 20 to consider a package of amendments to the City's zoning and subdivision regulations to enable TDC, as recommended by City staff and the City Planning Commission. The City's package refers to, and depends on, adoption and effective implementation of your program. The package of amendments before you is a necessary and reasonable first step. City planning staff have been working with your staff on the specific features of a TDC program. The current draft ordinance responds to our comments on a previous draft. Refinements to the ordinance can be considered after the County and the City have some experience with it. We are concerned with one aspect of the program. The draft standard TDC easements (Appendix B of the May 1996 public hearing draft TDC booklet) contain lists of allowed uses, some of which appear not to be consistent with the intent to transfer development to more appropriate locations, and the objective of land resource protection. We are aware that they were included at the request of certain land owners earlier in the process of preparing the TDC program, and that in some cases land owners may be willing to preclude such uses in the easements they grant. However, we recommend that the "model" easement agreements not include the following in their lists of allowed uses: Farm Equipment and Supplies (sales and servicing as a principle use) Libraries and Museums Membership Organization Facilities Schools - Specialized Education and Training Wholesaling and Distribution 1 F I The Cif,,of Cen 1.na f h;d ie nn ilferl !n inrLvlo Iho riicnMai in .11 of ife ..nA.ne nrnn.�...� .....� .....:..:.:.... \ r TDC Amendments Page 2 The draft easement forms refer to the County Land Use Element (LUE) and Land Use Ordinance (LUO) definitions of, and requirements for, the allowed uses. One of the purported advantages of TDC is that it removes future changes in a sending site's development potential from the realm of zoning changes. The referenced documents can be changed, thereby changing the use limitations for permanent easements. Even if the current draft listing of uses is determined to be consistent with the purposes of TDC, a future change to the LUE or LUO could open TDC sending sites to uses that are not consistent with the stated intent of TDC to "relocate development from environmentally sensitive land, land with agricultural capability, or antiquated subdivisions to more suitable areas." If any of the uses named above are to remain on the easements' lists of allowed uses, the basic limitations on them should also be spelled out in the easement forms. Adding the following would help address the City's concerns. "The following uses can be permitted if the Planning Commission approves a development plan which it finds to be consistent with the purposes of the TDC program, and provided that the facility is directly related to an agricultural activity conducted on the site." Thank you for considering our comments. Sinerely,) Arnold Jon Community Development Director copies: John Dunn, City of S.L.O. CAO Neil Havlik, City of S.L.O. Natural Resource Manager lm 466�i Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager