Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/2001, PH7 - ORDINANCE AMENDING CREEK SETBACK STANDARDS AND CLARIFYING THE STATUS OF BIKE PATHS, EXISTING PAR council """""°"`Oct. 16,01 j acEnoa REpoRt 00#7 CITY OF SAN LU IS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING CREEK SETBACK STANDARD AND CLARIFYING THE STATUS OF BIKE PATHS, EXISTING PARKING LOTS AND OTHER ENCROACHMENTS(TA 38-01). CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations as they relate to creek setback standards (TA 38-01). 2. Direct staff to bring back, during the next City budget goal-setting process, consideration of a schedule for evaluating further changes to entitled creek-setback exceptions. DISCUSSION General Background Creek corridors consist of the channels and adjacent land that is dominated by vegetation typical of creek edges. The Open Space Element of the General Plan says creek corridors are to be kept open and preserved in essentially a natural state, that creek setbacks should be established outside the corridors themselves, and that development is to be located outside creek corridors and setbacks. The Open Space Element provides for several types of exceptions to undeveloped creek corridors and setbacks, including "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 infrastructure placement." In 1996 the City Council added creek setback standards to the Zoning Regulations (Municipal Code section 17.16.025). The standards were seen as striking a balance between achieving relatively pristine setback areas and allowing traditional patterns of use to continue, particularly in the developed areas of the city. In larger areas at the city's edges that are planned for development, creek corridors and setbacks will be in separate open-space parcels, rather than divided among development sites, so their protection is easier to achieve. The adopted setback standards provide for two types of exceptions: • Entitled exceptions are allowed without an individual determination by the City (though some, as components of larger projects needing discretionary review, could be rejected or modified by action on the larger project). • Discretionary exceptions each require a determination by the City, based on specific findings, and may be modified or denied whether or not they are part of a larger project needing discretionary approval. 7�1 Council Agenda Report—Creek setback changes Page 2 The City has now had over four years of experience applying the creek setback standards to a wide range of projects and situations. Several cases requiring interpretations have prompted the recommended amendments. Staff and the Planning Commission have found that the recommended changes help implement the General Plan, and therefore do not require amendments to it. The current recommendation results from two Planning Commission hearings, during which some of the originally proposed amendments were modified.. Some aspects of the original proposals could have been seen as reducing protection of creek habitats, so an initial environmental study was done. Staff had recommended a negative declaration. The current recommendation qualifies for a categorical exemption as Class 7, "actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment." Specific Issues The amendment under considerations deals with the types of features that may be placed in setbacks, either by right or with special approval. None of the proposed changes involve previously established setback dimensions or the manner of measuring setbacks. The circled numbers in the margins of Attachment# 1, legislative draft of recommended Zoning Regulations text, correspond with the item numbers below. The recommended amendment also includes some minor wording clean-up that does not affect meaning, which is indicated on the attachment by circles with no numbers. OPedestrian and Bicycle Paths The General Plan says development should not occur in creek corridors or setbacks, but passive recreation such as trails is encouraged in the outer perimeter of setbacks or habitat buffers. The adopted creek-setback standards allow `walkways," and by interpretation, pedestrian paths. They do not list bicycle paths as entitled exceptions. So, by interpretation, discretionary exceptions are required for bicycle paths. The adopted wording is somewhat ambiguous concerning whether or not the excepted features must be associated with single-family dwellings. The recommended amendment would make these distinctions clear. As a practical consideration, all City-installed bike paths need separate environmental review and City Council approval. Also, all privately installed bike paths in major developments, such as specific plan areas, subdivisions, or planned- development zones, are subject to environmental review and City Council approval. ONew parking and patios for single dwellings Those who participated in drafting the adopted regulations have different recollections of the intent of the part allowing, as entitled exceptions, a cumulatively limited extent of "parking spaces for single-family dwellings; patios; walkways." Staff and the Planning Commission believe this part was meant to allow uncovered parking spaces only if they were for single-family dwellings, but that patios and walkways could be associated with single-family dwellings or with other uses. The recommended amendment would clarify that these features must be uncovered, and that only parking spaces need to be associated with single dwellings. 7-Z Council Agenda Report—Creek setback changes Page 3 OBudges Bridges, by their nature, must encroach into creek setbacks and corridors. The Community Development Director has interpreted the adopted standards as requiring a discretionary exception for any bridge. The adopted introductory statement for exceptions notes that they are generally for small parcels that are surrounded by developed sites with smaller setbacks. This description does not apply to locations such as the Margarita Area and the Orcutt Area, where bridges will be needed for a pattern of neighborhood access that follows General Plan policies. The recommended amendment would acknowledge that paths and bridges may be justified on larger sites, where there are few or no options to encroaching into a setback. 0 Replacing narking lots When the Open Space Element and the creek setback standards were adopted, the City Council decided to allow replacement of legally established building footprints inside creek setbacks, without a discretionary exception. However, the term "structure"was used instead of"building," so features such as gazebos, carports, or utility enclosures could be replaced, in addition to fully enclosed structures. Some designers have asserted that "structure" was meant to include parking lots and drives, because the definition of structure is "anything assembled or constructed on the ground, or attached to anything with a foundation on the ground." Following that interpretation, new buildings and parking lots could replace old parking lots within creek setbacks, without a discretionary exception. Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the original intent was not to allow new parking lots or buildings to replace old parking lots as an entitlement, though they could be considered as discretionary exceptions as properties redevelop. In support of this interpretation, section 17.16.0251 separately names "structures; paving; parking lots." The recommended amendment would clarify this intent. Studying further changes to entitled exceptions During the recent hearings, some of those who participated in drafting creek setback policies and some Planning Commissioners supported making some or all of the entitled exceptions into discretionary exceptions. There was particular interest in distinguishing between accessory structures associated with single-family dwellings and those connected with multifamily, institutional, or commercial uses. A majority of planning commissioners supported further work on this issue. However, they agreed with staff that the task should be considered in light of previously established work goals for the Community Development Department. The concern is not so much the initial staff time to prepare reports, but rather the time spent responding to public questions and participating in meetings. Adoption of the creek setback standards entailed many well-attended meetings and widely diverging testimony, which would likely be repeated with an attempt to substantially change the standards. 7-3 Council Agenda Report—Creek setback changes Page 4 CONCURRENCES The Planning Commission conducted hearings on June 13 and August 8, 2001. The Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend the amendments as presented in this report. By a vote 5 to 2, the Commission asked staff to return with an evaluation of requiring discretionary exceptions for mechanical equipment, accessory structures (with consideration of the differences between accessory structures for individual houses and for commercial or institutional uses), architectural features, and single-family parking spaces. The Commission concurred with staff's intent to have the City Council determine the priority for this effort in relation to previously established goals. The recommendation is supported by Community Development, Public Works, and Natural Resources staff. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action will have no fiscal impacts. ALTERNATIVES Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information. Staff is prepared to discuss the procedures and the types of determinations that could result from direction to obtain more information. The Council may deny the proposed amendments, or adopt different language. Substantial differences may require further environmental review, public notice, or concurrent amendments to the General Plan. The Council may continue action. Attachments #1 - Legislative draft of recommended amendment #2 -Planning Commission minutes, August 8, 2001 #3 - Ordinance amending the creek setback standards as recommended Orcutt/TA3801 car.doc 7`� i Attachment#1 TA 38-01 Legislative Draft City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Zoning Regulations- Property Development Standards Text to be removed is stricken through; text to be added is underlined. The circled numbers in the margins of Attachment # 1, legislative draft of recommended Zoning Regulations text, correspond with the numbered explanations in the staff report. The recommended amendment also includes some minor wording clean-up that does not affect meaning, which is indicated on the attachment by circles with no numbers. 17.16.025 Creek setbacks. A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to: 1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest, and movement. 2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat corridor can be established. 3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor. 4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding. 5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans. B.Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on that element's Creek Map, and only to those creeks. C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks shall be measured from the existing top of bank (or the future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration reflected in a plan approved by the City), or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow line (Figure 4.1). The Community Development Director may determine the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, where the edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length along the creek, in a way unrelated to topography (for example, the Director will not base the setback line on individual trees or branches extending out from the channel or on small gaps in vegetation extending toward the channel). Where riparian vegetation extends over a public street, no creek setback is required on property which is on the side of the street away from the creek. D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of riparian vegetation shall be shown on all project plans subject to City approval. The location of these features is subject to confirmation by the Community Development Director, based on observation of actual conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of persons with expertise in hydrology,biology, or geology. E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback dimensions are established in recognition of different parcel sizes and locations of existing structures for areas within the city in comparison with areas which may be annexed, and in response to different sizes of the creek channels and tributary drainage areas. 1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks within the city limits as of July 1, 1996, the setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in parts E.3, EA or G below. Where the city limit follows a creek, the setback on the side within the 1996 city limits shall be 20 feet and the setback on the annexed side shall be as provided in part 2 below. 