Landwatch San Luis Obispo County position on the county COSE

• Share

Provided here for public information is the Landwatch San Luis Obispo County position on the County Conservation and open space element or COSE. The COSE is in draft form and solicited public comment.
It is thoughtfully researched, written and based on the Law.
Landwatch San Luis Obispo County is a non-profit organization working to promote sound land use legislation and resource protection in San Luis Obispo County FOR THE PEOPLE.

February 27, 2009

San Luis Obispo County
Department of Planning and Building
1050 Monterey Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408

Attn: James Caruso, Senior Planner
Chuck Stevenson, AICP, Division Manager, Long Range Planning

Subject: Public Review Draft of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
File #LRP2006-0001
Below are the comments of LandWatch San Luis Obispo County on the County’s draft conservation and open space element.

Two overarching issues emerge from the comments below.

First is the fact that the draft COSE has been produced in a total void of current resource data. Second, the draft COSE amounts to a wish list. It offers no legally binding commitments proposed for adoption that would limit the discretion of decision makers to act within the mandates of the goals and policies set forth.

Current resource data – up to date, comprehensive identification and mapping of resources upon which effective goals, policies, and implementing plans must be based – do not exist.

How can wetlands possibly be protected if they are not identified on a map? “Requiring” developers to identify wetlands and other resources in development applications – as is actually proposed multiple times in the draft COSE – obviously does not protect resources or implement smart growth. It hands the siting of development and the fate of public resources to developers with personal economic interests in development of the land.

This lack of resource data and mapping has resulted in the authorization of development by development resource identification by developers and in the lack of legally binding commitments to goals, policies, and plans that are supported and generated by accurate resource data.

Because of the lack of legally binding commitments, the actual carrying out of goals and policies remains discretionary. For example, whether to impose TDM measures remains discretionary and there is no legally binding obligation on the decision makers to compel new multi-family developments to include TDM measures. And there is no legally binding obligation on the decision makers to reduce greenhouse gases.

Actually reducing greenhouse gases, sustaining healthy ecosystems, preserving cultural resources, building sustainable energy resources, protecting people and the environment from adverse effects of mining activities, preserving and restoring open spaces, preserving prime soils, protecting visual resources, and ensuring a clean and sustainable water supply are not carried by the draft COSE. These essential goals will only be realized by adoption of clearly articulated, measurable, legally binding commitments either by way of adoption of specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and project consistency requirements within the COSE or the commitment to adopt specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and project consistency requirements.

LandWatch San Luis Obispo County asks you, our elected and appointed officials and County staff, to revise the draft COSE to enable it to set the course for proper siting of urban development, appropriate use of resources, and long term protection of public resources. These are the planning tools, and now is the time.

The task, like those being undertaken by our federal administration, is gravely important and will pose challenges but is doable with proper leadership.

LandWatch asks you to use your authority to initiate and direct the comprehensive collection and mapping of the County’s resources and conditions and, once that data base is complete, to apply those baseline conditions and resource identifications, descriptions, and maps to the formation of legally binding commitments within the conservation and open space element that will effectively guide and determine smart development and resource protection in the long term.

The comments below are meant to apply broadly where applicable to the draft conservation and open space element with examples pulled from individual chapters. All references are to the Government Code unless otherwise noted.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Hawley
LandWatch San Luis Obispo County

Overall the draft conservation and open space element lacks current data and analyses of current data on which relevant, effective and legally binding goals, policies and implementation plans can be based.

Meaningful policies that guide the long-term development of the County must be based on collection, inventorying, and analyses of current, relevant data. LandWatch points out that the policies, goals and implementation devises in the draft conservation and open space element are not built on or responsive to current data and analyses. The draft COSE contains no such analyses as foundations for the recommended goals, policies, and implementation plans. Instead, many of the policies themselves are mere suggestions to wait until some future date to collect the necessary baseline data.

How can wetlands be preserved and protected from proposed development if they are not comprehensively identified and delineated on overlay maps? If the location and condition of wetlands are not known, how can policies, land use plans, development restrictions and land use designations be established to conserve wetlands in the conservation and open space elements? How can development be directed away from sensitive resources including wetlands until a comprehensive mapping of all resources has been developed and the condition and sustainability of each wetland has been analyzed in relation to its watershed system?

Until such a data base is established for all resources and are reflected in legally binding mechanisms including open space designations, land use decisions will continue to be made development by development, based on resource data provided by each developer to serve the interests of the developer.

The brightest line example of the lack of relevant current data and analyses is the antiquated 1984 North Coast Area Plan.

In 1998 the Coastal Commission listed the changes that had occurred in the North Coast Area since the 1984 including population growth and significant new development, limits to the capacities of creeks to provide water, the listing of new threatened species, designation of the San Simeon fault, establishment of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and discovery of new archeological sites.

Basically unchanged since it was written in 1984, the North Coast Area Plan entirely lacks current identification of resources and existing environmental conditions needed to develop the goals, policies, and plans reflective of these changes. The 1984 land use designations remain to this day.

The conservation and open space element should acknowledge that the North Coast Area Plan and all other antiquated area plans are inconsistent with the rest of the general plan including the COSE because they are antiquated, ineffective, and inadequate. In order to ensure that the required consistency with the COSE and other general plan elements is forthcoming, the COSE should set a timeline for update of the North Coast Area Plan and any other antiquated area plans.

In addition, to protect the spectacular and rare resources in the North Coast Area in particular and to maintain consistency with the goals and policies of the COSE until an updated plan is in place, the COSE should forestall approval of any land use permits including lot line adjustments and changes in zoning until the North Coast Area Plan is adopted and certified by the Coastal Commission. The COSE should also specify the need for a specific plan for all development planned by the Hearst Corporation on its properties so the specific plan can be developed along with the North Coast Area Plan update and reflect the goals, policies, and plans of the COSE.

The conservation and open space element must not officially establish the mechanism by which developer’s consultants decide whether protected resources exist or do not exist on the land to be developed.

In lieu of the comprehensive collection, mapping, and evaluation of resource data as the bases for policies and ordinances that govern development, developer-generated resource data for development by development decision making is officially established by policies in the draft COSE. For example, biological resource goal 5 that “wetlands will be preserved” requires via policy BR5.1 that development will be required to “avoid wetlands and provide upland buffers. Implementation strategy BR 5.1.1 requires the developer to delineate any jurisdictional wetlands and to demonstrate compliance with wetland policies.

Similarly, biological resource goal 1 that threatened, rare, endangered, and sensitive species “will be protected” is implemented by strategy BR 2.6.1 which requires the developer to provide a biological resource survey “when needed” as part of the permit application for discretionary projects and land divisions. Directly frustrating the purposes of the policies to protect public resources, these and other “implementation strategies” leave it up to the developer to decide whether a wetland or other resource exists on the land to be developed and, consequently, whether that resource will be protected or sacrificed for the individual interests of the developer. As discussed below, such “frustrating” implementation strategies are inconsistent with the policies they are supposed to carry out and are unlawful under general plan law requiring internal consistency within the general plan.

Identification and delineation of protected resources by developers on a project by project basis not only undermines the entire purpose of resource protection goals and policies – it amounts to an evasion and unlawful delegation of the County’s duty to carry out the statutory planning processes. The County is the land use planning agency charged with duty to legislate and implement long range plans for the development, protection, and use of the County’s lands and resources. Identification and mapping of those resources is the first step in the planning process and must not be delegated to self-interested developers.

Resources must be objectively identified by the County for the benefit of the public welfare and must be mapped and analyzed to provide baseline data for development of goals, policies, and implementation plans and for identification of open space lands to be protected.

Identification of resources is not a policy.

