Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1998, 2 - AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TEXT, TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN PLANTS LISTED BY THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY AS RARE OR ENDANGERED Council K..;.,D� 11-17-98 j aGEnaa uEpoizt CITY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P o FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Glen Matteson,Associate Planner c-lpn SUBJECT: Amendment of the General Plan Open Space Element text, to allow alternative methods of protection for certain plants listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare or endangered CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and to amend the Open Space Element, so certain types of plants listed by the California Native Plant Society, but not by State or Federal endangered species laws, can be protected on or off any proposed development sites where they may be found, rather than only at their observed locations within such sites. REPORT IN BRIEF Congdon's Tarplant, which is listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare or endangered, recently was found to have substantial populations in various parts of the State, including areas within the City's urban reserve boundary. The City's Open Space Element states that all plants on this CNPS list should receive the same protection as plants protected by the State and Federal endangered species acts, meaning that the CNPS-listed plants should be preserved where they are found. The City's policy and the widespread occurrence of Congdon's Tarplant in the City's urban reserve area have raised two General Plan policy issues that need to be resolved: 1. What is the most effective approach to protection? The City's goal is to protect the plants. Several areas within the City's urban reserve where most of the plants are being found have also been designated for urban development by the County, which has no equivalent protection policy for CNPS-listed plants. The City's policy does not allow for development impact mitigation where these CNPS plants are found, other than preservation in place. The County's development approval process would allow for impact mitigation, and allow for development to occur. Properties in the urban reserve where these plants occur could be allowed substantially greater development under County jurisdiction than would be possible in the City under the existing City policy. These areas could also be tilled as a part of an agricultural operation in the County, destroying CNPS plant populations. Because of substantially fewer restrictions on land use, owners of property outside the city limits have a substantial incentive to keep their property outside the City rather than to annex it. If this land stays outside the city limits, the City's protection policies will not apply. Given the land use intensity possible in the County, the a-� Council Agenda Report-Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 2 City's more restrictive open space policy works against the City being able to gain jurisdiction over the places that the plants grow and extend protection to them. 2. How should the approach to plant protection affect the overall development capacity of the General Plan? If expansion areas shown by the City's General Plan Land Use Map are not annexed or developed as envisioned by the Land Use Element, the City will need to reduce the General Plan's buildout capacity, or designate other land for urban development to replace the capacity no longer available where CNPS-listed plants occur. City staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a change to the Open Space Element to classify CNPS-listed plants as unique resources rather than as sensitive habitat. The change would allow the City Council, when there is no practical alternative, to approve development on land containing CNPS-listed plants that are not also classified as rare or endangered by the State or Federal endangered species acts. That approval would have to include an acceptable program to protect the type of plants within the development site or on other land that would serve as a sanctuary. The recommended approach is seen as the most effective way to protect this category of plants. Also, the recommended approach is more likely to maintain the General Plan's capacity for housing. There would be no change to the City's policies protecting wetlands, hillsides, creeks, or grasslands, so the rare plants found in those areas would not be affected. DISCUSSION Situation This plant-protection and land-use issue has broad consequences for several planning efforts that have been underway for some time: the Airport Area Specific Plan, the Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the DeVaul Ranch development plan. The issue involves both the actual effectiveness of the policies intended to protect important natural resources, as well as the City's ability to accommodate additional housing opportunities. The California Native Plant Society(CNPS), a non-governmental conservation organization, lists plants thought by the Society to be rare and endangered in California and elsewhere (List 1 B), and plants thought to be rare and endangered in California but common elsewhere (List 2). Some of the plants on these CNPS lists may be, but are not necessarily, also listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). When listed under the ESA or the CESA, a species receives protection from those laws. Where a Society- listed plant is not protected by the Federal or State laws, it does not receive any governmental protection unless a local agency chooses to protect it. In its Open Space Element, the City of San Luis Obispo has chosen to protect plants on CNPS List 1 B and List 2. a- z Council Agenda Report- Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 3 The City's adopted Open Space Element provides two types of protection for various plant species by classifying them as "sensitive habitat" or as "unique resource." The sensitive-habitat policy requires that all occurrences of a plant or animal habitat be preserved in place as Open Space, with buffers [Policy 6.2.2, as numbered in the General Plan Digest]. This level of protection actually goes beyond the requirements of the State and Federal endangered species acts, which do allow for some disturbance and for off-site mitigation within the framework of a habitat conservation plan. The City's policy on unique resources requires that they be protected on site or off site, and that impacts on the unique resources be mitigated in accordance with a City-approved mitigation and monitoring plan. The County currently has no equivalent policies requiring the protection of plants listed by the California Native Plant Society. However, under the California Environmental Quality Act, in either City or County jurisdiction, removal of plants on CNPS lists 1B or 2 by a project needing a permit would be considered a significant impact. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that a significant impact: • be avoided; or • be reduced (mitigated) to an insignificant level, such as through planting the same type of plant in a suitable,protected location on or off the proposed development site; or • if not avoided or reduced to insignificance, be justified by a finding of overriding considerations. Recently, Congdon's Tarplant has been found in large numbers throughout several hundred acres, both inside the city limits and inside the urban reserve area where annexations are proposed. Congdon's Tarplant is not protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act. However, it is on the California Native Plant Society List 1B, and therefore is subject to the City's policy requiring preservation in place and designation as Open Space. The tarplant has been found on the DeVaul Ranch, the Margarita Area, the Airport Area, and northwest of Laguna Lake. These plants could be removed by agricultural activities or low-intensity rural development allowed under current County policies, or by more intensive, urban development which the County may approve in the future. The planning area of the City's General Plan extends beyond the city limits to include the urban reserve and greenbelt areas. The Land Use Element designates uses for these lands. Areas planned for urban uses are bordered by the urban reserve line and are intended for annexation. Under the City's adopted policy, existence of Congdon's Tarplant makes some of the area planned for annexation undevelopable. If the Land Use Element's build-out capacities are to be maintained, land beyond the existing urban reserve boundary now shown as Open Space, and not supporting rare plants on List 1B or List 2, would need to be designated for urban uses to make up for the loss of expansion areas made undevelopable by the existing policy. An alternative that would maintain the adopted buildout capacity would be to increase the intensity of other designated urban areas. An alternative approach to maintaining consistency within the General Plan is to reduce the General Plan's buildout capacity for housing and commercial development so that land made undevelopable by the Open Space Element's policy is no longer needed. Lowering the General Council Agenda Report- Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 4 Plan's buildout capacities would reduce the City's ability to accommodate housing in pace with growth of employment and college-enrollment, and to achieve economic development goals. Lower housing capacity would further reduce our ability to provide a fair share of the region's housing that is affordable to low-income and moderate-income residents. Because the County has no policy requiring on-site protection of plant species on CNPS List 1B and List 2, these plants are not likely to receive the protection under County jurisdiction that is possible in the City. Annexation is necessary for the City policies to apply. Without annexation, land remains under County land-use jurisdiction. However, a City policy that restricts the development potential of a piece of property more than County policies is a substantial obstacle to annexation. This is the case for the areas within the City's urban reserve line. These areas are also in the urban reserve area designated by the County, meaning the County can allow urban development of these areas. Until they are developed, agricultural cultivation is allowed in the County. Most land owners are likely to resist annexation, if annexation means much or all of the land that they can develop in the County must be preserved as Open Space in the City. This existing incentive to avoid annexation can be eliminated if the City's plant protection policy allows alternative mitigation strategies that do not preclude development on the sites that have been designated for annexation and development. A strategy that results in annexation and the application of City protection to these plants is likely a superior means of protecting them. Evaluation Although Congdon's Tarplant brought the policy inconsistency to staff's attention, the existing City policy applies to more than this one species. The policy would create similar conflicts if other plants on CNPS List 1B or List 2 are found to be widely distributed in the City's designated expansion areas. However, this is not expected to occur. The other plant species on List 1B and List 2 are generally limited to wetland conditions, soils derived from serpentine rock (usually on hillsides), or both. The City's General Plan already designates these areas as Open Space,and many of them are in City ownership (Laguna Lake Park, South Hills) or are proposed to be(Irish Hills near Prefumo Canyon). A protection policy allowing for relocation and consolidation of these types of plants, as an alternative to preservation in place, would be consistent with the City's goal to extend protection to the plants on CLAPS List 1B and List 2. Also, it would be consistent with the City's goals to maintain a compact urban form and to preserve a greenbelt around the city, while accommodating the targeted amounts of residential and nonresidential development. As a result, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a change to the classification in the City's Open Space Element of the California Native Plant Society's "List 1 B" and "List 2".from sensitive habitat to unique resources, which would allow off-site mitigation. The recommended amendment would allow for on-site or off-site replacement of List 1B and List 2 plants, rather than requiring protection in place. Protection in place still may be the chosen alternative, as provided in Open Space Element Policy 6.2.3, in particular part C. a �� Council Agenda Report-Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 5 The proposed amendment is not a significant change to the City's overall approach to protecting the natural environment. The changed definition would apply to few species, as explained in the biological evaluation section of the attached initial study(Attachment#3). The species of primary concern, Congdon's Tarplant, is an annual flowering plant adapted to properly-timed soil disturbance or winter saturation followed by summer drying. So long as it has minimal competition from other plants when it is a seedling, it tolerates a wide range of conditions that are not favorable for many other plants. It appears amenable to establishment in places where it does not occur, enhancement in places where it is marginally established, and protection where it is firmly established. Therefore, it is a good prospect for mitigation efforts. Staff surveys have found sites, such as Laguna Lake Park, a proposed Margarita Area storm- water detention pond, and the UNOCAL property in the Airport Area, where an existing local population can be maintained, without requiring land that is designated for development to be re- designated as Open Space. Other plants on the CNPS List 1B and List 2 have more limited habitat requirements. Because of these requirements and their growth habits, they would be less amenable to protection by approaches other than simply leaving them where they are. However, as noted above, they occur mainly in areas already designated for minimum disturbance. Plants on the California Native Plant Society's List 1B and List 2 that are also listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act still would be classified as sensitive habitat and their locations still would need to be designated as Open Space. In addition, any plant that is not listed under the Federal or State endangered species laws, nor by the CNPS, but which meets the California Environmental Quality Act's criteria for significant impact(Section 15380), still would be classified as sensitive habitat. Whether or not they are on the State or Federal lists, plants on CNPS List 1B or List 2 and occurring in wetlands, along creek channels, on steep hillsides and higher elevations, or in native grasslands would continue to be designated as Open Space and protected