7-S� Attachment#1 2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creek in an area annexed to the.City after July 1, 1996, the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a specific plan or development plan approved by the City Council provides a larger or smaller setback, consistent with the purpose of these regulations and with General Plan policies. a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek (all of main branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San Luis Obispo Creek(main branch)to the confluence with Acacia Creek; Stenner Creek. b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo Creek; Froom Creek; Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad Street(Highway 227), from Broad Street to Fuller Road. c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks except those listed in parts "a" and "b" immediately above shall be 20 feet. (Informational map is available in the Community Development Department.) 3. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or to implement adopted City plans, when approving a discretionary application the City may require setbacks larger than required by parts 1 and 2 above, or further limitations on the items which may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City regulations may restrict or prevent development in a floodway or floodplain.) 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly approved a creek setback smaller than required by this section, prior to adoption of this section, by action on a tract or parcel map (whether or not a vesting map), architectural review application, use permit, Planned Development zoning, or Special Considerations zoning, that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the approval is in effect. F. Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall not be placed or constructed within a creek setback, except as provided in part G below: structures; paving; parking lots; in nonresidential zones, areas used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials. G. Exceptions to Creek Setbacks. 0 1. Entitled Replacement Structures. Where a structure lawfully existed this ehaptff on or before October 3, 1996, within a creek setback required by this chapter, O the following shall apply. This part is not intended to allow replacement of paving that existed on or before October 3, 1996, with new paving or a buildinu, unless a discretionary approval is obtained pursuant to part 17.16.025.G(4). a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure may occupy the same footprint, O within the creek setback, as the previous structure, without obtaining a discretionary exception. (See also Section 17.16.020(E)(1)(d).) b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (for example, by adding stories). c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due solely to the creek setback encroachment may be remodeled without regard to the limits of Section 17.14.020(B) and (C) of this title. 2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. 7—�o Attachment#1 O The following items may be located within the required creek setback, without obtaining a discretionary exception, provided that they: do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any flooding capacity pursuant to the city's flood damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one-half of the setback area; are consistent with other property development standards of the zoning regulations. a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the setback area on any development site. O b. Uncovered parking spaces for a single-family dwellings. O c. Uncovered patios, walkways, and pedestrian paths (bicycle paths require a discretionary exception as provided in part 4). e d.Decks, stairs, and landings which are no more than thirty inches in height. d e.One-story, detached buildings used as tool and storage sheds,play houses, and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed one hundred twenty square feet. O e-f. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and gazebos, provided they are constructed using an open lattice design and light-weight materials. 3. Entitled Architectural Features. The following architectural features may extend into the setback up to thirty inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, chimneys, solar collectors, shading louvers,water heater enclosures, and bay or other projecting windows that do not include usable floor space. 4. Discretionary Exceptions. a. Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception. Generally, such exceptions are limited to small parcels which are essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed with Osetbacks smaller than those in subsection E of this section. In the case of bridges and bicycle paths, the site may be large, but there are few or no options for avoiding a Ocrossing of the creek or encroaching into the creek setback. b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than required by subsection E of this section may be approved by city action on a plan for public facilities approved by the city council or on a specific plan, development plan under planned development zoning, land division, use permit, or architectural review. Where one of these types of applications is not otherwise required for the proposed feature, an exception request shall be in the form of an administrative use permit. c. Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a creek setback exception, regardless of application type, shall include a clear description of the feature or O features proposed to receive the exception, and the extent of the exception. d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be subject to each and eve of the following findings, regardless of the type of project application under which the request is considered. i. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and ii. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies; and iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and 7- 7 i l Attachment#1 iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and vii. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. ("Reasonable use of the property" in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional O development on an already developed site, "reasonable development" may mean that no additional development is reasonable considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design, or density.) e. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualified, independent person shall be required for each discretionary exception request, to provide the basis for making finding subsection (G)(4)(d)(i) of this section, unless waived by the community development director upon determining that no purpose would be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception. f. Application Contents. In addition to any other information required for a project application, a request for creek setback exception shall include the following: i. A description of the feature or features proposed for exception and the extent of the exception. ii. A description of potential design changes for the project which would eliminate or O reduce the need for the exception. iii. A statement ef r-easens why an exception is deemed necessary by the applicant. iv. Mitigation proposed to offset any harmful effects of the exception. Adde figur . creek edge of riparian vegetation creek setback creek corridor r setback I I r I I 1 I � �• M� I I I I I I I I I I V• I I _ D - top of bank u� top of bank D D D D D 0 0 8 D UTA 38-01 text.doc r/ 7^X Draft Planning Commission rtes Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 7 equipment at the fire station, second, the continuation of interior noise, and third, the project being suitable for collection of recyclable materials. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if the 6-foot raised backyard deck should be included in the same motion, or should this be an issue for ARC to consider? Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand replied that it was up to the Commission. He was unsure of the direction the Commission was looking for, and suggested they discuss this among themselves to see if they want to add a condition or whether they would prefer seeing this recommended to the ARC as a separate motion. On a vote of 7 to 0, the Commission recommended that the Council approve the mitigated negative declaration and the tentative map with findings, mitigation measures, and conditions as recommended by staff, and with the following additional conditions: provide at least 10 enclosed bicycle spaces; include in the CC&R's a provision that, in the two-bedroom units, the space labeled "family play area" sha t be converted to a third bedroom; designate common open space areas as en spaces (with the actual facilities to be flexible; residents' particip ci ' g specific use encouraged); explore how to provide adequate s f r and ftcycling storage; for the units closest to Augusta Street, provi o o e entry atures facing the street. Staff noted that in forwarding t ' e e t will recommend that all the mitigation measures lis in t i ' u c ions of approval. On a separate motion d f o a g Commission recommended that the Architectural Revi m s xa a in particular the treatment of the elevation difference (reta in d d -supporting wall) at the rear of the site, and the usability of the comm ce areas which on current plans are separated from the main pedestrian ax b rking spaces. During discussion of parking issues, the number of required spaces was re-calculated based on standard procedure and determined to be 42. 2. CibMide. TA and ER 38-01; Zoning Regulations Text Amendment clarification of creek setbacks and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo. Glen Matteson. Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report, recommending the City Council amend the creek setback standard to improve consistency with the General Plan and clarify existing provisions concerning bridges and minor exceptions. Terry Sanville Principal Transportation Planner (Public Works Department) stated he was the bicycle person for the City. He stated that they support the staff recommendations. He noted that all the planning for the bicycle paths in the city goes through the environmental review and the City Council approval process. He stated it is not the standard practice to encroach anywhere into the canopy area and to minimize 7-q Draft Planning Commission`,. �.utes AttaChment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 8 encroachments into the setback area. He said they want to ensure that the creek setback area doesn't preclude that from occurring. Vice-Chair Loh asked at present how many bike paths would be in the setback. Mr. Sanville replied that they don't have many bicycle paths along creek corridors. Community Development Director John Mandeville commented on the creek corridor, explaining that the creek setback is measured.from the outside edge of the canopy. He noted that allowing for a path within the outer perimeter of the setback does not mean that it puts a path within the corridor or under the canopy. Mr. Matteson pointed out that the canopy is where the setback begins and that the ordinance does not encourage paths under the canopy. Commr. Osborne asked what the dimension of the creek set is. Mr. Matteson replied that within the city it is 20 fee e s e creeks in San Luis Obispo are also 35 or 50 feet. -. Commr. Osborne asked if the Gree a nt i exp sion areas. Mr. Matteson stated tha re s ti ing r ations that identifies the dimension that ap o c it Commr. Osborne k th r m a ' goes through, how many miles of creek could have these p e e t reek setback. Mr. Matteson replied at h re not recommending that it be an entitled exception. He explained they are r mending that it be a discretionary exception for a bike path within a creek setback. He noted this was a change, a new recommendation in the staff report. He stated the staff report from the previous meeting (the environmental section), stated that the items before the Commission could conceivably affect any creek in the city or become subject to the City's jurisdiction. Commr. Osborne asked what the cost would be in determining whether or not a bike. path would be located in the creek setback. Mr. Sanville replied that if a bike path is placed totally outside of the creek setback, in addition to the 20-foot or 35-foot or 50-foot. reservation for a creek setback, that an additional 10- to 12-foot minimum and up to 16-feet would be required to accommodate a bicycle path that meets city and State standards. He stated it would require additional land, and noted that the construction costs are not the issue, but rather the amount of land you need to reserve. Mr. Mandeville stated that if the City comes through after the fact as capital improvement project and acquires the land for the trail, it is likely to have a bearing on 7-/0 Draft Planning Commission utes Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 9 the value of that land, because land in a setback that is not buildable is worth less than land that is buildable. Commr. Osborne asked if it would always be cheaper to put the bike path in the creek setback. Mr. Mandeville replied that he doesn't think that it would always be cheaper to do that. Commr. Osborne felt there would be a big difference whether it was in a developed part of the city or in an expansion area that was currently undeveloped. Mr. Mandeville stated that it is important to note that in most cases where bike paths are going to be parallel to the creek, they will most likely occur i the expansion areas as a part of specific plans and will be designed into the spe c Ian. Creek corridors or setbacks will not necessarily be the de facto location art bicycle paths will go. Commr. Osborne asked if the revision is ne s <►a beca a there was some ambiguity about whether bike paths woul r n Mr. Mandeville stated it was the o in of h e iscussio at bike paths were not specifically named in the exis i qpdikan d t after closer examination, it would be better not to t s a str' paths and to address each explicitly. Mr. Sanville stated a ul i lar he interpretation in the ordinance so that anyone reading it un rs n i i eing implemented. Commr. Osborne expres ed a eciation for bringing in language specifying the bicycle paths would require a dis lonary exception. He asked if this would fit into the table that was provided on page 4 under review type. Mr. Matteson replied the table on page 4 was made to illustrate a continuum of review procedures related to the idea of encouraging paths within the outer perimeter of the corridor. He stated if you have a low level of review, that is more encouraging than if you have a very high level of review, (meaning time and cost and exposure to public criticism). Commr. Cooper voiced concern about the canopy being compromised. He stated there was an option to review the initial study and it was not in the packet. Mr. Matteson explained that the project description has changed for the recommendation that is presented. He stated that they didn't anticipate there being anything in the recommendation that needed additional review. If the Commission goes in the direction of further relaxing the review requirements for exceptions or allowing additional setbacks, then they will need to reconsider that environmental information. Commr. Boswell asked for an example of what the worst-case scenario of a City- installed bike path that would not require an environmental review. 