In some areas the draft conservation and open space element establishes the policy to identify resource data. For example, biological resource policy 1 is to “[I]dentify and protect ecologically sensitive areas” implemented in part by a “… county wide vegetation classification and mapping project. Biological resource policy 1.11 requires the identification of connected habitat areas for wildlife movement and is implemented by the identification and development of a database for key wildlife corridors.

Identification of ecologically sensitive areas and mapping of vegetation is not a policy. Identification and mapping of all resources and recording the current conditions of resources are the raw materials, the baseline data required for analyses on which legally binding policies and implementation plans for conservation, development and use of those resources can be based.

Goals and policies that require identification of resources and current conditions should be eliminated.

After all resources and current conditions have been identified and mapped, the combined conservation and open space element should introduce and adopt, and/or require for adoption, legally binding policies and ordinances that designate new open space lands needed to protect and guide the use of those resources.

The reason for combining the conservation and open space elements would be to weave into one document the already interconnected functions of the two mandatory elements. However, LandWatch sees no evidence that the functions are combined. For example, one evident and major benefit from joining the documents would be to designate new open space lands based on the comprehensive identification and mapping of resource values.

Conditions in this county are undergoing constant change, unseen before in history. For example, expanded populations, development of new industrial and urban land uses, pressures to develop productive agricultural land, water shortages, and burgeoning traffic congestion have increased the need for open space designations to zone for smart growth, provide transportation corridors, protect watershed lands for recharge of groundwater basins, to protect habitats for wildlife and fisheries from the pressures of development and waste disposal, and to guide development away from agriculture land and newly identified earthquake fault lines. These, along with open space designations for protection of oak woodlands and designations of open space land for sand and gravel are immediately needed.

Even in the face of these urgent needs for identification and dedication of open space to respond to changing and expanding urban and rural conditions, the draft COSE makes no mention of the need for identification, designation, and zoning of new open space lands.

The County should include in this open space element update a comprehensive identification, mapping, and evaluation of lands to be legally designated as open space lands needed currently to protect the resource values.

Right in this document – amend the policies and implementing ordinances that make those designations. And, in order to ensure that all open space lands are put to the uses and protected according to their open space values, the COSE should specify the types of land use that are intended to comprise each designated open space as is strongly suggested in the General Plan Guidelines at page 82. As part of the COSE, Table O should be amended to reflect these land use designations. The time is now.

Carrying out the goals and objectives requires establishing baseline carrying capacities.

According to the General Plan Guidelines Glossary, the term “carrying capacity” is:

Used in determining the potential of an area to absorb development:
1. The level of land use, human activity, or development for a specific area that can be accommodated permanently without an irreversible change in the quality of air, water, land, or plant and animal habitats.

2. The upper limits of development beyond which the quality of human life, health, welfare, safety, or community character within an area will be impaired.
3. The maximum level of development allowable under current zoning.

It is impossible to develop legally binding and effective goals, policies and implementing plans and ordinances for protection any of the resources addressed in the draft conservation and open space element without first determining what levels of development can be accommodated without irreversible changes in those resources. LandWatch requests that the draft COSE be revised to include determinations of carrying capacities so that goals, policies and implementing plans are developed that reflect those carrying capacities.

Goals and policies are frustrated by, and inconstant with their own “implementation strategies” that render the goals and policies meaningless in violation of general plan requirement for internal consistency.

Rather than being carried out by implantation strategies, in some cases otherwise strong goals and policies are instead frustrated and rendered meaningless by their “implementation strategies”. For example, biological resource goal 3 declares that “[W]oodlands, forests, and trees will be protected and enhanced.” At first glance a person who loves trees may give a sigh of relief in the belief trees will be protected and enhanced as stated. But when it gets to implementation strategy BR 3.2.1 it’s obvious that these trees will not be protected because when it is not “feasible” for a development to avoid damage to native specimen trees, tree replacement will do – even though replacement of native specimen trees is obviously impossible. The implementing strategy is thus inconsistent with the goal it is intended to carry out.