accordingly. Environmental Determination Because the proposed policy amendment has the potential to affect the physical environment, the City Council needs to make an environmental determination before the amendment is adopted. Before hearings on a proposed amendment can begin, there needs to be a preliminary determination whether or not an environmental impact report is required. Usually, staff proposes a determination after preparing an initial study, which examines the severity of potential impacts. Under the City's environmental-review procedures, City bodies with an advisory role, such as the Planning Commission, must review and consider the initial study and concur with the proposed environmental determination. Staff has prepared an initial study (Attachment #3) and a proposed negative declaration. The a -� Council Agenda Report-Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 6 proposed negative declaration was first advertised September 23. Reference to one of the two affected CNPS lists was inadvertently omitted from that notice, so a corrected notice was published October 9.No written comments were received in response to those notices. The initial study was discussed by the Planning Commission, which directed that minor additions to the information be made(page 8 of Attachment#3). If the proposed text amendment is approved, specific findings and mitigation measures for each proposed specific plan or development plan (on-site or off-site protection, or both )will be a part of each individual project's environmental review. This agenda item does not include consideration of alternatives or mitigation measures in connection with any one development proposal. Advisory Body Review Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission, on October 28, 1998, voted five to one (one vacancy) to: • formally initiate consideration of the proposed amendment; • accept the initial environmental study, with a minor addition, and proposed negative declaration; • recommend that the amendment be approved. Planning Commission Comments The Commissioners in favor of the action mentioned as reasons for their support: the lack of City protection if land supporting plants on CNPS List 113 and List 2 remains in County jurisdiction; the apparent feasibility of off-site protection for the species primarily affected; and, the continuing protection for all plants on those lists. The dissenting Commissioner said: more information is needed on potential impacts to the affected plants, so the negative declaration of environmental impact is not adequate; the amendment is not receiving due consideration; the amendment is a sweeping change, mainly to accommodate one applicant; this issue would be better addressed by considering, under the current policy, each potential development site having affected plants. The same Commissioner presented a memorandum to fellow Commissioners, raising the following two important procedural points. A brief analysis follows each point. 1. Land Use Element map designations are determining policy on protecting natural (open space) resources, which is backwards. Analysis: Adoption of Land Use Element policies 6.0.2 and 6.0.3 anticipated that biological information obtained after the 1994 updates of the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element would require reconsideration of land-use designations. However, the policies do not a-4 Council Agenda Report-Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 7 say that all discoveries of native plant or animal species would lead to redesignation of land from urban uses to Open Space. These policies indicate that as overlay mapping of biological resources progresses, the information will serve as a basis for determining where land use designations should be re-evaluated and where desires of the community for protecting natural resources outweigh desires for urban development. These policies do not specifically address a situation where there is a question if a natural resource will be effectively protected through an Open Space designation by the City while the County would allow removal of the resource through agricultural practices or urban development. Consideration of the newly mapped information (such as Congdon's Tarplant distribution) will be guided by General Plan policies applicable to the natural resource and by the community values attached to the resource. Open Space Element policies will guide implementation of the Land Use Element. The land-use decisions should be made according to how rare or endangered a species is, what its scarcity means to the community, how it might be affected by urban development and the importance of that development, and what avoidance or replacement options exist. These are the issues involved in the proposed amendment of the Open Space Element. 2. Approval of a negative declaration is not appropriate, because more information is needed concerning impacts on the affected plant species. Analysis: Environmental review is a normal requirement for adopting or amending a policy that affects allowable development or protection of natural resources, and is not limited to development projects themselves. An initial study was prepared for the proposed policy amendment. The initial study assessed the kinds of potentially affected plants and their locations and typical habitats. It discussed the actual difference in level of protection resulting from the proposed policy change, and concluded that the change was not detrimental. When an initial study concludes that there are no potentially significant impacts, or that potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level, approval of a negative declaration is appropriate. If there is a potential for significant impacts to remain, an EIR must be prepared. The EIR must conclude whether the impacts initially identified as potentially significant in fact will be significant. The EIR must discuss mitigation measures and alternatives that will avoid or reduce impacts. The EIR process allows the decision- maker to evaluate whether the benefits of a project outweigh any remaining adverse impacts, and to accept the impacts by finding that there are overriding considerations. A negative declaration would not be appropriate if it failed to identify expected types of impacts, inaccurately described impacts, or proposed inadequate mitigation measures. An assertion of inadequacy should refer to the specific deficiencies or inaccuracies that make the negative declaration invalid. According to the State guidelines for environmental review, neither public controversy nor a disagreement among experts alone require that an EIR be prepared. The decision to approve a negative declaration or to require an EIR rests with the Council, which must base its decision on substantial evidence in the record. a-7 Council Agenda Report-Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 8 Public Comments The local conservation chairman of the California Native Plant Society testified in opposition to the proposed amendment. He had been a member of the advisory committee for the 1994 Open Space Element update. He said that plants on CNPS list 1B should be listed under the endangered species acts, and that the California Environmental Quality Act calls for avoiding disturbance of List 1B plants. He also said the state is being developed rapidly and species are being added to the lists each year. He was concerned that the areas for off-site mitigation have not been well defined. He stated that the current policy is a reason for the current designation of wetlands and hillsides as Open Space. When asked to respond, staff noted that for the San Luis Obispo area, the number of species added to the lists over time is expected to be small, and that off-site mitigation would need to be shown to be feasible before it would be approved. While it was not presented at the Commission hearing, staff had previously discussed with another member of CNPS the possibility of adding to the Open Space Element more specific procedural and performance standards for the mitigation measures that would be required for each development project, to address the concern that mitigation at this stage is vague. Four other citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. Their statements included: the proposed amendment treats listing on CNPS lists 1B and 2 as insignificant, even though CNPS is the recognized authority; State and Federal endangered-species listing is a political process, so when State and Federal governments do not provide adequate protection, the City needs to do so; plant-protection options for individual projects should be evaluated case-by- case under the current policy; there is a significant difference between replacing a type of plant on-site and trying to establish it somewhere else; government ownership of land is not a guarantee that the affected plants will be protected; a broad policy change has been prompted by one proposed development. Five citizens, including three representatives of a major affected development, made statements supporting the amendment, including: the amendment will allow the estate of an affected owner to be valued at its "highest and best use;" an affected project would provide park space and affordable housing; the issue goes beyond one development site to involve the citywide growth goals outlined in 1994; no needed environmental information is being omitted for affected projects; a well-conceived mitigation effort for an affected site has already started, though it has not been required yet. CONCURRENCES The proposed amendment was drafted, and the environmental study and staff reports were prepared, with the help and concurrence of the Natural Resources Manager. FISCAL EMPACT No significant fiscal impacts are anticipated to result from the recommended action. a- s' Council Agenda Report-Open Space Element plant species amendment Page 9 ALTERNATIVES Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information. The Council would need to identify the specific type of additional information desired The Council may approve a negative declaration for this policy amendment subject to new mitigation measures. If the Council believes there may be significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the appropriate action would be to require that an environmental impact report be prepared. The EIR would need to be prepared, circulated for public comments,and certified before Council approval of the amendment. Concerning the amendment itself, the Council may deny it (resolution, Attachment #2). If the proposed amendment is not approved, there remains a need to resolve the issue of plant protection and land-use designations. While there are other approaches to amending the Open Space Element policies on species protection, they would be more substantial changes—affecting more categories of rare species—or they would require different treatment for species having the same category of rarity,which could be arbitrary. Council may direct staff to prepare hearing materials for one of the following two approaches, or a combination of them: 1. Amend the Land Use Element to designate alternative development areas. that would minimize potential conflicts with open space policies, while aiming for the adopted build-out capacities; 2. Amend the Land Use Element and the Housing Element to reduce their build-out capacities. The Council may continue action. This legislative action is not subject to State Permit Streamlining Act time limits. Attachments 1. Resolution approving Open Space Element text amendment 2. Resolution denying Open Space Element text amendment 3. Initial Environmental Study and (asterisks in margin indicate location of addition made in response to Planning Commission direction) osecarldoc a -5 Attachment#1 RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series). A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TEXT CONCERNING CLASSIFICATION OF PLANT SPECIES (GP 157-98) WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1998, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the initial study of environmental impact and the proposed Negative Declaration as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the potential impacts of the amendment have been adequately addressed in the initial study of environmental impact, that there are no potentially significant impacts, that this determination reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and that a Negative Declaration is hereby approved. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a General Plan Open Space Element text amendment concerning the classification of plant species (GP 157-98) and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof,makes the following finding: A. The proposed text amendment is consistent with other policies of the General Plan. SECTION 3. Approval. The Open Space Element amendment GP 157-98, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 4. Publication. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. /o Resolution.No. Page 2 SECTION 5. Effective date. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following approval. On motion of _ , seconded by _ __ _.____— _ and on the following roll call vote- AYES: oteAYES: NOES: ABSENT:. the foregoing.resolution was adopted this .day of Mayor Allen K.Settle ATTEST:: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 tto--lyJe org en ----- — a :cr Exhibit A General Plan Open Space Element text amendment(GP157-98) Table II: Plants and Animals As Classified by the City of San Luis Obispo Sensitive Habitat-Are plants or animals which meet the criteria noted in 1,2,3,4,or 5 below: 1.Classified by U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)as: a.(FE)Endangered: In danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. b.(FI)Threatened: Likely to become endangered without protection and management. c.(PFE)(PFT)Proposed Endangered or Threatened: Presently being considered for endangered status. d.(FC 1)Candidate,category 1: USFWS has sufficient data to support listing as endangered 2. Classified by California Department of Fish and Game(F&G)as:. a.(SE)Endangered: Prospects for survival are in immediate jeopardy. b.(ST)Threatened: Likely to become SE without protection and management 3. Classified by CahforniaNative Plant Society(CNPS)-(Plants Only)as: a (List IA)Plants of Highest Priority. Presumed extinct in California ti- (1 ist 1B)Plants e fHigl.est h Plants ali fvxxaa And- ra. a 1 1 ' > endangered a eavrray"ie , 4. A species not listed by USFWS,F&G, or CNPS but can be shown to meet the criteria in CEQA Section 15380. 5.Habitat area requiredto supportthe species listed in 1,2,3,or 4 above. Unique Resources- Are plants or animals which meet the criteria noted in 1,2,3,or 4 below: 1.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) a(FC2)Candidate,category 2: USFWS needs further data on threats. 2. California Departmentof Fish and Game(F&G) a(SR)Rare: May become endangered if present environment worsens(only refers to plants). b. (CSC) Species of Special Concern: Are not rare on a state scale, but are found in limited locations. 