741 Draft Planning Commission _ ates Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Matteson replied that a project that most people would see as minor as a bike path in a sensitive location along a creek not being considered a project that there would need no initial studies. Mr. Sandville stated that any capital improvement project that is approved by the City Council, so it becomes a discretionary project. Mr. Matteson stated that there may be categorical exemptions for bike lanes on existing streets. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if the architectural features that were to extend into the setback are still included in the staff report. Mr. Matteson replied that the architectural features are in the.staff report, but some of the staff report was summarized and proposed to be changed ,« Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked what kind of canopiese`rIt- 'e inv.,ofved Mr. Matteson replied that they referred ab �eanopy. of Va tr anop�jr, Vice-Chairwoman Loh sta at s nt eh�eic ea of I 9 those elements encroach into the setb 3 �. 4 Mr. Matteson stated wh t to d s we e f dopted; the decision was made to treat the architectural fea re i cree acks the same way they are treated in other setbacks. Vice-Chairwoman Loh commented that the building be close to the.setback line with the bay window going 30-inches into the setback. Mr. Matteson stated that in a typical residential zone, the minimum setback would be 5 feet, so you could extend up to half of that or 30-inches. Vice-Chairwoman Loh suggested that they reconsider this. She asked Mr. Sanville if the bikeway and pedestrian walkway could be combined with a total of 12 feet, 4-feet for pedestrian and 8-feet for bikeway. Mr. Sanville replied that the standards for bikeways depend on their combined uses. He explained that State standards for the City's bike plan requires a minimum of 8-feet across for the bikeway. Combined pedestrian ways and bikeways must have a paved width of 12-feet. Vice-Chairwoman Loh questioned whether the creek side usually has an 8-foot wide bike path. 7-!L Draft Planning Commission .. utes Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Sanville replied that in the creek setting, depending on how constrained it is, the relationship to adjoining land uses, the lay of the land, the curvature or the alignment to the path itself, the minimum width of the path would be 8-feet. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if they suggest asphalt or decomposed gravel for bikeways. Mr. Sanville stated that they could do a combination facility. Chair Peterson questioned why staff is recommending that walkways be an entitled exception. Commr. Osborne asked if the current ordinance impedes development of desirable bridges. Mr. Matteson replied not substantially. He stated tha a uld continue to approve bridges in places where many people would see th n a or desirable under the current language. Commr. Osborne asked if there is a nct' be n a blic roadway and private driveway. Mr. Matteson replied that w co Commr. Osborne d ' to in a private driveway would these findings prevent t mot`d n el ' would 6e difficult for a person justify that they needed a priv a h° ula Mr. Matteson replied t t in gs would not prevent a private driveway from being installed. He explained ha ven the current ordinance language and the proposed language, it would be le of a burden for the private lot owner to make a case than it would for the proponent of this specific plan that has the bridge in it. Mr. Sanville commented that the private lot owner would need to show that there was no other alternative to provide access. Commr. Osborne stated that he was unclear of the changes that were being made from the existing ordinance to the proposed ordinance regarding the bridges. Mr. Matteson replied that on the top of page 7 there is underlined language, which would be added in the case of bridges if the site is large but there are few options for avoiding a crossing. Commr. Osborne asked if including finding 4 would still be a feasible policy. Mr. Matteson replied that it is not relevant to the situation that is being considered. -7-13 Draft Planning Commission sates Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 12 Commr. Osborne asked if it was the current policy or the proposed policy that allows a structure to house mechanical refrigeration equipment in the creek setback. Mr. Matteson replied there was one case where a building within the setback housed mechanical equipment and staff made the determination that it fell under existing category of one-story detached buildings. Commr. Osborne stated that when a project other than a single-family dwelling goes through architectural review, they should look for features that are shown in a setback. Commr. Cooper requested clarification of the revised text under "Entitled Accessory Structures" which makes reference to bicycle paths co -ng under discretionary exception in Part 4, noting there is no mention of it. Y� Mr. Matteson replied that Part 4 doesn't address a s if feat s. He stated that whatever feature is proposed will require an a pf uld b subject to those findings. Commr. Cooper stated that he did no . gr a ented he saw bridges and stated that they were talking about idges i Mr. Matteson stated that is pr o� i o that s recommended. Commr. Cooper state h oe t mention bicycle paths covered under discretionary exception ke i t it was not necessary. Mr. Matteson replied that a ee it as necessary, but if other staff members would like to express an op io r if the Commission feels it would be desirable to clarify it to have a reference, th they would do that. Commr. Cooper felt it would be necessary. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, stated that he was in favor of the bike travel path. He presented photographs, and indicated his preference for the term "bike travel path" vs. bike path. He felt bike travel paths should all require discretionary review. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENT: Commissioner Osborne moved to approve the staff recommendation with a few amendments. The staff presentation that was shown with the overhead and not the packet with _regard to the bike paths would be a discretionary exemption and not an entitled exemption. For bridges add the finding, number 4 the required finding for a bridge. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion. _7-ry Draft Planning Commission'.. ..utes Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Cooper added some amendments to the motion that a specific reference and item for bike paths be added under (4a) under intent. Intent addresses small parcels. He felt under item (2) Entitled Accessories Structures and Uses that it would be helpful to delete the statement "will not cause the removal of native vegetation". Commr. Osborne stated that it is conceivable that there would be trees continuously from the creek out. Commr. Cooper expressed concern on where the setback would be. He stated that on the other amendment that the graphic in the June 13t packet should be an intricate part of this document. Commr. Osborne accepted this as an amendment. Commr. Osborne commented that beyond the npari co re might be an area which has continuous tree cover from the creek 01 ar . �J Neil Havlik (Natural Resources Manager) e � �4 Na r Re rces staff would support the deletion of that item as pro a by ofRr�i stone er. Commr. Osborne asked if the a tr n o es that went beyond the creek corridor with continuo re e g k what the implication would be that they removed those S. Mr. Havlik replied de t s i th are other provisions protecting native vegetation, particularl a r s. Commr. Osborne accepte thi a amendment. Manager Whisenand stated that the zoning regulations allow for some averaging in the cases where you have riparian vegetation that sticks in the Ione willow tree. Chairman Peterson stated he was in support of where they are going with the motion. He stated there should be a little bit of responsibility of protecting the creek corridor, and tool sheds or other structures should not be allowed. Vice-Chairwoman Loh concurred with Chairman Peterson. She stated that she does not want to see water tank features or any other structures within the setback area. Chairman Peterson agreed with Vice-Chairwoman Loh, especially concerning parking spaces, playhouses, tool sheds, similar buildings, garden structures, trellises and arbors. Commr. Cooper asked if that should all be taken out of the entitled accessory structure and put under discretionary. Chairman Peterson felt that (b), (e), and (f), are things that could be allowed with the discretionary exceptions. 7-1.50' Draft Planning Commission rtes August 8, 2001 Attachment 2 Page 14 Commr. Cooper stated that he does not want people to go through an elaborate process to do things they are allowed to do. Commr. Boswell stated that he is against making these changes. He felt he was not adequately informed to make a decision. He stated that he would support this as a separate motion to bring back for the Planning Commission to examine this at a future date. Mr. Mandeville stated that Commissioner Boswell's intuition was right on the mark. He stated there is a substantial history to a lot of these exceptions. Chairman Peterson replied that he was not specifical ta*i about architectural features, but sheds and trellises. IPIL City Attorney Gilbert Truijillo stated that he a i <o sion Boswell's very astute assessment that there could be a not' is ed. Commr. Aiken agreed with Commissi er B Vic-Chairwoman Loh felt that t s r lco n h* s a friendly amendment. Chairman Peterson sta t e no 0 ow they would notice that meeting any different then the ar n ici e . g to discuss potential changes to the creek setback ordinance. Mr. Mandeville replied that i it a tended to consider eliminating several of these categories, staff would have b ore explicit in the notice for the item that that was being considered. Commr. Cooper stated that it would be appropriate for staff to explore these issues further for a future meeting. Commr. Osborne asked if it would be possible to restrict these small buildings in the creek setback to specifically prohibit permanent storage or equipment buildings that are institutional or a commercial distinction between the residential storage shed. Mr. Matteson replied that could be a possibility. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked Mr. Sanville if the bicycle pavement is usually up to 12 feet, why is it shown at 15 feet. Mr. Sanville replied that the State standards as well as safe standards require a 2-foot clear shoulder on either side. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if the bikeway is 8-foot plus a 2-foot shoulder. Mr. Sanville replied that is what their standards currently say. 7-/(0 Draft Planning Commission`. :,jtes AttaChment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 15 Vice-Chairwoman Loh stated that the pictures all show 9 feet or more. Mr. Sanville stated that he was not aware of the precise measurement for the Acacia Creek Trail. Commr. Boswell stated that he supports the motion. He stated that he would like to get some clarification of what the General Pan is telling them on what should be doing. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Caruso, Aik , ohBswell,, and P terson. NOES: None. REFRAIN: None. \W ABSENT: None. The motion carried 7-0. fp F Chairman Peterson made a ti i c a eturn to the Commission with the report on the possibility of rem vi s e and from the entitled exceptions and making them discretions ex ns and noticing that meeting appropriateIV. Vice-Chairwoman Loh seconded Wak motion and asked to add the following paragraph "the sum of the architecture features should not be allowed to extend into the setback up to 30-inches". Chairman Peterson accepted that they discuss those also at that time. Commr. Caruso commented that he was confused about the discussion because the changes are extremely minor in the overall scheme of things. He stated that he was not in support of this. Vice-Chairwoman Loh stated that they are making a recommendation to the City Council. Commr. Boswell stated that he would like to clarify the motion that this would be the type of request that they would need the City Council to approve. Mr. Mandeville stated that he would seek Council confirmation of the direction to divert the staff resources to revisit those sections of the creek setback ordinance. Commr. Boswell stated that he would support the motion. Deputy Director Whisenand stated that if the Council can review the recently adopted budget goals then they can evaluate and see if this is more important than the other goals and reassign the department to look into some of the other programs that are being worked on. Chairman Peterson asked how much staff resources are they anticipating this would take. 7-17 Draft Planning Commissions sites Attachment 2 August 8, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Mandeville replied that the staff time would likely go into reports and hearings that are likely to last several hours in dealing with the follow-up with all the proposed actions. Commr. Aiken stated that he does not support the motion.. Commr. Osborne stated that he does not support the motion. He stated that he would like a distinction made between a new development that goes in, versus an existing residential development. Chairman Peterson stated that differentiation could be included in their discussion of it. Mr. Mandeville stated that differentiation is already made in our existing procedures. Any new commercial buildings will require ARC review, which is goin involve an evaluation of a site plan. Commr. Cooper stated that he supports the motion. Y (The Chair allowed comment from a public speaker) Neil Havlik, stated that they received some rres on t matt f the creek setback, which describes this housing o ec e e ed that a facility zoned R-4 or R-3, high density, su s an t r cili , ' of a residential use. It is a combination hotel, restau t s Commr. Osborne asked if Chairm n s oti would address the installation of mechanical equipment in this creek et Chairman Peterson replied yes. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Loh, Osborne, Cooper, and Boswell NOES: Commrs. Caruso and Aiken ABSENT: None. REFRAIN: None. The motion carried 5-2. 3. Staff Agenda Forecast: August 22: (1) Abandonment of Deseret Place as a public street. It is associated with Sierra Vista proposal to develop a master plan. (2) Presentation by Cal Poly representatives on faculty/staff housing project. September 12- Joint meeting with the ARC. 7-/$ Attachment#3 ORDINANCE NO. [ ] (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO CREEK SETBACK STANDARDS (TA 38-01) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on [ date ], 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 ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. Council determines that the amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 7), as an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by state law or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment, namely clarification and limitation of the types of features which may encroach into creek setbacks. SECTION 2. Fines. Council, after consideration of the proposed amendment, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereon finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan, in particular the Open Space Element policies concerning creek setbacks and uses allowed to encroach into creek setbacks. SECTION 3. Text Amendment. Municipal Code Section 17.16.025 is amended as fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five(5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30)days after its final passage. 7-11 Attachment#3 Ordinance No. [ ] Page 2 INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 2001, on a motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Allen K. Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: ZCity Attorney effrey G. orgensen UTA3801 ord.doc 7-ZO Attachment #3 Ordinance No. [ ] Exhibit A 17.16.025 Creek setbacks.. A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to: 1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. 2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat corridor can be established. 3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor. 4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding. 5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans. B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on that element's Creek Map, and only to those creeks. C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks shall be measured from the existing top of bank (or the future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration reflected in a plan approved by the City), or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow line (Figure 4.1). The Community Development Director may determine the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, where the edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length along the creek, in a way unrelated to topography (for example, the Director will not base the setback line on individual trees or branches extending out from the channel or on small gaps in vegetation extending toward the channel). Where riparian vegetation extends over a public street, no creek setback is required on property which is on the side of the street away from the creek. D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of riparian vegetation shall be shown on all project plans subject to City approval. The location of these features is subject to confirmation by the Community Development Director, based on observation of actual conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of persons with expertise in hydrology, biology, or geology. E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback dimensions are established in recognition of different parcel sizes and locations of existing structures for areas within the city in comparison with areas which may be annexed, and in response to different sizes of the creek channels and tributary drainage areas. 1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks within the city limits as of July 1, 1996, the setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in parts E.3, EA or G below. Where the city limit follows a creek, the setback on the side within the 1996 city limits shall be 20 feet and the setback on the annexed side shall be as provided in'part 2 below. 2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creek in an area annexed to the City after July 1, 1996, the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a specific plan or development plan approved by the City Council provides a larger or smaller setback, consistent with the purpose of these regulations and with General Plan policies. a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek (all of main branch), San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San Luis Obispo Creek (main branch) to the confluence with Acacia Creek: Stenner Creek. 7—`7 --' Attachment #3 b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 35 feet Prefumo Creek; Froom Creek; Brizziolari Creek: San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad Street (Highway 227), from Broad Street to Fuller Road. c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks except those listed in parts "a" and "b" immediately above shall be 20 feet. (Informational map is available in the Community Development Department.) 3. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or to implement adopted City plans, when approving a discretionary application the City may require setbacks larger than required by parts 1 and 2 above, or further limitations on the items which may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City regulations may restrict or prevent development in a floodway or floodplain.) 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly approved a creek setback smaller than required by this section, prior to adoption of this section, by action on a tract or parcel map (whether or not a vesting map), architectural review application, use permit, Planned Development zoning, or Special Considerations zoning, that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the approval is in effect. F. Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall not be placed or constructed within a creek setback, except as provided in part G below: structures; paving; parking lots; in nonresidential zones, areas used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials. G. Exceptions to Creek Setbacks. 1. Entitled Replacement Structures. Where a structure lawfully existed on or before October 3, 1996, within a creek setback required by this chapter, the following shall apply. This part is not intended to allow replacement of paving that existed on or before October 3, 1996, with new paving or a building, unless a discretionary approval is obtained pursuant to part 17.16.025.G(4). a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure may occupy the same footprint, within the creek setback, as the previous structure, without obtaining a discretionary exception. (See also Section 17.16.020(E)(1)(d).) b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (for example,by adding stories). c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due solely to the creek setback encroachment may be remodeled without regard to the limits of Section 17.14.020(B) and (C) of this title. 2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. The following items may be located within the"required creek setback, without obtaining a discretionary exception, provided that they: do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any flooding capacity pursuant to the city's flood damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one-half of the setback area; are consistent with other property development standards of the zoning regulations. a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the setback area on any development site. �-ZZ Attachment #3 b. Uncovered parking spaces for a single-family dwelling. c. Uncovered patios, walkways, and pedestrian paths (bicycle paths require a discretionary exception as provided in part 4). d. Decks, stairs, and landings which are no more than thirty inches in height. e. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and storage sheds, play houses, and similar ` uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed one hundred twenty square feet. f. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and gazebos, provided they are constructed using an open lattice design and light-weight materials. 3. Entitled Architectural Features. The following architectural features may extend into the setback up to thirty inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, chimneys, solar collectors, shading louvers, water heater enclosures, and bay or other projecting windows that do not include usable floor space. 4. Discretionary Exceptions. a. Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception. Generally, such exceptions are limited to small parcels which are essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed with setbacks smaller than those in subsection E of this section. In the case of bridges and bicycle paths, the site may be large, but there are few or no options for avoiding a crossing of the creek or encroaching into the creek setback. b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than required by subsection E of this section may be approved by city action on a plan for public facilities approved by the city council or on a specific plan, development plan under planned development zoning, land division, use permit, or architectural review. Where one of these types of applications is not otherwise required for the proposed feature, an exception request shall be in the form of an administrative use permit. c. Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a creek setback exception, regardless of application type, shall include a clear description of the feature or features proposed to receive the exception, and the extent of the exception. d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be subject to each of the following findings, regardless of the type of project application under which the request is considered. is The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and ii. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies; and iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;.and vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other -7 Z3 `_. Attachment #3 property in the area of the project or downstream; and vii. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. ("Reasonable use of the property" in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, "reasonable development" may mean no additional development considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design, or density.) e. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualified, independent person shall be required for each discretionary exception request, to provide the basis for making finding subsection (G)(4)(d)(i) of this section, unless waived by the community development director upon determining that no purpose would be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception. f. Application Contents. In addition to any other information required for a project application, a request for creek setback exception shall include the following: i. A description of the feature or features proposed for exception and the extent of the exception. ii. A description of potential design changes for the project which would eliminate or reduce the need for the exception. iii. A statement why an exception is deemed necessary by the applicant. iv. Mitigation proposed to offset any harmful effects of the exception. edge of riparian vegetation 10 creek creek corridor creek setback *1r I setback I I `ril��a ylT top of bankT top of bank I m • • ■ • TOP of Bank �• • r.t �• �lplpalian.y .. - ., - •. •is • s • • ■ • • T •�• • • f ■ + • • ► • a ■ • QequUed Setback • UTA3801exhib.doc �- MEEnNG - 4GE" 7 Bo�D of TRummFS Ir DATE �o'/�—�/ IEM .�, - ., m Bob Lavelle,Chair Merle Roders,Vice-Chair ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER Arlene Winn,Treasurer OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Leslie Jones,Secretary Don Dollar P.O.Box 1014 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Holly Ziegler Tel.(805)5441777 Tim O'Keefe Fax:(805)544-1871 Carmel Day ecoslo@slonet.org John Schutz OUNCIL CDD DIR October 15, 2001 ❑'FIN DIR 0 FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obis Ci Council jVA; n 0" ❑ PW DIR R+VORIC1 0 POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street PTH D5 O REC DIR San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 13LITIL DIR HR DIR d Dear Honorable City Council Members: I would like,to begin by commending the City for not proposing to make bridges and bikeways new entitled exceptions to the City's protective Creek Setback Ordinance. Staff's report however, proposes to corrupt the existing Creek Ordinance by rewording it to allow as new entitled exceptions public "walkways"and public "pedestrian paths" in the Creek Setback area By creating a new entitled exception line"c"that would allow multi-dwelling residential, commercial, industrial, public and any other property in the city, besides single-family dwelling property to have,"uncovered patios, walkways,and pedestrian paths" in the environmentally protective Creek Setback area as an entitled exception without public CEQA review is not acceptable. This is a huge change to the intent of the existing environmentally protective Creek Ordinance. The meaning and intent of the existing wording of the Creek Ordinance of entitled exception is very clear that it pertains to single-family dwelling property only. Staffs proposed changes would inappropriately allow"patios"and"walkways"and"pedestrian paths"to be entitled exceptions other than in only single-family property. This is contrary to the Creek Setback Ordinance and should not be allowed to happen. Tainela you for your kind consideration,Marshall Heatherington Executive Director RECEIVED OCT 1 6' 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL Printed on 100%Recycled Paper MEETINf� ib AGENDA .� q Community Developme t--- Memorandum DATE: 10/12/01 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer Alt-- FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct?P SUBJECT: Copy Of Adopted Creek Setback Ordinance For Item #7 of the October 16 Council Agenda Council member Marx has requested a clean copy of the current, adopted Creek Setback Ordinance. A copy is attached. Please note that Attachment 1 to the council agenda report shows the recommended amendments in legislative draft format, in the context of the current, adopted ordinance. The attachment did not include sections of the ordinance that had no proposed changes. To provide the Council with additional context to the proposed amendments, and to further illustrate the discussion in the staff report of how the proposed amendments transfer adopted General Plan policy into the creek setback regulations, I am also attaching the Creeks and Recreation sections of the Open Space Element. I have highlighted the particular policy language that is driving the need for the ordinance clarifications. cc: Mike Draze Glen Matteson Q'COUNCIL Mr-66D DIR 2'tAO ❑ FIN DIR (ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 59'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR M"CLERK/ORaG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR CtiYT¢'©x.16 ❑ LITIL DIR [! A2FiF ❑ HR DIR ✓ M. D raze � C11un µa�es�✓ti RECEIVED 'CT , % 200' 990PahnSaw SLO CITY CLERK San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 805/781-7170 FAX-805n81-7173 D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of Cro Creek setbacks. riparian vegetation shall be shown on all project plans ek setbacks are i tended to: subject to City approval. The location of these features is subject to confirmation by the Community is resources, water quality, and natural Development Director, based on observation of actual creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of persons habitation, rest,and movement. with expertise in hydrology,biology,or geology. 2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat dimensions are established in recognition of different corridor can be established. parcel sizes and locations of existing structures for areas within the city in comparison with areas which 3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the may be annexed, and in response to different sizes of creek corridor. creek channels and tributary drainage areas. 4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and 1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks flooding. within the city limits as of July 1, 1996,the setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in parts E.3, EA or G 5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans. below. Where the city limit follows a creek, the setback on the side within the 1996 city limits shall be 20 feet B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback and the setback on the annexed side shall be as requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in the provided in part 2 below. Open Space Element and shown on that element's Creek Map,and only to those creeks. 2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creek in an area annexed to the City after July 1, 1996, C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a shall be measured from the existing top of bank (or the specific plan or development plan approved by the City future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration Council provides a larger or smaller setback, consistent reflected in a plan approved by the City), or from the with the purpose of these regulations and with General edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, Plan policies. whichever is farther from the creek flow line. The Community Development Director may determine the a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, where the shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek (all of main edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San along the creek, in a way unrelated to topography (for Luis Obispo Creek(main branch)to the confluence with example, the Director will not base the setback line on Acacia Creek;Stenner Creek. individual trees or branches extending out from the channel or on small gaps in vegetation extending toward b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the the channel). Where riparian vegetation extends over a following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo Creek; Froom Creek; public street, no creek setback is required on property Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork which is on the side of the street away from the creek. tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the • JSetback • • • ' • • • , ='a - V segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows . • Top of Bonk ' • ' generally parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad Street(Highway 227),from Broad Street to Fuller Road. /----"_- F,o•une c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks Rodon%oBon except those listed in parts "a" and "b" immediately above shall be 20 feet. • • • . • • • • • ' • •�• , • 'R k905610 (Informational map is available in the Community Development Department) city of san Luis oBfspo 36 zomnc,Recutatfons 3. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially significant a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with environmental impacts in compliance with the California buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the Environmental Quality Act, or to implement adopted City setback area on any development site. plans, when approving a discretionary application the City may require setbacks larger than required by parts b. Parking spaces for single-family dwellings; patios; 1 and 2 above, or further limitations on the items which walkways. may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City regulations may restrict or prevent development in a c. Decks, stairs, and landings which are no more than floodway or floodplain.) 30 inches in height 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly d. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and approved a creek setback smaller than required by this storage sheds, play houses, and similar uses, provided section, prior to adoption of this section, by action on a the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square tract or parcel map (whether or not a vesting map), feet. architectural review application, use permit, Planned Development zoning, or Special Considerations zoning, e. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the gazebos, provided they are constructed using an open approval is in effect lattice design and light weight materials F. Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall 3. Entitled Architectural Features. The following not be placed or constructed within a creek setback, architectural features may extend into the setback up to except as provided in part G below: structures; paving; 30 inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, parking lots; in nonresidential zones, areas used for chimneys; solar collectors, shading louvers, water storing or working on vehicles,equipment,or materials. heater enclosures,and bay or other projecting windows that do not include usable floor space. G. Exceptions To Creek Setbacks. 4. Discretionary Exceptions. 1. Entitled Replacement Structures. Where a structure lawfully existed on or before October 3, 1996, within a a. Intent Discretionary exceptions to creek setback creek setback required by this chapter. standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure practicable alternative to the exception. Generally,such may occupy the same footprint, within the creek exceptions are limited to small parcels which are setback, as the previous structure. (See also part essentially surrounded by sites that have been 17.16.020.E.1.d.) developed with setbacks smaller than those in part E above. b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (for example, by b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than adding stories). required by part E above may be approved by City action on a plan for public facilities approved by the City c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due Council or on a speck plan, development plan under solely to the creek setback encroachment may be planned development zoning, land division, use permit, remodeled without regard to the limits of parts or architectural review. Where one of these types of 17.14.020.B and C of this title. applications is not otherwise required for the proposed feature, an exception request shall be in the form of an 2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. The administrative use permit following items may be located within the required creek setback, provided that they: do not extend beyond the c. Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the creek setback exception, regardless of application type, removal of native riparian vegetation;will not reduce any shall include a clear description of the feature or features flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage proposed to receive the exception,and the extent of the Prevention Regulations; in total occupy not more than exception. one-half of the setback area; are consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning Regulations. crry of san Luis owspo 37 zonmq Regulations d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be e. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualified, subject to each and every of the following findings, independent person shall be required for each regardless of the type of project application under which discretionary exception request, to provide the basis for the request is considered: (Ord. 1365 (2000 making finding "d.i" above, unless waived by the Series)(part)) Community Development Director upon determining that no purpose would be served by such a survey because i. The location and design of the feature receiving the no biological resources could be affected by the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, exception. water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; f. Application Contents. In addition to any other and information required for a project application, a request ii. The exception will not limit the City's design options for for creek setback exception shall include the following: providing flood control measures that are needed to i. A description of the feature or features proposed for achieve adopted City flood policies;and exception and the extent of the exception. iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of ii. A description of potential design changes for the City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse project which would eliminate or reduce the need for the environmental effects of implementing such plans;and exception. iv. There are circumstances applying to the site,such as iii. A statement of reasons why an exception is deemed size, shape or topography,which do not apply generally necessary by the applicant. .to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other iv. Mitigation proposed to offset any harmful effects of property in the vicinity with the same zoning;and the exception. v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations 17.16.030 Coverage. upon other properties in the vicinity with the same A. Definition. "Coverage" means the area of a lot zoning;and covered by the footprint of all structures, as well as vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public decks, balconies, porches, and similar architectural welfare or exception to other property features,expressed as a percentage of the total lot area. injuriousp perty in the area of the Uncovered decks or porches which are 30 inches or projector downstream;and less from the ground shall not be included in the vii. Site development cannot be accomplished with a determination of coverage. (See Figures 5 and 6.) (Ord. vii. Site of the 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior redesignproject; and (Ord. 1365 (2000 code-9202.5(D))(Ord. 1365(2000 Series)(part)) Series)(part)) viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. (Reasonable use of the property in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, reasonable development may mean that no additional development is reasonable considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design,or density.)(Ord. 1365(2000 Series)(part)) city of san Luis oaispo 38 zonmG Reculations Open Space Element B. ;CREEKS ; r. .l, f d I _ .moi=..�r= .a �'�r j R:.G•e ra4�. mr --• .... 'fie..,:. ,_ '-.T. �1 - - �' `vf •`1v1 •i Stenner Creek above Cal Poly. Punme Creeks of all sizes are an important open space resource, providing riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat areas, serving as aesthetic resources, and providing natural channels for storm flows. Since San Luis Obispo receives relatively little annual rainfall, these creeks are of special importance to wildlife, which depends on a reliable source of water. Within the city limits there are approximately 35 miles of creeks. Of this area, most has been widened, realigned, concrete lined or stripped of vegetation. These creek alterations were typically constructed to protect development from flood waters. Only small pieces of substantially natural creeks remain within the City. Therefore, the focus of these creek protection policies is to reduce the need to further alter creek corridors by limiting the potential exposure of new development to flood waters and to restore and rehabilitate creek.vegetation to enhance the habitat value of the City's creeks. The City recognizes that its creek areas are an important natural resource for the following reasons: 1. Creeks recharge groundwater. pdos1I.3.creeks - 19 - 1/18/94 Open Space Element 2. Creeks provide a corridor for flood waters (see Figure 5). 3. Creeks preserve and improve the community's quality of life by providing beauty, spawning grounds for fish, specialized plant and animal communities, corridors for wildlife, and recreational opportunities. Community Goals Before development the creek channel(or flood area)is wide. With development,the channel becomes narrow (due to fill and structures), percolation is reduced, and velocity increased. Preserve creek Structures located in this area are flooded. corridors as a '��, regional network -��, '' C�'1 Y� �` �Mwr .r fj� of open space. Establish healthy, =.<: continuous, Flood Level Before Development riparian vegetation corridors that Increase in Flood Height extend from �ti Atter Development within the City to the perimeter of L�LJ 11 t'. the Outer Planning Area. Fill Restore degraded creeks to provide high quality Figure 5-Flood Corridor. The top figure shows a floodplain before development. The bottom figure habitat and to shows the changes in the floodplain with development. augment aesthetic nelizatiootiodo Provide recreational uses adjacent to creeks only when they are sensitive to the creek environment. Provide creek maintenance that preserves naturehabitat, scen-17 qualities, a t et . pdosll.3.creeks - 20 - 12/22/93 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 21 Open Space Element Policies Within the Urban Reserve Line and the City Limit Line 1. Within the city limits the City shall, and outside the city limits the City shall encourage the County and State to: A. Preserve creeks and their corridors as open space, and maintain creek corridors in essentially a natural state to protect the community's water quality, wildlife diversity, and aesthetic value. 1. Exceptions to this are Mission Plaza and its expansion area and Laguna Lake Park which should be preserved as parkland with some open s ace fee (see OU Recreation section, Program d). Ex es s • not t. si n' ails d s d low or the maintenance of existing habitat e we hum enjoy New recreation facilities (benches, tri ' viewing stations) shall be located to preserve sensitive resources while providing some public access. If impacts occur in these areas, habitat values shall be replaced on-site or off-site (in-kind only) at a 2:1 ratio B. Protec riparian vegetation and restore degraded creeks on lands the City owns or develops (where protection and restoration does not interfere with flood control practices per Policy I.F. below). C. Coordinate with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies that protect and preserve creek resources when designing projects or reviewing development which may impact a creek. D. At select locations (consistent with this section and the Outdoor Recreation Section), provide public inte retative services on City owned or managed property that contains creek resources u so Require public or private development to locate outside a creek corridor and creek setback area except in the following cases: (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) to allow existing structures which become non-conforming by the implementation of this element to remodel or rebuild within the footprint of the existing structure the location is necessary for the construction of new roads, bridges, trails,_or similar in restructure where the Community Development Director determine the project has minimized environmental impacts through project design and infrastructure placement. Ahk pdoslUxreeks - 22 - 12/22/93 Open Space Eement F. Allow creek alterations only r if no practicable alternative is available or to protect ' a ' public health and safety. If _ alterations are allowed the y> Proposed Project should 4 _ utilize natural creek hr alterations(i.e.,stabilization methods which maintain an 4 earthen channel and provide additional riparian vegetation). Gabions, rocks, ' and other bank stabilization methods which allow plantings (both trees and _%.fir -.- shrubs) within the bank protection may be allowed Examples of creek alterations. The picture to the left is a portion of Garden P Y Creek,the picture to the right is a section along Mission Plaza. Methods such only when no practicable as these should be avoided if possible. alternative to natural creek alterations exist. If no practicable alternative to the utilization of gabions, rocks, and other bank stabilization methods which allow plantings (both trees and shrubs) exist, hard bank protection which does not allow for plantings (such as solid walls) may be permitted. 2. When no practicable alternative to a significant creek resource impact exists, the City shall require, and shall encourage the County to require, the developer to implement a City-approved mitigation and monitoring plan that will avoid or ameliorate significant impacts. A. The mitigation and monitoring plan should be: (a) in accordance with official California Department of Fish and Game guidelines, and (b) prepared and implemented by qualified professionals funded by the project applicant. B. Mitigation of biological impacts shall be provided as on-site/in-kind replacement. Off-site/in- kind mitigation may be allowed where on-site/in-kind mitigation is not possible. Where neither on- or off-site in-kind mitigation is possible a mitigation fee may be allowed. pdosII.3.creeks -23 - 12/22/93 Nr Y U U caa) ctsN UD m _ TQ C lu _ r _ c= t Q c 0 .� O O ��a� /= O m V O U C LLtJccU O 7+ O - W z m Q t � �� W a m m CL Qin O L m V1 p m" +'�.3 U ' .3 a .0 ul Q I°� W 0` t O Q w o t . Y Y � 'E :22 LL LLJ om W W W ¢ O Q m m 1 0O U (D ` m c A c m m M E .0 15 m �n 0 E � .m m 3 (� m 0cc w 0Y � c a 0 = C YZ m WUC a f0 Q L .W m m C ' .00 c m Y N D .0 C-0 Lu m � q W mm c Q O O m O U E 3a = � E G; 0 3 c a \1 E O t7 2 or- 0 O O Y OU O Y N y Q C U m Q r � o cn a F- pdosll.3 -24- 1222/9, Open Space Element 3. Within the city limits the City FIGURE 7 should require, and outside the city limits the City should encourage reek Corridor Creek and Creek Riparian Vegetation the encourage the County and State ,back to require creek protection by public and private development to: A. Preserve creek corridors and creek setback areas through 1)Resources and parcel ments or dedications. before subdivision r easements shall be located to street optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of descretionary and development Creek comdorcreek approvals shall be required in and "ak ftn Vegetation Setbacreek corridors and creek . setback areas only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory 2)Pntenad•subdivision which protects the structures or tree removal creek corridor and permits, and in a manner creek setback as a consistent with acquisition separate parcel. policies contained in Chapter street IV of this element. If a creek is located within an open space parcel or easement, allowed Creek CorridbrWS) reek uses and maintenance and Creakiparian Vegetation responsibilities within that Sa`b°"` parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned nodeotabk- prior to map or project subdivision which approval. (See Figure 'n.. protects the hatched area as an open space B. Enhance creek corridors and � easement. their habitat value by: (1) sueet providing an adequate creek setback, (2) maintaining creek Figure 7, Resource Protection. Existing resources and preferred corridors in an essentially alternatives are noted above. In most cases,an open space parcel provides the most protection of resources. pdosII.3.creeks -25 - 11/22/93 Open Space Element natural state, (3) employing creek restoration techniques where restoration is needed to achieve a natural creek corridor, (4) utilizing riparian vegetation within creek corridors, and where possible, within creek setback areas, (5) prohibiting the planting of invasive, non-native plants (such as Vinca major and Eucalyptus) within creek corridors or creek setbacks, and (6)avoiding tree removals within creek corridors hen Bete a pro riate b e Cit Arboris C. Provide recreation and public access near creeks consistent with this section and the Outdoor Recreation section. D. Utilize design, construction, and maintenance techniques that: 1. Preserve and enhance creek corridors; 2. Ensure that development near a creek will not cause, or make worse, natural hazards such as erosion, sedimentation, flooding, or water pollution; 3. Include erosion and sediment control practices such as: (1) turbidity screens and other management practices and (2) temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. These methods shall be used as necessary to minimize siltation, sedimentation, and erosion. Such erosion and sediment controls shall be left in place until disturbed areas are stabilized with permanent vegetation that will prevent the transport of sediment off site; and 4. Are consistent with the Scenic Resource Section of this Chapter. 