3.CaliforniaNative Plant Society CNPS - tants Only) r7p.� ._ a� �n e>; ,m::Califomia:and;els,�ewliere �+. Y.v ..t7C 'c.. 1,.::1. k' �V.� .:P'�...`...S::T.u.::�Y:C.m�•-coli.':�*•�M.G`.�;..Y:Y: G:y.u_. 'Y a c (List 3)Plants about which more information is needed biL(List 4)Plants of limited distribution(a watch list). 4.Habitat area required to support the species listed in 1,2,or 3 cited above. C2 -i Z Attachment#2 RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)- A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TEXT CONCERNING CLASSIFICATION OF PLANT SPECIES (GP 157-98) WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1998,and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding. That this Council, after consideration of a General Plan Open Space Element text amendment concerning the classification of plant species (GP 157-98) and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, finds that the proposed text amendment is not consistent with other policies of the General Plan. SECTION 3. Denial. The Open Space Element amendment GP 157-98 is hereby denied On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1998. Mayor Allen K. Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: i tto y if Jo ensen 02 'l3 Attachment#3 INITIAL STUDY ER 157-98 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Open Space Element Species Classification Amendment 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner 805 781-7165 4. Project Location: The amendment involves all land within the City's planning area, but primarily undeveloped land inside the city limits and inside the urban reserve line. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249 6. General Plan Designation: The project may affect lands with several designations, including Recreation, Services and Manufacturing, Business Park, Residential Neighborhood, and Medium-density Residential. 7. Zoning: The project could affect lands in several zones as well as land that would be zoned by the City upon annexation. 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project is to change the classification in the City's Open Space Element of the California Native Plant Society's "List 1B" and "List 2" from sensitive habitat to unique resources. This is needed as a means to resolve potential conflicts with the City's General Plan Land Use Element Map and to provide more mitigation alternatives for plants not otherwise protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act. This amendment will allow for on- or off-site replacement of these plants rather than requiring protection in place, although protection in place may still be the chosen alternative in certain circumstances. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) lists plants thought by the CNPS to be rare and endangered in California and elsewhere (List 1 B), and plants thought to be rare and endangered in California, but common elsewhere (List 2). CNPS-listed plants may also appear on Federal or State protection lists and receive protection via the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), provided they meet the criteria for listing by one of these laws. Where a CNPS plant is not listed for protection by one of these laws, it does not receive any automatic protection, unless a local agency chooses to provide it, as does the City of San Luis Obispo. CNPS listing alone is, however, an important consideration in determining whether or not a development impact on a particular plant should be considered adverse and significant by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City's General Plan Land Use Map designates uses.for land already in the city limits and planned for annexation. Recently, a plant not listed for protection by either the ESA or the CESA but on the CNPS list has been found in large numbers scattered throughout several hundred acres planned for annexation. Most of this land has been designated for urban development. Adopted Open Space Element policy requires that all these plant occurrences be preserved in place as open space with buffers. Doing so would make undevelopable much of the land designated for urban uses. If existing buildout capacities are to be maintained, other open space land would need to be designated for urban uses or land shown for urban development would need to be redesignated to more intense uses. A protection policy that allows for relocation and consolidation of these plants, as an alternative to preservation in place, is seen as more in keeping with the City's goals to maintain a compact urban form and preserve an open space greenbelt surrounding the City. The City's Open Space Element defines `sensitive habitat"as: Those species which have been listed as endangered or threatened by the Federal Government (ESA), or which are being considered for such listing, or which are candidates for listing because there is data supporting the conclusion that they maybe threatened or endangered. This classification includes species listed as endangered or threatened by the State of California (pursuant to the CESA). Further, it includes the California Native Plant Society's "plants of highest priority" (List 1 A and List 1 B, meaning already extinct, or rare and endangered throughout their historic range), and "plants rare and endangered in California, but common elsewhere" (List 2). The "sensitive habitat" classification also includes species not listed by the agencies or organization named above, but which meet the criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act, because "survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, ... disease... or [al]though not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in 2 a -16- such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of. its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens..." Finally, the classification includes habitat area required to support all the species covered by the listings and criteria above. The City's Open Space Element defines unique resources"as: 1 . Plants or animals which the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has determined are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, but more data is needed to be conclusive; 2. Plants which the California Department of Fish and Game has determined are rare and may become endangered if their environment worsens; 3. Plants or animals which are of special concern (not rare within the whole state, but found in limited locations); 4. Plants on the California Native Plant Society's List 3, about which more information is needed; 5. Plants on the California Native Plant Society's List 4, which have limited distribution (a "watch" list); 6. Habitat area required to support the species listed under this Unique Resources classification. The proposed Open Space Element amendment would change the classification in the City's Open Space Element of the California Native Plant Society's "List 1 B" and "List 2" from sensitive habitat to unique resources. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: General Plan amendments are adopted by resolution of the City Council, following a hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The San Luis Obispo area is characterized by a compact urban settlement with agricultural and rural surroundings, including a diversity of habitats and many edges between habitats. Of particular value are the wetland, riparian, grassland, oak woodland, and serpentine-associated habitats which have been greatly reduced in California due to past agricultural and urban development. 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 3 a -4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, 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 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 FISH AND GAME FEES: F1There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish F-1 and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. 4 —/ 7 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a X NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets will be part of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects 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 is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analvze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 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. I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment, but (1) the potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental impact report pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings of overriding considerations for some potential cumulative impacts and (2) impacts for which findings of overriding considerations have not previously been made have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR. Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director yialtr �$ 2 J-IkA - otwm e Date John Mandeville, Long-range Planning4swiew Manager Printed Name 5 a -�g EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (for example, 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 (for example, 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 impacts that are off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). 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 (such as 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. 6 a -/G Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially IessThan Nolmpact Significant Significant Significant Issues Unless Impact Open Space Element species classification amendment Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with a General Plan designation, specific plan 1,2 X designation, or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1,2 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 (such as impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from 3 X incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or X minority community)? The City's General Plan Land Use Map designates uses for land already inthe city limits and planned for annexation. Recently, a plant not listed for protection by either the ESA.or the CESA but found on the CNPS list has been found in large numbers scattered throughout several hundred acres planned for annexation. Most of this land has been designated for urban development. Adopted Open Space Element policy requires that all these plant occurrences be preserved in place as open space with buffers. This makes much of the land designated for urban uses undevelopable. This creates a need to designate additional open space land for urban uses or redesignate urban lands to other uses if existing buildout capacities are to be maintained. The Land Use Element also directs "our elected representatives and civic employees to preserve our community's natural environment" (Preamble), and specifically to "identify, map, and monitor our community's natural assets to preserve and protect them" (Community Goal #8), including "wildlife habitat on land surrounding the city" (Community Goal #3). Program 6.0.3 anticipates the need to resolve conflicts between accommodating additional development and protecting natural resources when it says "The City shall [map] native plant communities ... [and] re- evaluate its land use designations and future plans .for undeveloped areas, and revise the Land Use Element map accordingly." To implement the City's policies on lands with plants that the Open Space Element defines as sensitive habitat (including CNPS listed plants that do not qualify for Federal or State protection, but protected by City policy), some land now shown for development.would need to be redesignated as Open Space. This would reduce the City's capacity for development, including residential development at the DeVaul Ranch property and commercial development in the Airport Area. To accommodate the same amount of growth currently planned for, additional land would need to be designated for the urban uses. An alternative to designating additional land for urban uses is to reduce net development potential and re-designate some of the land uses shown in the City's General Plan Land Use Map. Almost all of the area outside the existing city limits that the City plans for urban uses are also planned for urban development by the County. Where sensitive habitat involving CNPS listed plants that do not qualify for Federal or State protection occur, the City requirement to preserve the plants in place could create a substantial disincentive for annexation, because the City policy would greatly reduce development potential. The property owner could develop the property in the County, where the City's sensitive habitat policy is not in effect. Even agricultural uses 7 01 -oZ•0 Issues and Supporting Informatit,.. Sources Sources Potentia,., Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Issues unless Impact Open Space Element species classification amendment Mitigation Incorporated under County jurisdiction might result in the removal of these plants. In these cases, the incentive to forego annexation could be eliminated if the City's plant protection policy provided alternative mitigation strategies that do not preclude development within the City. Therefore, the existing sensitive habitat definition and the City's Open Space land-use designation are likely to discourage annexation and City jurisdiction over lands with plants listed on the CNPS lists 19 and 2 and not listed for protection by either the ESA or the CESA. In that case, the sensitive habitat may be removed, either through agricultural operations or development approved by the County. This is the situation for plants in the CNPS lists 1 B and 2, which the City proposes for reclassification from sensitive habitat to unique resources. As a unique resource, a CNPS list 1 B and 2 plant not protected by Federal or State legislation but impacted by development could be preserved in place similar to the requirement for a sensitive habitat. If the City determines that a development project's basic purpose can not be accomplished through a different design or lower density, or that reasonable use of the property could not otherwise occur, on- or off-site replacement of impacted plants would be possible. The feasibility and secondary affects of such mitigation are discussed under the "biological resources" section. The proposed change in definition is not a significant modification to the City's open space protection philosophy. The number of species it presently applies to is small (though the lists may change), as described in the biological evaluation section. CNPS list 1 B and 2 plants that are also listed under the ESA or CESA would still be classified as a sensitive habitat. In addition, any CNPS list 1 B or 2 plant that meets the CEO.A definition for significant impact would also still be classified as sensitive habitat. Further, whether or not they are on the State or Federal lists, plants on CNPS list 1 B or 2 and occurring in wetlands, along creek channels, on steep hillsides ' and higher elevations, or in native grasslands would continue to be designated as Open Space and protected accordingly. The proposed amendment is intended to carry out the Land Use Element Preamble concerning protection of natural features and accommodation of future growth. Its purpose is to eliminate or reduce potential policy inconsistency created by the policy proposed to be changed. No policy inconsistencies result from the implementation of the proposed amendment. 