4. The following guidelines will direct the City'-s creek maintenance activities unless the County or City has determined other action is necessary in response to an immediate danger to public health and safety: A. Prepare an initial environmental assessment for all proposed creek maintenance projects that involve (1) the use of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, or other poisons), (2) the removal a tree (at least 3 inches in diameter at a 4 1/2 foot height), or (3) the removal of riparian vegetation where a major portion of a bank is exposed. A five year creek maintenance program may be assessed as a creek maintenance project. B. Severely limit the use of herbicides, pesticides, or other poisons within creek corridors. When herbicides or other poisons are used they should be hand applied and only to the species identified appropriate to remove. pdosII.3.creeks - 26 - 12/22/93 Open Space Element C. Manage creek corridor vegetation to minimize flooding dangers, while providing riparian vegetation to minimize channel erosion. New plantings within creek corridors should be California native plants (trees, shrubs and groundcover) normally found in creek corridors. New plantings should be provided in natural appearing or random clusters. D. Require major creek maintenance projects in highly visible areas (such as Mission Plaza) to have review and approval by the agency deemed most appropriate by the Community Development Director. Policies Within the Greenbelt and the Outer Planning Area 1. Encourage the County and the State to protect creek corridors and riparian vegetation consistent with the City's policies within the Urban Reserve Line. County and State creek protection policies should recognize the needs of agriculturalists while still attempting to protect creeks and wetlands. Programs within the City limit Line. the Urban Reserve Line. the Greenbelt, and the Outer Planning Area 1. The City should: A. Assess all City-owned or controlled creeks to determine the level of creek restoration necessary. Once creek restoration needs have been assessed, the City should obtain monies (through grants and other means) to restore targeted creeks. The portions of Old Garden Creek that have been paved should be studied to determine the feasibility of g vortions of this creek. B. Adopt an ordinance that establishes standardized cree7setbacks, as well as alloweJand prohibited uses within creeks. Prohibited uses shouloth motorized andmotorized off-road vehicles. This ordinance shouldthat the creek co should not be utilized in determining site density and should address, to the feasible, riparian rights as they relate to creek protection. Exceptions for exstructures made nonconforming by the adoption of this ordinance shall be included ordinance and other City regulations regarding nonconforming structures consisten icy Le. of this Section. C. Amend the Land Use Element and zoning map to designate all creek corridors as open space (excluding creeks that are paved or culverted). Designate undeveloped flood prone areas adjacent to creeks as open space, interim open space, or parkland where it would be costly for the City to provide flood control or where major creek alterations would pdos11.3.creeks - 27 - 12/22/93 Open Space Element be necessary to develop the site.Designate such easement or dedication areas (as enumerated in a above) as open space. D. Designate easement or dedication areas on a map, maintained by the Community Development Department, which will show all open space easements and dedications. E. Promote rehabilitation and restoration of riparian vegetation or creek corridors through adoption of a creek ordinance. F. Assess the cumulative impact of persons removing water from local creeks and wetlands. Where water removal is detrimental to the creek or wetland's survival, inform the public of the long-term impact of water removal. 2. The City will work with and support the County Flood Control District - Zone 9, the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corp of Engineers, Cal Poly, other State agencies, and resource conservation organizations (such as the Nature Conservancy, or the Land Conservancy) to jointly develop a regional mitigation banking program. This program should: (a) provide mitigation banking for creeks, wetlands, and wildlife resources (plants and animals); (b) develop guidelines for replacement of such resources; (c) develop a mitigation fee for replacement of such resources; (d) establish an integrated system of habitat preserve areas on the basis that preservation of plants and animals requires the establishment of habitat areas larger than can be provided on individual properties, and because many habitat areas are at risk of being lost to urban encroachment; (e) specify buffer and setback distances which should apply to all public and private development activities that may affect creeks, wetlands, sensitive habitat, unique resources, or other resources determined important; and (f) identify funding for long-term stewardship of mitigation banking sites. 3. The City shall work with and encourage Cal Poly and the County to: A. Identify alternate funding sources for replanting creek corridor sections that have been degraded and are in need of creek restoration. Examples include Soil Conservation Service, Resource Conservation District, community organizations, and grant sources available from the California Department of Fish and Game. B. Develop educational brochures which discuss the care of (1) creeks, (2) wetlands, and (3) areas containing sensitive habitat or unique resources. These brochures should discuss the importance of these resources and ways of preventing resource degradation. The creek brochure should be distributed to all City and County residences which are adjacent to a creek. pdos11.3.creeks - 28 - 12/22/93 Open Space Element 4. The City shall encourage the County and Cal Poly to: A. Each adopt a creek setback ordinance and penalties for riparian vegetation removal. Adopted ordinances should cover lands within the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area (as applicable to that jurisdiction) and should be similar to City ordinances. B. Protect creek corridors through overlay zones or other methods. C. Require mining operations to provide adequate siltation and erosion control devices such that existing or proposed operations do not degrade local creeks or wetlands. D. Promote (through brochures or similar methods) limiting agricultural grading (including cultivation, farm roads, etc.) adjacent to or within creeks and wetlands, and livestock access within creeks and wetlands. Agricultural operations should be encouraged to protect riparian vegetation along creek corridors and restore creek corridors or other wetland areas that have been degraded due to past agricultural operations. pdosII.3.creeks -29 - 12/22/93 MARSHES, SEEPS, VERNAL POOLS, LAKES, PONDS, & SIMILAR WETLANDS OTHER THAN CREEKS POLICY GUIDE Refer to the following Section for background and other policies PRESERVE LAGUNA LAKE, THE LAGUNA RESTORE DEGRADED WETLANDS ON LAKE NATURE PRESERVE, AND THE LAND THE CITY OWNS. UNOCAL PROPERTY WETLANDS AS OPEN SPACE. WHEN 1) NO PRACTICABLE ENHANCE SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ALTERNATIVE EXISTS; OR 2) LOCATION NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY; OR 3) THE LOCATION IS NECESSARY FOR PROTECT WETLANDS FROM REPAIR OR CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT BY REQUIRING A INFRASTRUCTURE., WETLAND BUFFER. PRESERVE WETLANDS AND WETLAND IN SUCH CASES: BUFFERS AS OPEN SPACE AND MAINTAIN THESE AREAS INA NATURAL STATE. REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO : 1) MINIMIZE IMPACTS; 2) IMPLEMENT A MITIGATION AND REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO LOCATE MONITORING PLAN; OUTSIDE A WETLAND BUFFER AREA 3) PRESERVE WETLAND BUFFERS THROUGH EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS AND DESIGNATE THESE AREAS AS OPEN SPACE; 4) UTILIZE DESIGN AND EXCEPT: CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES THAT DO NOT CAUSE OR WORSEN NATURAL HAZARDS, PRESERVE OR ENHANCE WETLANDS, CONTROL EROSION, AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCENIC RESOURCES SECTION. pdosll.lcreeks -30 1222/93 Open Space Element K. OUTDOOR RECREATION Purpose The demand for recreation will continue to increase in the future. In fact, participation in recreation activities is anticipated to increase at a rate greater than population growth. In today's society, lack of time is the primary constraint preventing people from more frequently enjoying recreation.. Asa result of the need to minimize recreational travel time, coupled with ever-increasing demand, significant natural areas that offer activities such as hiking and nature appreciation near major population centers will continue to have ' considerable community appeal. The City of San Luis Obispo Park and Recreation = Element identifies goals, policies, and programs for parks and associated recreation facilities. It is not the purpose of the Open Space Element to duplicate the Park and Recreation Element. For more information regarding parks and recreation within the City of San Luis Obispo see the City's Park and Recreation p r Element. The purpose of this section is to discuss x'•. what recreation opportunities should be preserved as = ;= open space and the type of recreation that should exist t . on open space land. „. Community Goals A passive trail in Poly Canyon. Prese ex g com ti Create an integrated trail system that connects City open space lands to other public or private lands. Provide recrea onal ses tha are consisten wi e s ea ures anthe area's character. pdosII.3.recreatioo -77- 12/22/93 Open Space Element Provide multiple uses on open space lands (such as recreation, resource preservation, and watershed). Policies Within the Urban Reserve Line the City Limit Line the Greenbelt and the Outer Plannine Area 1. Within the city limits the City shall, and outside the city limits the City shall encourage the County and State to: A. Coordinate park, open space, recreation planning and development, including joint projects. B. Work with landowners and holders of utility easements to develop a system of natural resource open space corridors (some with trails where appropriate) that connect open space or recreational areas with other open space lands, parks, and trails. Trails should avoid sensitive habitat and neighbor issues. Trails and open space corridors should be acquired from a willing C. Utilize the crit:inTableIII and IV to determine where recreation should not occur, andwhen passive ecreation should be encouraged. [All criteria listed in Table IIImay not be apindividual project; however, general consistency should be useddetermine wed recreation is appropriate.] D. Require public or private development to locate development outside of designated park, recreation, or trail linkages unless: (1) no practicable alternative is available, (2)development in this area is necessary to protect public health and safety and proposed recreation would be incompatible with the public health and safety concern, or (3) other appropriate recreation or trail linkages are provided which maintain the quality of designated recreation or linkages. E. When financially feasible, including on-going operations and maintenance costs, require public and private development to combine recreation with hazard control measures. For example, provide trails as part of a bypass channel or airport buffer area, or recreation as part of a detention basins. F. Where recreation is required or proposed, require public or private development to: I. Locate active recreation within or contiguous to the URL (except for recreation proposed within El Chorro Regional Park and Cuesta Community College), and housing, hotels, or other commercial, residential, or industrial development associated with golf courses or resorts within the URL. pdoslUxecreation .78- 12/22/93 Open Space Element 2. Locate passive recreation such that: (A) site alterations are minimized; (B) adequate plantings occur to soften site alterations; (C) public access is restricted or limited in sensitive area (as necessary to protect sensitive habitat or to prevent erosion during the rainy season); and (D) efficient linkages are provided to proposed or existing trails or recreation areas. 3. Incorporate design, construction, and maintenance techniques that: (A) preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualities of open space, parkland, or the productivity of agricultural lands; (B) will not cause or make worse natural hazards; (C) include erosion and sediment control practices; and (D) minimize land use and neighborhood conflicts. 4. Design passive and active recreation that: (A) to the extent feasible, is accessible to all ages and abilities; (B) provides security and privacy to adjoining property; and (C) includes adequate support facilities. 5. Preserve passive recreation or active recreation areas: a. Through easements or dedications consistent with City, State, or County elements, trail plans, and ordinances. If recreation is proposed within an open space parcel, park site, or easement, allowed recreational uses and maintenance responsibilities within the parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. b. By designating preserved areas, or portions of preserved areas as: (1) open space if the area is used for passive recreation, (2) parkland if the area will be used for an active trail 'dor, (3) active recreation, (4) a golf course, botanical arden, or s' filar Uo r aspar 2. Creekside trials should not be established in existing, substantially developed_residential areas of .