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 1, 4, indirectly (for example, through projects in an 5 X undeveloped area or major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X The project would remove a policy constraint to development in at least one of the City's identified residential expansion areas. This effect is determined to be not significant because the effects of the current development capacity have been evaluated as part of General Plan build-out. 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 8 a-aI Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant ss Impact Open Space Element species classification amendment Issues gMti ation Incorporated f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) 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 surface water quality (including temperature, dissolved X 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 direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception X 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 i) 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 existing or projected air quality violation X (noncompliance 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. TRANSPORTATIONMIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X (such as farm equipment)? c) Inadequate general or emergency access? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (incompatibility X with Airport Land Use Plan)? 9 a -aa Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less'rhan No Impact Significant Significant Significant Open Space Bement species classification amendment Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (such as heritage trees)? 2 X c) Locally designated natural communities (such as oak 6, 7 X forest, coastal habitat)? d) Wetland habitat (marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Introduction The variety of natural life forms and the amount of land they occupy have declined dramatically as agricultural operations with single crop types and cities have expanded..The harmful effects of these declines include loss of genetic information that may be useful for medicine and crop vitality, as well as the type of environment that many people prefer .for themselves and their descendants. The practical values of species may not be known when the extinction occurs. Extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary process. However, the comparatively fast rate of extinction caused by human activity, particularly as habitats are destroyed, usually does not allow for adaptation and emergence of new species. One response to these losses has been passage of Federal and State laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, to protect The types of plants and animals that are close to becoming extinct. These laws have helped avoid extinction for several species and have aided at least temporary recovery for some. The laws are intended to prevent killing individual members of an endangered species, as well as habitat destruction. However, these laws focus on one species at a time, and have an effect only after a species is in serious decline. For many species, the cause of decline or extinction is loss of habitat. Each species depends on a certain type of habitat for its survival. A species is more susceptible to extinction if its habitat requirements are not flexible. Recently, conservationists have advocated a strategy of saving at least representative pieces of habitat types, so that all their interdependent species have a chance for survival. The pending update of the City's Conservation Element is expected to elaborate on the habitat-conservation approach. The proposed Open Space Element amendment is consistent with this strategy, in that it allows for the creation of habitat areas away from development and urban uses, and the consolidation of habitat areas rather than requiring the preservation of individual plants or small plant populations in place and in isolation as the only option. The City's adopted Open Space Element policy aims for more restrictive protection, mainly for certain California native plants, than the Federal or State endangered species laws. This is because the Federal and State laws allow for the creation of habitat conservation plans that allow .the relocation of some endangered species. The City's policy regarding species the Open Space Element classifies as sensitive habitat requires preservation in place with a buffer between the sensitive habitat and development. Not other options are possible. As Section 1 of this initial study describes, the likely effect of the existing policy is to discourage annexation and City control over land adjacent to the City planned for urban development containing certain native plants. As a unique resource, a CNPS list 1 B and 2 plant not protected by Federal or State legislation but potentially impacted by development could be preserved in place similar to the requirement for a 10 A-13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentiahy Potentially Less Than INolmpact Significant Significant Significant Unlm Impact Open Space Element species classification amendment Issues Mligation Incorporated sensitive habitat. If the City determines that a development project's basic purpose can not be accomplished through a different design or lower density, or that reasonable use of the property could not otherwise occur, on- or off-site replacement of impacted plants would be possible. The proposed change in definition is not a change to the City's open space protection philosophy. In addition, the number of species it will apply to is a small part of the species contained on CNPS list.1 B and 2, involving only those plants that occur in San Luis Obispo, those that are not dependent on the serpentine soils that are primarily located on undevelopable hillsides, plants that are not also listed under the ESA or CESA, and plants that would not meet the CEQA definition :for significant impact. The following paragraphs describe those species found in the general San Luis Obispo area that could be affected by the proposed amendment. Species potentially affected by project: Based upon information provided by the California Native Plant Society, it appears that there are eight plant species which could potentially be affected by the project. Of these, only Congdon's tarplant appears to be likely to be seriously affected, and is therefore described in greater detail than the other species. All eight, however, are discussed briefly: 1.. Hemizonia panyi variety congdonii, commonly known as Congdon's tarplant or Congdon's spikeweed, is listed by the California Native Plant Society .as rare, . threatened, .or endangered in California and elsewhere. The Federal government considers it a species of concern, with not enough biological information to support listing at this time. It is not listed by the State of California. This is the species that has prompted the proposed amendment, since it occupies much of the proposed DeVaul Ranch residential development, as well as areas within the proposed Airport Area annexation, and certain other areas in the . vicinity. (See also the Final Environmental Impact Report for the DeVaul Ranch project, on file in the Community Development Department.) Description: A shrubby, annual plant 0.1 to 1 meter (3 inches tothree feet) tall, having. . many spikes and bristles on all parts, with yellow blossoms summer to fall. Habitat: Prefers alkaline soils where water stands in thewinter and spring or where heavy grazing or seasonal cultivation reduce the growth of competing grasses -and forbs. . Historic range: This variety is known to have occurred from the San Luis Obispo area to as far north as the eastern part of San Francisco Bay. Present range: Believed to be limited to one Northern California site and to lowlands west and south of San Luis Obispo (see attached map). Ecological role: Well adapted to seasonally saturated, alkaline soils, which are characteristic of parts of the American southwest. Tarplant also colonizes disturbed areas, giving way to other plants if the disturbance is not repeated. Not known to be the exclusive or preferred food source for any particular species of animal or insect. Seeds probably dispersed by catching in animal fur, or possibly by running water. Prospects for conservation: The local population varies greatly from year to year, depending on the amount and seasonal distribution of rainfall, grazing, or cultivation. Seeds are not 11 a -a� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially IessThan No Impact Significant Significant Significant [slues Open Space Element species classification amendment Un less Impact nessY�on Incorporated believed to be viable over many years. Prospects for survival are good if small habitat areas are managed to encourage periodic regeneration, or if large habitat areas are allowed to encompass supportive conditions. As shown on the attached map, sites already designated as Open Space (north of Laguna Lake) and as Recreation (Airport Specific Plan Area) had extensive stands in 1998, though there are no formal protections for-these locations. Both of these, however, are wetland habitats, and as such have.certain protections. 2. Layia ionesii, commonly known as Jones' layia, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, .threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. The Federal government considers it a species of concern, with not enough biological information to support listing at this time. It is not listed by the State of California. -Description: An annual forb, 0.3 meters (one .foot) tall, flowering in April and May. The small, daisy-like heads include yellow ray flowers with cream-colored tips. The centers of the heads contain numerous small disk flowers with purple anthers. The plants are generally dried up and withered by June, by which time they are not recognizable. Habitat: Found in grassland in clay soils, generally on serpentine. Historic range: Known from the Cayucos and.San Luis Obispo areas. -Apparently extirpated in the former. Last reported in 1982 from Laguna Lake Park. Prospects for conservation: The species may possibly benefit from the protections afforded to the serpentine hillsides in our area, as described for several other species below. Not enough is known of the species to state this for certain, however. 3. Sanicuia maritima, commonly known as adobe sanicle, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. The Federal government considers it a species of concern, with not enough biological information to support listing at this time. It is not listed by the State of California. Description: A small, perennial herb arising from a taproot. Rounded or lobed basal leaves, with only a few smaller leaves on the stem. Small heads of yellow flowers appear in May. Habitat: Known from springs or other wet areas in grassland, generally near the coast. Historic range: Known from the San Francisco Bay region to San Luis Obispo County. Now extirpated in the northern portion of its range, and known only from Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. Prospects for conservation. The local population is found in a protected area within Laguna Lake Park. Thus the species is not believed likely to be affected by the project. 4. Caiystegia subacauiis variety episcopaiis, commonly known as San Luis Obispo County morning glory, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. The Federal government considers it a species of concern, with not enough biological information to support listing at this time. It is not listed by the State of California. 12 � —o�b� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant 0 Open Space Bement species classification amendment Issuesunless Impact P P P Mitigation Incorporated Description: A perennial herb with trailing or weakly twining stems, recognized by its triangular, minutely hairy leaves. Clearly recognizable morning glory flowers are produced from April through June. After this, however, the plant dries and shatters, becoming unrecognizable. Habitat: Found in heavy clay soils, often derived from serpentine. Present range: Known from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. In San Luis Obispo County the species is known from the vicinity of the Hearst Ranch south to San.Luis Obispo. Locally the species has been found in moist, heavy soils near Laguna Lake. Prospects for conservation: Locally the species is known at this time only from the Laguna Lake area. Certain other similar sites, such as the base of the Irish Hills and the Margarita area, could contain populations of this species. Therefore the species could theoretically be affected by the project, however, this can not be ascertained at this time. The following species are grouped together because they are generally found on heavy serpentine soils, generally on hillsides, and in our area are often found growing together or near each other. They are: 5. Calochortus obispoensis, commonly known as San Luis mariposa lily, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. It is not listed by the State or Federal governments. 6. Carex obispoensis, commonly known as San Luis Obispo sedge, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. It is not listed by the State or Federal governments. 7. Chorizanthe breweri, commonly known as Brewer's spineflower, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. It is not listed by the State or Federal governments. 8. Dudleya blochmaniae subspecies blochmaniae, commonly known as Blochman's dudleya, is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. The Federal government considers it a species of concern, with not enough biological information to support listing at this time. It is not listed by the State of California. All these species are generally restricted to serpentine-derived soils in the vicinity of San. Luis Obispo. Usually they are found on rocky hillsides and thin soils. The San Luis Obispo sedge is often found in places that are at least seasonally moist. However, it can tolerate drier conditions than many sedge species. These species are considered likely to be unaffected by the project because much of the serpentine areas in and around the City of San Luis Obispo are either already in, or are scheduled to be, in preserves set aside, among other things, as refuges for these plants. The hills at Laguna Lake Park, the South Street Hills, Irish Hills, and ridge above Johnson Avenue 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Space Elements species classification amendment Issues unless Impact Open S P P Mitigation Incorporated east of the City have all been designated as open space for their scenic and environmental qualities, including the known presence of some or all of these species. Species in addition to those named above may be listed by the California Native Plant Society and either or both the Federal and State Governments in the future. Mitigation of losses at development sites can have secondary impacts on the sites selected for establishing replacements, such as replacing one habitat type with another. However, these secondary impacts are not expected to besignificant, because changes would typically involve permanent protection of the threatened, rare, or endangered habitat components, or restoration of more natural habitat in areas that have been disturbed by.prior human activity. B. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient 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. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including oil, pesticides, chemicals or X radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) .Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as defined by the San-Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X Element? 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) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 14 a-a� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant UsuSpace Element species classification amendment ��eg I'r'k Open S P Mitigation Incorporated 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 X facilities? 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 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 15 a -zg Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less sThan Notmpact Significant Significant Significant Issues Unless Impact Open Space Element species classification amendment Mitigation Incorporated 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 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, X 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? The proposed policy amendment is intended to:maintain internal consistency within the General Plan, while providing practical protection fordiminished species and habitats:that are, or can be .: made subject to, the City's jurisdiction. However; the-amendment would-allow a wider -range of protection options, which may be decided in response to specific future. proposals. Some options for off-site mitigation may be less effective than preservation on site. In particular, restoration experts have expressed concerns about how well .some types of created wetlands can duplicate the conditions found within natural wetlands. Habitat features that require active, long-term management are a particular concern, since they may not have the durability or resilience of natural systems. Long-term monitoring and evaluation will'.be needed to determine effectiveness. This type of impact is found to be not significant because further reductions in the affected species would likely result in their being classified, so that a higher level of protection would be required by State and Federal rules. A result of that change would be more equal levels of protection within and outside City jurisdiction. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? Accommodating development is generally seen as a shorter-term goal than maintaining biological diversity. However, maintaining biological diversity may not be as well served if the City lacks jurisdiction over the habitat area. Because of the status of species under the current City policy, as compared with State and Federal rules for protecting species, this type of impact is found to be less than significant. c) . Does the project have.impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No other policy amendments are proposed at this time. An update to and, integration of, the. City's policies on species and habitat conservation is just beginning (the Conservation Element update). That update will be subject to environmental review. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? 16 a -a.� 17. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to thetiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. This determination does not rely on earlier analysis. b) Impacts adequately addressed.. Identify which effects from the above checklist.were within the.scope of -and adequately analyzed in an- earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed-by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and.the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 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; Sandstrom 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 1. General Plan Land Use Element, City-of San Luis Obispo, August 1994 (as amended through May 1998). 2. General Plan Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo, January 1994 (as amended through November 1997). 3. San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 1996 map, California Department of Conservation. 4. General Plan Housing Element, City of San Luis Obispo, September 1994. 5. Final Environmental Impact Report. 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994. 6. California Native Plant Society, September 1998. 7. Information on plant species listing, descriptions, and distribution from the following reports and from Dr. Neil Havlik, City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Manager, and the City. of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Inventory Advisory Committee, September 1998. Final Environmental Impact Report, DeVaul Ranch Planned Development, .c•ea Environmental Consultants for the City of San Luis Obispo, August 1998 (certification pending). Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report, San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan, Environmental Science Associates for.Federal Aviation Administration and County of San Luis Obispo, August 1998. 19. @MGATION MEASURES & MITIGATION MONITORING No mitigation measures are proposed. 17 a -� o J , ff �+ o / k ' .v% %l�� •k 1.` l: .�° — 00 77 co ill �� f� _. ( e Vim,' `lp� I p u��%�J� ` uJ�'i/flfmil `':- � �1�`. Mr Ju / �T L o �i....� �wu.v. rryryy��/ CID r, C�;U it ' ``,n•`('/J y r f^'?a•' a O NN C 1 �._" "/�. /.. i�r / !r'l lu �' •1,���%]l' / I'y'� ' '.�.. 1 �� 4i t".I' p�g �'-C N � a OM 1m1 IN _•,J 3 '1��.)l/. ,�..* �� lu; 740 11 /7 9e St6nu COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BY DAVID H. CHIPPING V.P. CONSERVATION-CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 11/17/98 TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL: The California Native Plant Society is a statewide non-profit organization of some 10,000 scientists, educators, and laypeople dedicated to the conservation and understanding of the California native flora. The mission of the California Native Plant Society is to increase the understanding and appreciation of California's native plants and to preserve them in their natural habitat through scientific activities,education, and conservation. This proposed change in protective status is driven by one plant standing in the way of development. If the City saw fit to protect species which, in a less political world, would have been listed as endangered or threatened, then let that enlightened understanding of our obligation to the future remain in place. •Please do not lower the protective standard for ALL plants because of political expediency regarding current development plans. • Seek instead some language changes regarding protection of species in "sensitive habitat"that would enable the essential protection and yardstick for conservation action to remain in place... which is avoidance and buffering. •Greater latitude under the "sensitive habitat" designation could be achieved by providing a stringent test for violating the in-situ conservation and buffering standard, without removing the standard itself. • CNPS suggests that ex-situ conservation only be used as a "last resort", and only when the action can be shown to not significantly contribute to the decline of a species, and would allowed only when there is an overriding environmental consideration. The City should not consider economic factors to be an overriding consideration, but should consider the conservation of other species through dedicated open space, the donation of good habitat, and perhaps some environmental social factors such as safety from flooding. However the test for overriding in-situ protection should be rigorous, and not rooted in economics. "Species protected in "sensitive habitat" may be subject to alternative management strategies, such as ex-situ conservation, only when there is compelling environmental advantage to adopt such strategies. Alternative management strategies shall not contribute to the decline of a species, and take of a protected species shall be mitigated." • Should the City adopt the proposed motion for change in status, it will do so for all plants that are currently listed, of which one,the tarplant, is the only plant in apparent jeopardy. The protecion of the current standard will also be removed for other species that might be eligible for listing in the future. •The protection of the remaining species will be the existing hillside development restrictions, but these restrictions could be modified by some future council.The protection of the biological elements that has made the serpentinite hills "valuable" should be the primary protective tool for that ecosystem, and should not be watered down in this way. CNPS POLICY ON TRANSPLANTING Adopted December 1989 Native plants,plant communities and their habitats on public and private lands are subject to increasing development and use pressures. Little scientific information is available on the long-term success of transplanting to mitigate impacts on the plants.The preponderance of evidence to date demonstrates that transplanting naturally occurring wild plants does not represent a successful method of long-term conservation. Therefore- -The California Native Plant Society requests all responsible agencies and persons involved with the maintenance of biological diversity and rare plant protection to: 1. Develop and implement alternate strategies of plant and plant community protection that are realistic, well documented through long term monitoring, and aimed at the continued success of establishing and enhancing viable populations of rare plants, plant communities, and their habitats, and 2. Use transplanting of such plants only as a mitigation method of last recourse. (SEE ALSO LETTER FROM BOTANIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA) C H I C A G O B O T A N I C G A R D E N August 27, 1998 Carol Baskin, President Botanical Society of America School of Biological Sciences University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506-0225 Dear Carol, On behalf of the BSA conservation committee, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) "Statement Opposing Transplantation as Mitigation for Impacts to Rare Plants". Several members of the committee (copied below) and I have reviewed the statement and would support BSA being a signatory. We feel the statement is well-written and covers most of the salient points surrounding rare plant transplantation. We generally agreed that transplantation is a poor substitute for habitat preservation and should only be used when there is absolutely no other alternative. Communities are simply too complex to be completely and effectively mimicked in even the most carefully planned restoration, let alone hasty transplantation attempts. Most plant species are intricately tied to their community via connections with other organisms, such as pollinators, seed dispersal agents, mycorrhizal fungi, rhizobial associates, nurse plants, etc. Even the best planned reintroduction attempts usually fail. For example, estimates by several of the Center for Plant Conservation's participating institutions indicate that approximately 80% of plant introductions do not persist. Similarly, wild collected terrestrial orchids that are transplanted rarely survive beyond five years. Another point we would like to raise is that transplantation forever falsifies the history of plant distribution, including natural dispersal, migration, and establishment. We hope that legislators are not given the false impression that endangered plants can be conserved by transplantation, or other ex situ 1000 LAKE COOK ROAD. G L ENCOE. IL 600 ? ? 817. 8 35. 5410 fax 817. 835. 4484 methods, alone. We feel that the CNPS statement adequately points out the dangers associated with relying solely on transplantation as a conservation method. Sincerely, Kayri Havens Chair, Conservation Committee cc: Kathleen Shea Stanwyn Shetler Linda Watson Larry Zettler e. MEETINGAGENDA y� ,. Y, -:�,••.�: r;;; � ;. DATE �� ITEM #� rac�"cn �IN Page S 0 FIRE CHIEF Cl Pw OR 'Missing from-Jan Marx PLANTS AND ANIMALS POLICY GUIDE 137 3' OPOLN�ECHF Memo: f Refer to the following Section for background and a ea TEMI o 10/28/98 Proposed Amendment of Open Space Plan (ER 157-98) PROTECT SENSITIVE HABITA TAND UNIQUE RESOURCES PRESERVE SENSITIVE HABITAT AND HABITAT BUFFERS THRUGH EASEMENDESI NATE THESEAREANA ASO EN COORDINATE WITH LOCAL, STATE, SPACE. AND FEDERAL AGENCIES TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON UNIQUE RESOURCES AND SENSITIVE HABITAT. ENHANCE SENSITIVE HAB/TAT AREAS. PROVIDE INTERPRETATIVE SERVICES REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO AT SELECT LOCATIONS TO INCREASE LOCATE OUTSIDE OF UNIQUE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND RESOURCEAREAS APPRECIATION OF UNIQUE RESOURCES AND SENSITIVE HABITAT. PRESERVE UNIQUE RESOURCES IN A NATURAL STATE. REQUIRE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A HABITAT BUFFER UNLESS: BETWEEN SENSITIVE HABITAT AND The UNIQUE RESOURCES AND rela DEVELOPED AREAS. 1) NO PRACTICABLEALTERNATIVE Fitt EXTISTS; 2) THE LOCATION IS NECESSARY TO Prot PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY; OR o f SU UTILIZE DESIGN, 3) THE LOCATION IS NECESSARY FOR oppo CONSTRUCTION, AND THE REPAIR OR CONSTRUCTION OF and r. MAINTENANCE TECHNIQUES ROADS, BRIDGES OR OTHER THAT ENHANCE RESOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE, been PROTECTION, AVOID THE breed CREATION OF HABITAT ISLANDS, AND PROVIDE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. THEN: `See T RECEIVED ADVERSE IMPACTSL/ AVOIDED OR AMEL ORAED THROUGH NOV 61998 A MITIGATION AND MONITORING SLO CITY CLERK PLAN' PdosH.3. "osslonds ilia VII C��� sm�� E�srrox.sa��., OAOA n fi a V.,1 O y a::iir31TA E 301J09 fl �iAOU'A3130 AN�B 0 Ale Ewa© Hoi i� d i 7 Z5 �� DRArr l]'EAO °FFINFI DIRo�AO O FlRE C11I�PWDM �DAMNEY o � DRAFT ° GRECIXR SAN LUIS OBISPO OUTLOM DEow PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 289 1998 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. on Wednesday, October 28, 1998, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners John Ewan, David Jeffrey, Jan Howell Marx, Paul Ready, Mary Whittlesey(Arriving at 8:50), and Chairman Charles Senn Absent: One Vacant Seat Staff Present: Long Range Planning Manager John Mandeville, Associate Planners Glen Matteson and Jeff Hook,Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Community Development Director Arnold Jonas,Natural Resources Manger Neil Havlik, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of August 12, 1998, and Sept r 9, 1998, were accepted as presented. The minutes of September 23, 1998, were of accepted because Page 3 was omitted. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGE A ITEMS: Doreen Case, RQN member and Albert Dr resident, stated the new police dept. computer system is not working properly and noise!d isturbance complaints are falling through the cracks. She added that some fraternity use permits are being violated. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1265 Buchon Street: ABAN 152-98: Request for a review of an abandonment of excess right of way for Johnson Avenue at B hon and the railroad tracks; R-2 Zone; f Mark Johnson and Ursula Bishop, applicants. Staff reported this item has been continued to N ember 4, 1998, at the request of City Engineering with the consent of the applicants. ngineering is working with the applicants to determine the best way to proceed with the proposed right-of-way abandonment and to identify any public improvements required as par of the project. 2. Citywide: TA 88-98: Review of the Inclusi4 inary Housing Ordinance; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. 3. 1362 Madonna Road: A 158-98: Review r compliance with a covenant agreement limiting the use of an adjoining space in the L iguna Village Shopping Center, C-N Zone,Mattress&Bed Discount Center. Staff reported this item has been continued to a cate uncertain. 4. Citywide: ER and GPA 157-98: (A) Initiation of an amendment to the General Plan Open Space Element Text to allow alternative methods of protection for certain types of rare plants and (B) if initiated, review of the proposed negative declaration of environmental impact and the proposed amendment itself, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Assoc. Planner Matteson and Natural Resources Mgr. Havlik presented the staff report and recommended(A)initiating an amendment to the Open Space Element so certain types of plants listed by the California Native Plant Society(CNPS), but not by the State or Federal endangered species laws, can be protected on or off any proposed development sites where they may be found rather than only at their observed locations within such sites and (B) reviewing the initial environmental study and accepting the proposed negative declaration and recommending to the City Council that the amendment be approved. Commissioner Whittlesey asked for staff comment on off-site mitigation criteria. Assoc. Planner Matteson cited Open Space Element Section 6.2.3 which provides direction on unique resources. This section is not proposed to be changed. Commissioner Marx reviewed/distributed a memo addressing whether this amendment should be on the Commission's agenda. The proposed amendment would alter the course of the city's future development without full public participation. The General Plan provides that the Land Use Element is to conform to the Open Space Element —not the other way around. Overlay maps called out in Land Use Elements 6.0.2 and 6.0.3 were never created. She doesn't believe it's appropriate for the Commission to propose 2 amending the General Plan out of a fear of potential conflicts by lowering standards of protection�'y brie California Native Plant Society's List 1B and List 2. She believes this amendment is being rushed through by staff and many citizens believe the DeVaul project is receiving favorable treatment. The city's botanical survey was done after the EIR hearing and the existence of the tarplant wasn't mentioned. She believes a supplemental EIR is necessary. Biological impacts caused by this project on this species if transplanted are unknown. Commissioner Marx moved to not initiate this amendment to the Open Space Element. There was no second to the motion. Assoc. Planner Matteson stated the Land Use Element has a section on the protection of natural resources that calls for the development of additional information on habitats that would be reflected in a series of overlay maps. We've had some of this information since the mid `70s and more is being developed. The Land Use Elements says that once information is available, the cc ty shall reevaluate land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas and revise the Land Use Element map accordingly. It doesn't say that the city shall in all cases change urban development designations to open space designations. Mgr. Havlik stated a survey was done in response to a request from the Dept. of Fish and Game. The initial wor was done in 1997 and it was reported by the survey team that one individual t�`�eW91bund on the DeVaul site. P. s ryzy s joa; ,-�v 6or Y2�l�jc}��1 f 17 �J� -�1✓7G� 1=��� {paid ca m.�f—e,, Dir. Jonas noted this issue is larger than the DeVaul project and concerns all outlying areas of the citytliF-t's planned for potential future development. This issue could directly impact the ability of the city to provide additional housing that might encompass low- income housing. The Commission must balance the priorities of the community for environmental protection and the achievement of our urban development goals. Commissioner Marx suggested the DeVaul applicant perform a supplemental EIR based on the new information and then apply for a change that would be specific for their project. This amendment is a vast, sweeping change that is being driven by the DeVaul project. She asked if there is another process to deal with the presence of this tarplant besides a change to the Open Space Element. Assoc. Planner Matteson doesn't see any e-Eig option other than pre g an amendment similar to the one before the Commission because of the extent of the tatplant on site. There were no further comments/questions and the public comment period was opened to address whether the Commission should initiate an amendment to the General Plan Open Space Element to allow alternative methods of protection for certain plans listed by the California Native Plant Society(CNPS) as rare or endangered. 3 �j A i PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dave Chipping, CNPS rep., stated there seems to be a political problem of the DeVaul project and the desire of the city to eliminate this problem by changing its rules and regulations. CNPS fists are important scientific documents. CEQA has routinely placed CNPS List Ills in terms of obligations of avoidance in the selections of projects. List 2s are not necessarily treated the same way because speci%populations occur elsewhere. What's upsetting about this proposal is the blase attitude toward List IB plants which will be exposed to developmental pressures. He described serpentine plant communities. If transplantation becomes allowable for List 111 plants, we are basically throwing away the protection this city has afforded the plants. This amendment would be an amazing change in policy in terms of protecting biological diversity. He described the nature of the tarplant and questioned what mitigation measures can be taken. Tun Plumb, 1983 Partridge Dr., commented there is a big difference between off-site tarplant protection and replacement. He questions if anyone has transplanted tarplants and feels there's a presumption that it's going to be easy. He believes this amendment is promoted by the developers and that the city has been doing back flips to support this development for many years. Phil Ashlev, city resident, biologist, requested that the Open Space Element not be amended to reclassify the tarplants to a lower level of protection. When plants become rare, levels of protection$ should be increased, but the city is propo the opposite. The CNPS's Lists 1B and 2 should not be treated insignificantly and th(414 should not be ignored. Politics prohibit many plants from being on state and federal lists, not the lack of scientific evidence. Our Open Space Element has been providing the proper level of protection and we should hold to this level. The developers should have addressed this proposed amendment in the EIR. A great deal of effort was put into the Open Space Element and the developers shouldn't drive the city to make this change. CEQA requires city and county policies be addressed. This dramatic change should not be made. The Open Space Element is already consistent with the Land Use Element. It was always planned that rare plant and animal species would be found within the urban reserve line within the city. He asked the amendment be denied. Larry Boles 1667 Royal Way, stated this amendment would change an entire category of protection for our native plants, and the tarplant just happens to be one of them. With increasing development pressures, more plants are likely to become rare and endangered. This sort of sweeping change is incomprehensible and would negatively effect our native plants. Matthew Kennedy, BofA DeVaul trust rep., supports staff's recommendation. If the amendment is not accepted, it will negatively impact the trustees ability to manage Mrs. DeVaul's assets and real property in a way that will produce the highest and best use of the property. Acceptance of the plan as proposed will give the trustee the ability to plan for Mrs. DeVaul and her estate. The trustee is in favor of approval of the amendment. 4 Kirby Gordon, CheWInaudible)family trust rep., stated this amendment and ultimate project will�e a public park which will benefit the area residents and the comintpSX as a whole. The DeVaul project is one of few that has plans for low-and modera ghousmg on site as opposed to merely paying in-lieu fees. The jobslo;housing imbalance should be addressed. Cal Poly has agreed to assist in the monitoring and replanting of the tarplant. Hamish Marshall DeVaul Ranch rep., stated the issue before the Commission is much larger than just one project. Without this amendment, there are detrimental effects to the goals of the General Plan and growth of the city. There should be the opportunity for tarplant preservation on-or off-site. The proposed mitigation plan will be in effect for three years. He requested adoption of staff s recommendation. Ur. Ashlgy commemed there is no scientific evidence that this tarplant can be successfully transplanted. Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Marx moved to not initiate the proposed amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan The motion was seconded by Chairman Senn for discussion. Commissioner Jeffrey feels the proposed amendment guarantees internal consistency and mutual support of the elements of the General Plan. In terns of plant protection, the proposed mitigation seems reasonable. Commissioner Marx stated there is nothing to prevent the applicant from coming forward as part of the EIR process and applying for this amendment. We don't know the extent of the tarplant on other proposed annexation areas. This is way too sweeping a change to propose at this point when there is a straight7orward process`H eN for the applicant to move this project forward. She feels the DeVaul project is driving this amendment. Chairman Senn asked for staff response to public comments on the successfulness of tarplant transplantation. Mgr. Havlik is optimisti b the proposed mitigation and judges the species is amenable to other types of mitigation than preservation on site. He's had direct involvement with a similar species in the Bay Area in which reasonable success was achieved in+Fansplanting yrzlvc-A '3 a population. The majority of the habitat for this species is likely to be protected because it is associated in one way or another with wetland habitat that is expected to be protected through other policies of the city, state, and federal government. He believes the proposed mitigations will be successful in establishing a stable population. He noted the county does not provide the same level of protection. He believes a negative declaration is appropriate. s D F'- !� F Commissioner Manx doesn't believe the Commission has the informationbout the environmental impacts of amending the Open Space Element and doesn't what the 'M-z I'm%jw) lowering of the standard of protection will mean to this species. 1467project may be able to come up with alternatives. We don't know if it's necessary to amend the Open Space Element in order to deal with this particular species. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if staff feels comfortable that current policies sufficiently protect species which are on the threshold of being listed as rare or endangered. t47J& If eve v5SL3Q m d.�.c+z� E h Vd uzs Mgr. Havlik stated staff feels this-apprewh the least change from the current gituafimf d cl and, therefore, staff has comfort with the situation. Commissioner Whittlesey could support the provision of long-term mitigation. Commissioner Jeffrey asked how long mitigations are monitored. Mgr. Havlik stated normally off-site mitigation projects are intended to establish or reestablish stable populations to a threshold such as no net loss or a reasonable facsimile. The intent is perpetual. AYES: Commissioner Marx NOES: Chairman Senn and Commissioners Ewan, Whittlesey, Ready, and Jeffrey REFRAIN: None The motion failed 1-5-0. There is one vacant seat. Commissioner Ready moved to initiate an amendment to the General PlanOpen Space Element text to allow M alternative methods of protection for certain plants listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare or endangered. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ewan. AYES: Commissioners Ready, Ewan, AUttlesey, Jeffrey and Chairman Senn NOES: Commissioner Marx REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-1-0. There is one vacant seat. M�r. Matteson presented a staff report related to the proposed negative declaration of environmental impact and the proposed amendment. Commissioner Marx asked if mitigation that involves habitat modification of any of these species will have an effect on the tarplant. Mfr. Matteson stated the purpose of the mitigation would be to perpetuate the species. 