•, the City, where such trails could create a compatibility conflict with surrounding land uses. �a�are a!lowa6le else Wl�epe pdosII.3.recreation -79 - 12/22/93 (rid, Open Space Element (� TABLE III - RECREATION LOCATIONS In General, Prohibit: In General, provide passive In general, encourage active recreation on lands that are more recreation or an active trail rural or sensitive in character (assuming there are no (assuming there are no significant significant environmental, environmental, land use, or land use, or neighborhood neighborhood compatibility impacts), compatibility impacts or when such lands: inconsistencies): Recreation within creek Are public lands designated open Within the City's URL or rridlrs (except Mission space, or other lands where there is a contiguous to the URL where Plaza and Mission Placawilling provider; such property will have(or has) expansion areas), wetlands a parkland designation or a play (except portions of Laguna or recreation area is designated Lake and the wetland area as part of a development within Meadow Park), proposal; sensitive habitat, and similar sensitive areas; Rca igContain (or will contain) Within development projects or environmental impacts occur an open space or conservation subdivisions where active as a result of the proposed easement; recreation is needed to serve recreation, or the proposed that development; recreation would significantly mar the scenic quality of the site; Recreation if there are Have (or will have) their Along corridors that are suited significant neighborhood or development rights deeded to a public for active trails such as the land use compatibility agency, land conservancy, or similar Southern Pacific railroad right- impacts; or organization; or of-way, urban or major streets; or LActive recreation which is Are designated for such recreation by Consistent with City, County, within or contiguous toCity, County, or State plans, or State plans, elements, or URL (except EI Chorro elements, or ordinances. ordinances. k and Cuesta College). pdosI 3.recreadon -80 - 12/22/93 Open Space Element TABLE IV - RESOURCES & RECREATION RESOURCE PROHMrrED ENCOURAGED' COMMENTS Hills& Mountains Highly erosive areas, or where rt str Provide active recreation (such recreation would significantly trails or viewing stations. as a trail) in the case such mar the resource. recreation connects open space, parkland, or an active trail corridor. Creeks, Wetlands, Within creek corridors (except assive recreation within the ecreation such as viewing Sensitive Habitat, and Mission Plaza), within outer perimeter of a creek stations and nature study may Unique Resources wetlands (except Laguna lak setback or a habitat buffer. be appropriate within a creek Park and Meadow Park), corridor as long as protection sensitive habitat,unique of the creek corridor is resources, or similar areas. provided Crossings (such a trail bridge) may be provided in the creek corridor. Hazard Areas When recreation would Passive or active recreation Encourage recreation in hazard increase the hazard. where hazard control and areas where recreation recreation can both be facilities will not be damaged. beneficially provided. Historical Resources Where recreation will harm the Passive or active recreation Encourage interpretive resource. (depending on the nature displays near historical and use of the historical resources. resource). Mineral Resources Where recreation may Recreation after the land has represent a public health and been reclaimed. safety concern. AgricultumlLands Where active recreation would Passive or active trails that Passive recreation should not bisect an agricultural parcel or connect other open space, interfere with existing adjacent interfere with the agricultural parkland, or trail resources. agricultural operations. operation. Scenic Resources Where recreation would Passive recreation that is In scenic areas viewing significantly mar the resource. secondary to the scenic area stations may be appropriate. being preserved. Urban Edge Active recreation that is not Passive or active recreation contiguous to or within the contiguous or within the URL (except EI Chorro Park URL. and Cuesta College). 5Assuming the recreation would not result in a significant environmental impact, the project would be compatible with neighboring uses, and the recreation is not prohibited. pdosII3.recreation -81 - 12/22/93 Open Space Element Programs Within the Urban Reserpe line the City Limit Line the Greenbek and the Outer Planning Area 1. The City should: A. Work with the County and State to establish a program to encourage individual citizens, user groups, community organizations, schools, and local businesses to assist in trail security, development, maintenance, and restoration. B. Work with the County and State to establish consistent and compatible trail guidelines (such as surfacing, width, user types, and signage). C. Adopt an Urban Trails Plan to update the Urban Trails System Map contained in the 1982 Parks and Recreation Element. The trail plan should provide (1) potential trail locations and connections, (2)the feasibility of constructing such trails, (3)expected costs for trail construction and maintenance, and (4) project priorities. The Urban Trail Plan should emphasize urban area trails while still considering connections to trails within the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area. The Urban Trails Plan shall not include a creekside trail along San Luis Creek through the existing neighborhood between California Boulevard and State Highway 101. D. Develop a program for joint City/business or City/developer projects. These projects should provide community recreation and potentially revenue for City park and open space purchases or maintenance. For example, work with private developers to develop a golf course. Monies from this project (such as a "tee off tax") should be utilized for open space or park purchases. E. Update the Park and Recreation Element. This update should consider the following sites as parkland with potential open space areas: 1. Mission Plaza and its expansion areas (see site#14, Site Map). Mission Plaza should not be considered a typical creek area. Although this area should include protected natural areas (including some riparian vegetation clusters) and adequate creek setback areas for commercial/residential structures, Mission Plaza should allow public access along the setback area and into portions of the creek. Benches, picnic areas, and other similar park facilities should be allowed within the setback area. Interpretive displays should be located within Mission Plaza documenting (1) the history of Mission Plaza, and (2) the importance of creek resources. Buildings should not pdosHJ.recreaaon -92- 1/18/94 Open Space Element overhang the setback or cause the setback area to be dark or uninviting. Expansion of this facility should not result in significant biological impacts and should allow for the maintenance of existing habitat value as well as humanenjoyment. If impacts occur in these areas, habitat values shall be replaced on-site or off-site (in-kind only) at a 2:1 ratio. 2. Murray Street pedestrian and tree corridor located on Murray Street (between Santa Rosa and Broad Street) (see site #15, Site Map). This trail and tree corridor should be designated as a linear park. 3. Southern Pacific Property located adjacent to Sinsheimer Park (see site #16, Site Map). This 6.6 acre parcel should be considered as open space or additional parkland due to its topography and its location adjacent to the railroad corridor and Sinsheimer Park. 4. Trail corridors in expansion area (see sites marked "E.A.", Site Map). Trail corridors and/or open space corridors should be provided in City expansion areas consistent with an approved specific plan, the Land Use Element Update, or the creation of a specific plan. Corridors should provide pedestrian access within the expansion area, and pedestrian access to contiguous commercial areas, trails, or parkland. 5. Southern Pacific Trail Corridor (see site#17, Site Map). This trail corridor along the Southem.Pacific railroad lines should be used as an active trail corridor. In addition, because of the railroad's historical importance to the town, interpretive displays should be provided along the trail once it is built. 6. Nipomo Street-Higuera Street Parking Lot (see site#18, Site Map). This City-owned property on the intersection's northeast comer should remain open and eventually reused as a public garden or passive park due to the views on this site and its location adjacent to Mission Plaza. 7. Garden Street Linear Park (see site #19, Site Map). The section of Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh Street should be redesigned for one-way traffic. Related pedestrian improvements, seating, park-type landscaping, and benches should be installed. pdosn.3.rerreation -93- 1118194 Open Space Element F. Include as a part of the Park and Recreation Element update: 1. Direction that the City work with the County to identify potential golf course sites within and outside the URL. 2. A policy to work with and support the County and State to encourage regional and community parks and facilities such as golf courses to utilize reclaimed water for landscaped areas. 3. Direction that regional and community parks, golf courses, and similar projects should (1) utilize primarily native plants while minimizing turf area; and (2) provide a water conservation plan prior to project approval. The water conservation plan shall be updated every five years, and shall detail water supply and demand for the facility during drought and non-drought years. Contained in other Elemen 1. For guidelines regarding specific parks see the Park and Recreation Element. pdosH.3.recreatioa -94- 1/18/94 Open Space Element pdosII.lrecreation -85- 12/22/93 URBAN EDGE POLICY GUIDE Refer to the following Urban Edge Section for background and other poicies. WORK WITH AND ENCOURAGE WORK WITH AND ENCOURAGE THE THE COUNTY TO ACHEIVE WELL COUNTY TO MAINTAIN A DEFINED AND COMPACT URBAN GREENBELT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COMMUNITIES SEPARATED BY NEARBY COMMUNITIES ASA PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL MEANS OF MAINTAINING THE LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCES, IDENTITY OF EACH COMMUNITY. AND RURAL LANDS. MAINTAIN THE GREENBELT AND WORK WITH AND ENCOURAGE THE OUTER PLANNING AREA STATE AND THE COUNTY TO LOCATE PRIMARILY FOR RURAL USES, URBAN USES WITHIN THE URBAN AGRICULTURE, WATERSHED, RESERVE LINE AND TO LOCATE AND AS A SEPARATOR BETWEEN SUBURBAN USES WITHIN THE URBAN COMMUNITIES. COUNTY'S VILLAGE RESERVE LINES. WORK WITH AND ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVE IMPORTANT NATURAL STATE AND COUNTY TO NOT URBAN EDGES SUCH AS CREEK ALLOW MAJOR EXPANSIONS OF CORRIDORS, HILLS, MOUNTAINS, THE CITY'S URBAN RESERVE LINE. AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AND SCENIC AREAS. REQUIRE MINOR EXPANSIONS OF THE URBAN RESERVE LINE TO SECURE A BUFFER OF OPEN SPACE OR AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LAND ADJOINING BUT OUTSIDE THE URBAN RESERVE LINE. REQUIRE URBAN USES ADJACENT TO THE URL TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 50 FOOT BUFFER WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY AS A TRANSITION TO OPEN SPACE OR GREENBELT AREAS UNLESS THE TRANSITION AREA IS DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THIS ELEMENT. pdoslUxecreation -86- 12/22/93 Open Space Element Open Space see Appendix A for the City's definition of open space. Outer Planning Area is the land outside the City's greenbelt but within the County's designated pe ' IP11J11lann' (s igure Passive Recreation means low-intensity recreational activities such as hiking, bird atching, nature photography, trails, individual picnic areas, nature study, viewing stations, interpretive areas, and milar uses. Perennial creeks are creeks that flow at least six months of the year. On the Creek Map and on U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute quadrangles, perennial creeks are designated as a solid blue line. Physical Top of bank means where the more eroded natural creek slope or the slope resulting from a creek alteration flattens to conform with the terrain not cut by water flow within the creek channel. If the bank is terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any intermediate step. In some cases where the top of bank is not apparent, the top of bank on the other side of the creek, the extent of riparian vegetation, and the 100-year flood line(among other variables) will determine the top of bank lqcatiog..Sm-EiureiL 1111 Ldevelopment's e alternative shall mean (1) the project's basic purpose could still be accomplished either redesign or a reduction in massing, scale, or density, or (2) if changes are required to the esign, scale, or density, reasonable use of the subject property could still occur. Reasonable property in the case of new development may include less development then indicated by the case of additional development on an already developed site, reasonable development that no additional development is reasonable considering site constraints and the existing nt's scale, design, or density. iiiiiiiiii1ilL AL Prime farmland is the land that is best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It must either be used for producing food or fiber or-be available for these uses. It has the soil quality, length of growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce a sustained high yield crops when it is managed properly. Prime farmland commonly has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation (as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo, CA, 1984). Programs are actions which the City intends to take in pursuit of its goals and policies. Proposed endangered and threatened species are those taxa for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register, but not a final rule. Rare species are taxa not necessarily threatened with extinction, but which occur in such small numbers that they may become endangered if their environment worsens. . Restoration is the process of returning a resource to a more natural state. Restoration includes planting vegetation native to that area, removing wildlife barriers, removing debris and trash, pdosv.3 Def-5 12/22/93