6 Commissioner Marx stated the Commission doesn't know what the actual effect on these tarplants will be with different proposed mitigation. Mgr. Havhk believes there is a body of strong circumstantial evidence that relocation efforts will be successful. Commissioner Marx is concerned about lowering the city's standards of environmental protection. There were no further comments/questions and the public comment period was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steven Marx, 265 Albert Dr., expressed concern about off-site mitigation and lowering the levels of environmental protection. Off-site mitigation that is not actually specified as mitigation being given as a reason for proceeding with development is a frequent phenomenon. Untested off-site mitigation is convenient, but not very convincing. John French address unstated, stated the tarplant is an annual species and its life cycle would go to seed yearly. Off-site mitigation would be feasible for this plant. Carol Florence DeVaul Ranch rep., stated CEQA allows for flexibility with a negative declaration. The Commission's decision this evening does not allow for a wholesale off- site mitigation program for every project. Every project will be looked at specifically. This amendment will allow applicants to provide scientific information to allow for off-site mitigation. The DeVaul EIR consultant offered off-site mitigation prior to the July study. �') A tarplant restoration program has been sent to the Dept. of Fish and Game for review. The applicants are making every effort to comply with mitigation measures specific to the EIR for this project. CEQA allows for statements of overriding consideration. tVVetr Kirby Gordon, Chew(Inaudible)family trust rep., stated after Mrs. DeVaul's death-and this-is a significant asset in the estate and the property may have to be sold. Adjoining property owners could purchase the property and they may not be environmentally sensitive. The best idea is to take this property into the city where this plant will be afforded more protection than it currently has in the county. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Jeffrey moved to recommend to the City Council a finding of a negative declaration of environmental impact and the proposed amendment itself. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. Commissioner Whittlesey requested Page 8 of the E1R, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, be �1J� amended to reflect, "The number of species it will presently apply to is small." here i needs to be expanded discussion about how out,policies will add�ess4Wsequent listin Fl-kn o ot'hr-v o Wy 'Jg=, Commissioners Jeffrey and Read�ccepted the amendmentsto the motion. Commissioner Marx stated we don't know�e how the proposed mitigation will effect other plants. A full E Afthe proposed amendment is called for. AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Ready, Ewan, Whittlesey, and Chairman Senn NOES: Commissioner Marx REFRAIN: None The motion carried. There is one vacant seat. 5. Citywide: ER and TA 70-94: Review of N ative Declaration of Environmental Impact and phase three of the Zoning Regulatio Amendments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Staff reported this item has been continued to Dece her 2, 1998, at the request of the Planning Commission. 3. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3A. Staff—Agenda Forecast: November 4, 1998 —DeVaul project and Johnson ve. abandonment. November 18, 1998 -- Gearhardt project, Margarit annexation proposal, Housing Element amendment, App of Alta Dr. setback exception, Railroad right of way, and C mmission Goals. December 2, 1998 --Zoning Text amendment and ertel subdivision. December 16, 1998 — Commercial Zoning Works p. 3B. Commission: Commissioner Whittlesey reported she may be ab nt on Nov. 18. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, t e meeting adjourned at 11:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Nov. 4, 19 , at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo. 8 'E;TING AGENDA uATE r-1 x-98 ITEM # MEMORANDUM 0 O FIRE CHIEF To: PlanningCommission =ER oR a 00 FIV DIR From Jan Marx POMCM p T O REC DIR RE: Proposed Amendment of Open Space Plan(ER 157-98) 0IFIX OM Date: 10/28/98 O mdom L THE AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT BE PLACED ON OUR AGENDA- We GENDAWe should not place this general plan amendment on our agenda. This general plan amendment would alter the course of the City's future development without fnll public participation in the planning process. The General Plan provides that the Land Use Element is to conform to the Open Space Element,not the other way around. (LU-53, attached as page 1. See also the chart attached as page 3) It is not appropriate for this Commission to propose amending the General Plan out of staffs fear of`potential conflicts"by lowering the standard of protection for California Native Plant Society's"List lb and 2"Plants. (attachment page 11). This particular proposed amendment is being rushed through by staff The timing is being driven by the DeVaul Project. This has resulted in disruption of an orderly planning process, for example the City's botanical survey being done after our hearing on the EIR. It is supposed to be done before or contemporaneously with an E1R The September 1998 biological survey by Neil Havlik should have been considered in the EHL and in our hearing on the project, rather than considered after the fact by staff only, then twisted to serve as a basis for lowering the standard of environmental protection. Mr. Havhkls study shows that the property at issue is "sensitive habitat,"a high priority for City acquisition as open space due to the presence of Congdon's Tarweed,which is on the California Native Plant Society's List 1B or 2. Such areas are to be protected with habitat buffers as open space."Page 45 2A&B of the Open Space Element,page 9 attachment)It is not appropriate to propose alteration of the course of the City's future development for one applicant. The General Plan provides that the Land Use Element is to reflect the Open Space Element, not the other way around. (LU-53), There is no inherent conflict between the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element. They were very carefiilly crafted to work together in 1994, when Peg Pinard was Mayor,Alan Settle was Vice Mayor and Penny Rappa, Dave Romero and Bill Roalman were on the Council. Charlie Senn, Dodie Williams and Mary Whittlesley were on the Planning Commission.. The planning process for these two elements was widely publicized and had a lot of public participation in 1994. Making this kind of fimdamental change without thLOV /ED 3S3 OUNCIL thoroughgoing public participation is contrary to the General Plan and the Govemment Code. We already have a fair and equitable process in place to deal with the presence of sensitive habitat on an applicant's land. Issues need to be dealt with on a project by project basis. There are grounds underwhich an exception may be made for an individual applicant. (See page 42 of the Open Space Element, attachment page 8) The DeVaul applicant should do a Supplemental EIR based on this new information and apply for an amendment to the General Plan if it wishes. As future development or annexation takes place, the individual applicants should come forward if they feel they are suffering undue hardship due to the Open Space Element. This item should be placed on our agenda through the normal processes by the applicant, the DeVaul Ranch,not by the Planning Commission. II. GENERAL PLAN CONCERNS: Stalfs initial study does state the fact that the Open Space Element controls over the Land Use Element. However,then it goes on to ignore that fact. Staff should consider revision of the LUE in light of the discovery of Congdon's Tarweed,which is on the California Native Plant Society's List 1B and 2, (attachment pages 10 and 11)not pressuring the Commission to change the Open Space Element Under Land Use Policy 6.0.2 and 6.0.3 (LU-53) "the City shall re-evaluate its land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas, and revise the LUE land use map accordingly"when native plant communities are present,not amend the Open Space Element to facilitate development in sensitive habitats. The City places a high value on the preservation of grasslands. (Pages 37-40 of the Open Space Element,Attachment page 4-7) Under OS 15.2.11(OS-56)land which is`under threat of incompatible development or irreversible damage"must be preserved as Open Space or buffered to protect the plants. Under OS 15.2.6 "Me City shall require new development within the City(including annexation requests)to provide open space preservation consistent with this element and the Land Use Element via Development Conditions. (P 94-1f) IIL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. a. Negative Declaration is Not Appropriate. The environmental impacts this proposed General Plan amendment have not been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. Under LU 10. 9 "Environmental review is a formal way to inform the public and decision makers of the expected consequences of their actions."(LU 81) A Negative Declaration is not appropriate when a project has a "substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. "Appendix G IV(b). (attached page 227) We simply do not know the environmental impact ofnot protecting List 2 species in place. We do not have the information we need to make this decision. Neither does the public. We should not recommend anything to City Counicl without the information we and the public have a right to receive. b. A Supplemental EIR is Appropriate. If the DeVaul project will be impacted by the newly discovered presence of plants protected by the Open Space Element,it is appropriate for the applicant to do a Supplemental EIR and apply for an amendment to the General Plan regarding their particular project. Land Use D) A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the Element ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors idors that cross the urbanized area E) Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and dispersal; these habitat types will be as 1 identified in the natural resource inventory, as discussed in the :1 "Background to this Land Use Mement Update" and in Community Goal#8. i Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the., Plan Land Use Element Map. The City may establish an agricultural deli LU 6.11: Open Space Uses • Sace ° Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do.' urban services major structures or extensive landform C--n es. Element ? 1 � g include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habi. cultivated crops; and passive recreation. Buildings, lighting, ptin avan vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or traditional Ian : open space lands should be minimized, so.rural character and res maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as parking or roads exceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres alt�eady percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three explained in the Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open may result in it being suitable for some open space uses, but not the full LU 6.1.3: Open Space Land Divisions i J Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further divided. ; LU 6.1.4: Interim Open Space Designation The General Plan Land Use Element Map shows desired future uses fo within the urban reserve line. However, the City has not de eventual use for some areas. Such areas are designated Interim: , indid'ating that they will be suitable for urban development conditions are satisfied. Examples of such conditions include demo for further urban development that cannot be satisfied on land, provision of proper access and utility service, and acceptable reduction of flood hazards. The Interim Open Space d be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions development can be satisfied and a certain type of development After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space. General Pian Digest -City of Sarre GRASSLAND COMMUNMES POLICY GUIDE Refer to the following Section for background and other poicies. PRESERVE GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES AS OPEN SPACE AND HABITAT BUFFERS REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO PRESERVE GRASSLAND COMMUNMESTHROUGH EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS. REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE HABMAT BUFFERS BETWEEN GRASSLAND COMMUNMESAND DEVELOPED AREAS. DESIGNATE EASEMENTS, BUFFERS, AND DEDICATION AREAS AS OPEN SPACE. ENHANCE PRESERVED OR PROTECTED GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES. WORK WITH AND SUPPORT THE STATE AND COUNTY TO RETAIN GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES AND IMPROVE CORRIDORS FOR WILDLIFE MOVEMENT. pdosil.3 -36- 12/2283 i:���?���, L�'�:`��.)?�>nisi•i�aLs'u.�•�=::3i'!:1:,_��.,L:t.�s.! _ _ _ .._.._.. . Open Space Element D. GRASSLAND COM1VNl�TITITS <`r.;ry J A. it i. W: Grassland community at the base of Bishop Peak Purpose Grassland communities are considered in this section due to their biological, economic and aesthetic importance. These grasslands provide: (1) habitat, cover and forage for a broad range of organisms that are endemic (restricted) to: the San Luis Obispo area; (2) economic contributions in the form of food and fiber production; and (3)auditory and visual buffers between various parts of the community. Grassland communities within the city limits have been highly fragmented and usually contain highly invasive weedy species (A vena barbata,A.fatua,Bromus diandrus,B. madritensis)of reduced wildlife habitat value. These areas do, however, provide forage, cover and potential linkage with less disturbed outlying areas. Certain grassland communities within the city limits exhibit biological significance,including the South Street Hills, Terrace Hill, base of Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak, the base of the Santa Lucia Range, and areas surrounding Laguna Lake Park. These area exhibit steeper slopes or are presently being grazed. They contain raretendangered plants and provide forage for raptors -such as Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon), Falco mericanus (Prairie falcon) and Falco columbarius (Merlin). pdosI1.3.grasslands -37 - 12tM93 /9' oy . .. . . .... :.l •.._ ._ .... ..'........ l._-._.J{.J...'u:}fli'f LLi � � 7.' if�dlS lT Vii'•f.W N e�1, r. Open Space Element Grassland communities within the Greenbelt exhibit biological significance. A number of these areas (Santa Lucia Range, the Morros, the Irish and Davenport Hills and the valleys between these hills and mountains including the Edna, Los Osos, El Chorro, and Cuesta Valleys) possess grasslands that have been historically grazed, and provide contiguous biological corridors allowing for animal movement in and around the city limits• In addition, these open areas support a fairly healthy °ecosystem° (as evidenced by the number of carnivores and raptors) and cattle. that has adapted to the presence of both people Raretendangered plant species associated with Greenbelt grassland conmunWes include Calochottus obispoenesis (San Luis Mariposa lily), Chorizanthe breweri (Brewer's spineflower) and Layla jonesii (Jones' layia), Bloomeria humilis (Dwarf goldenstar), Anctosraphylos obupov= (Morro Ba marmmita), Arcrostaphylos luciana, Arctostaphylos pedwensis, Arcxost y obirpoensis (San Luis sedge), Calochonus claves var claves aphyeg osubca , Care. episcopalir, Clarlaa speciosa ssp. bnnwculata, Comarium parvifolium, Calystegia sttbcavlis ssp• lupine), Monardella Palmeri, Sanicula ho ��Wakea hicb(San LS .�„ „�mannii, Scrophularia amota, and Sidakea hicbnonii ssp. =: anomala. In addition to the rare/endangereds, there are unique resources in these areas that include ,.. Nassella [Stipa)pulchra, Nassella [Stipa] lepida, Nassella [Stipa) cernua, 'Me imperfecta, and Melica californica (native perennial bunchgrasses)• These bunchgrasses are a good indication of low disturbance and high botanical worth. Sites that have a unique resource should be considered for further investigation before any changes in landuse designation can take place. Rare/endangered animals associated with these grassland communities include (Golden eagle) and Falco ere rims A in chrysa Falco'.P g (Peregrine falcon), Animals of special concern" include Falco''�= mexicanus (Prairie falcon), Falco colwnbarius (Merlin), Acdpiter cooperii (Cooper's hawk), ...,. cyaneus (Harrier Hawk Buten ) Circus ), regalis (Ferruginous hawk), Buteo lagopus (Rough-legged hawk), ' . Speotyto ccumicularia (Burrowing owl), and Taxidea taxus (Badger). The presence of thesetop "! consumers is a good indication of a biologically healthy system grasslands by land use changes.most directly affects • The potential order fragmentation of large)_&: the larger consumers, as these animals need a - large area to range over. Most of the larger sections of grassland are currently used as grazing or are ". fallow in between crop production. Both of these uses are preferable to subdivision and urbanization. .:_ Communitv Goals a: I• Protect grassland communities within the city limits. a•r 2. Retain grasslands found within the greenbelt area at their current level of use. They are valuable . ` economically (providing food/fiber), aesthetically (providing a scenic boundary to the City), andi pdos[Llgrasslands : -38 - 12/22/93 3 Pa Open Space Element biologically by providing habitat, distribution corridors and forage for the plants and animals associated with the quality of life found in the San Luis Obispo area. Policies Within the Urban Reserve Line and City Limit Line 1. Within the city limits the City should, and outside the city limits the City will encourage the County to: A. Coordinate with appropriate local, State and Federal agencies that protect and preserveunique resources and sensitive habitat during the design or review stages of any development that may impact such habitat. (See Section E, Plants & Animals) B. At select locations, provide public interpretive services on City owned or managed property to increase public knowledge and appreciation of grassland communities. C. Encourage donation or exchange of lands (or portions of lands) containing native grassland species, unique resources or sensitive habitar (as identified in Section E, Plants and Animals) to non-profit environmental organizations or responsible agencies. ' 2. In area that contain existing grasslands, the City should, and should encourage the County to: A. Preserve grassland communities as habitat buffers and open space. B. Protect e7rassland communities by requiring public and/or private development to: 1. Preserve grassland communities through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize grassland protection. Easements as a condition of discretionary development approvals shall be required in grassland area only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory structures or tree removal permits, and in a manner consistent with acquisition policies contained in Chapter IV of this element. If the grassland community is within a proposed open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. 2. Designate such easements or dedications as open space. 3. Enhance preserved or protected grassland communities by: (1) maintaining these areas in a natural state: (2) employing restoration and/or revegetation techniques where needed to achieve a natural state; (3) utilizing site or region specific native grasses, herbs and shrubs; pdos11.3.grassiancs - 39 - 12/27/93 10 _ ... ... r. .i. . .. .. ....cy.; L.a•'.4�'_h!1ii L'w iii 7..:.ia..•riiY,?1:a.:.f.•_•::.rSd'a!4•S'if�1CJr � Open Space Element (4)prohibiting the planting of invasive, non-native plants (such as W1nca spp. and Eucalyptus spp.) within grassland communities. C. Protect grassland communities from development impacts by requiring a habitat buffer around these areas. The habitat buffer should: (1) be located between the grassland community and proposed, existing, or potential development, (2) be a sufficient width and size to protect the species most sensitive to development disturbances and to compensate for project impacts as determined by a qualified biologist during the initial planning phase of development, and (3) be designed to complement the habitat value associated with the grassland community. Policies Within the Greenbelt and Outer Planning Area 1. Encourage and coordinate with State and County agencies and landowners to identify and protect plants and animals associated with grassland communities while respecting and protecting private property rights and County land use practices. 2. Work with and support the County, State, and other applicable agencies to retain grassland communities found within the greenbelt area at their current level of use (consistent with other land uses as discussed in this Element). Programs Within the Urban Reserve Line, the City Limit Line 1. Prepare and maintain a map delineating the location of grassland communities within the Urban Reserve Line and the city limit line. Programs Within the Greenbelt and Outer Planning Area 1. Work with and support the County, State, and other applicable agencies in planning for wildlife corridors under highways, major roads, and other similar impediments to wildlife movement. 0 pdosIl.3.grasslands -40 - 12/22/93 s, :f Open Space Element IN 2. Within the city limits the City should, and outside the city limits the City should encourage the I± County to, do the following in areas that contain sensitive habitat (see Table 2),: i. II A. Preserve sensitive habitat area and associated habitat buffers as open space. u �i B. Protect sensitive habitat by requiring public or private development to: . 1. Preserve such resource area and associated habitat briers through easements or i dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of development approval shall be required only for structural additions or new structures not for accessory structures or tree removal r Permits. If the resource area is within a proposed open sPace Por easement allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. 2. Designate easements or dedications (as enumerated in 1 above) as open space. 3. Enhance such resource areas by: (A) providing an adequate habitat brffier around the a resource area, (B) maintaining protected area in a natural state, (C) employing restoration techniques where restoration is needed to achieve a natural state, (D)utilizing native plants within resource areas, and where possible, within habitat buffers, and (E) l !i prohibiting the planting of invasive, non-native plants (such as vinca major and eucalyptus) within resource area or associated habitat buffers. !i I 4. Incorporate recreation and public access near resource area consistent with this Chapter, the Outdoor Recreation section. 5. Incorporate design, construction, and maintenance techniques that: (A) preserve and ; enhance resource protection; (B) avoid the creation of habitat islands (habitat surrounded by developed areas); (C) provide necessary wildlife corridors (including corridors under proposed major roads, highways, or other impediments which restrict animal movement); and (D) are consistent with the Scenic Resource Section of this Chapter. I i I pdosII.3.plants and animals -45 - 12/22/93 ,I I ' .. 111 ' ft. Open Space Element Table Plants & Animals As Classified by the Federal Government State Government and the California Native Plant Society Status Federal- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) (FE)Endangered: In danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Fn wed: L cly to become endangered without proration and management. (PFE)(PFT) Proposed Endangered or Threatened: Presently being considered for endangered status. (FCl)Candidate,category 1: USFWS has sufficient data to support listing as endangered. (FC2)Candidate,category 2• USFWS nods further data on threats. (FU)Non-candidate: Presumed extinct. (F3b)Non-candidate;taxonomically invalid. (Re)Non-candidate;too widespread or not threatened. Status State-California Deoarnnent of Fish and Game(F&G) (SE)Endangered: Prospects for survival art:in immediate jeopardy. (ST)Threatened: Likely to become SE without protection and management. (SR)Rare: May become SE if present environmeotworsens(only refers to plants). (CSC)Species of Special Concern: Am not rare on a state scale,but ate found in limited locations. Status California Native Plant Societv(CLAPS)-Refers to Plants Only (List IA)Plants of Highest Priority: Presumed extinct in California. (List 1B)Plants of Highest Priority: Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. (Liu 2)Plants rare and endangered in California,common elsewhere. (List 3)Plants about which more information is heeded. (List 4)Plants of limited distribution(a watch list). Saenv: Meuse Muonry.Sm Lb OWWO Coisoq.Envk0ummOW Cooid®mr's Otfim.Ca fomin Dopsnmmr of Fish&Gine Nit Direnay Des Ba pdosII.3.plants and animals -46 - 12/22/93 1 t4. v y_Y5� � LI ■ 1� Open Space Element Table H Plants and Animals As Classified by the City of San Luis Obispo Sensitive Habitat- Am plants or animals which meet the criteria noted in 1,2,3,4,or S below: 1. Classified by U.S. Fish and Vali dlife Service(USM)as: a. (FE) Endangered: In danger of unction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. b. (F7)7breatened: Lrlcdy to become endangered without ptoteetion and managemetn. o. (PFE) (PEP) Proposed Endangered or Threatened: presently being considered for endangesd status. d. (FC1)Candidate,category 1: USFWS has sufftcieat data to supportlisting as endangered. 2. Classified by California Department of Fish and Game(F&G)as: a. (SE)Endangered: Prospects for swvival are in immediate jeopardy. b. (S7)Threatened: Likely to become SE without protection and management. 3. Chssified by California Native Plant Soddy(CNPS)-(plants Only)as: a. (List IA)Plants of Highest Priority. presumed eninetin California. b. (List 1 H)Plants of Highest Priority Phi raze and endangered in California and elsewhere. e. (List 2)Plants tare and endangered in California,common elsewhere. 4. A species not listed by USFWS,F&G,or CNPS but can be shown to mea the criteria in CEQA Section 15380. S. Habitat area required to support the species listed in 1,2.3,or 4 above. Uniaue Resource- Are plants or animals which mea the criteria now in 1,2,3,or 4 below: 1. U.S. Fists and Wildlife Service(USFWS) a. (FC2)Candidate,category 2• USFWS mads further data on threats. 2. California Department of Fish and Game(F&G) a. (SR)Rare: May become endangered if present environment wetsens(only refect to plants). b. (CSC)Species of Special.Concern:n: Aro not raman a state scale,but aro found in limited locations. 3. California Native Plant Society(CLAPS)-(Plants Only) a. (List 3) Plants about which mom information is needed. b. (List 4) Plants of limited distribution(a watch list). 4. Habitat area required to support the species listed in 1.2,or 3 cited above. pdoslL3.plants and animals -47- 12/22/93 Appendix G (continued) I Lea 1Lm skoulclut Pamwieft win Lm Thm 611FOCI t mwpdm No ESSM: h=rPoraw IMPad Lnpgd ' IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Adversely impact,either directly or through habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I modifications,any endangered,raze,or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 6702 or 670.5)or m Tide 50,Code of Federal IRegulations(sections 17.11 or 17.12)7 b) Have a substantial adverse impact,either directly or ❑ (3 ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications,an any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special states species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habM (3 ❑ ❑ ❑ or other sensitive nannal community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Adversely impact fbderally pmt a'etlan&(including. ❑ (3 (3 ❑ WE not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal.etc.)either individually or in combination with the]moan or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or migratory fish or wildlife spaces or with established resident or migratory wildlife c uidors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? f) conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or finance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ (3 Conservation Mn,Natural Conservation Community Plan..or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? i V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ O ❑ ❑ a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,the California Register of Eluoric Resources,or a local register of historic resomces? I� Section 5 Proposed CEOA Guide nus Revisions 227 Open Space Element 3. Within the city limits the City should, and outside the city limits the City should encourage the County to, do the following in areas that contain unique resources (see Table In: A. Preserve unique resources and maintain these resources in a natural state. B. Require public or private development to locate development outside a unique resource and habitat buffer except in the following uses: (1) no practicable alternative is available; (2) the proposed location is necessary to protect public health and safety; (3) the location is necessary for the repair of roads, bridges, trails, or similar infrastructure; or(4)the location is necessary for the construction of new roads, bridges, trails, or similar infrastructure where the Community Development Director determines the project has minimized environmental impacts through project design and infiastructure location. C. When no prac dcable alternative to a significant impact to unique resources exists, the developer should implement a City approved mitigation and monitoring plan that will avoid or ameliorate significant impacts. 1. The mitigation and monitoring plan should be in accordance with official California Department of Fish and Game guidelines, and prepared and implemented by qualified professionals under funding by the applicant. 2. Mitigation of biological impacts shall be provided as on-site/in-land replacement. Off- site/in-kind mitigation may be allowed where on-site in-ldnd mitigation is not possible. Where neither on- or off-site in-ldnd mitigation is possible a mitigation fee may be allowed. 4. Where unique resources are required or proposed to be protected - within the city limits the City should require, and outside the city limits encourage the County to require public and private development(as is reasonable considering unique resources may be sporadically located)to provide protection consistent with the sensitive habitat policies 1 through 5 under Policy 2 (b) [see page 451). Policies Within the Greenbelt anj the Outer Plannine Area 1. Encourage the State and the County to protect plants and animals consistent with the City's policies within the Urban Reserve Line. pdosII.3.plants and animals -48 - 12/22/93 "� PdC