Another example is BR goal 1 which unambiguously states that native habitat and biodiversity will be protected and enhanced. This goal is entirely frustrated by implementation strategy BR 2.6.1 that leaves the biological survey of special status animal and plant species and their habitats to the developer’s biologist, by BR 2.6.2 that allows preservation or enhancement of similar habitat where it’s not “feasible” for the development to “avoid” special status species, and by BR 2.6.4 that allows participation in “habitat banking” and transfer of development credits as an alternative to habitat protection. The very plans that are supposed to implement the goal are inconsistent with it because instead of carrying out the goal they actually render it meaningless instead.

The law requires at §65302 that general plan elements must state policies and must set forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The conservation element is “… for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources”, not the evasion of it. The law requires at §65560 that open space is designated for preservation of natural resources, for managed production of resources, for outdoor recreation, and for public health and safety.

General plan law requires internal consistency. (§65300.5) The draft COSE is internally inconsistent to the extent that the stated goals are contradicted and frustrated by policies and policies are contradicted and frustrated by the objectives and implementing plans or strategies. The County should revise the draft conservation and open space element so that all implementing plans and strategies are consistent with the goals and policies they are intended to implement.

The policies within the draft conservation and open space element do not
bring about effective implementation required by Government Code §65561(c).

Government Code 65561(c) is a policy which states as follows:

The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
…..
(c) That the anticipated increase in the population of the state demands that cities, counties, and the state at the earliest possible date make definite plans for the preservation of valuable open-space land and take positive action to carry out such plans by the adoption and strict administration of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations as authorized by this chapter or by other appropriate methods. (Emphases added)

The government code makes it clear that the mandate is to carry out open space plans, not to stop at adopting unimplemented goals and policies. Section 65564 entitled “implementation” states that:

Every local open-space plan shall contain an action program consisting of specific programs which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing is open-space plan.

Carrying out the preservation and use of resources by way of open space designations is, as repeated in the ongoing theme of these comments, dependant on the identification and mapping of those resources and of the open-space lands on which those resources are found. Nothing can be done to take positive action to carry out plans to conserve and use resources and to establish needed open-space land until all such resources and lands have been identified and mapped.

Presumably as a result of this absence of baseline date upon which effective implementation can be founded, many of the policies have no definite legally binding plans and specific programs as required by sections 65561(c) and 65564.

“A good plan goes to waste if it isn’t implemented” – whatever happened to “shall”?

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research “General Plan Guidelines” makes it clear (p. 149) “A good plan goes to waste if it isn’t implemented” by regulations such as specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and project consistency requirements. As noted above, sections 65561(c) and 65564 require implementation plans that carry out the conservation and open space elements adoption and strict administration of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.

“Should” is a powerful word that allows the pressures of urban sprawl to evade and overwhelm protection of resources.

A policy unimplemented by laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that something should be done is just good intention. A policy that I should exercise more gives me the warm feeling of good intentions but allows me to evade actual exercise. Should provides the wiggle room for me to have drinks with my friends after work instead of going to yoga or walking. A policy that the County “should enable convenient and efficient use of transportation alternatives” provides the good feeling that we are a progressive county with good intentions but, bottom line, embeds the wiggle room, the discretion to never write and adopt the land use ordinances needed to actually do the job.

An implementation strategy that new multi-family projects should include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures (AQ 1.2.1 b) does not commit to anything and does not implement anything. Whether to impose TDM measures remains discretionary and there is no legally binding obligation on the decision makers to compel new multi-family developments to include TDM measures. And there is no legally binding obligation on the decision makers to reduce greenhouse gases.

LandWatch requests that the County refine the suggestions into “shall” commitments to adopt identified specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and project consistency requirements or – better yet – to provide the implementing specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and project consistency requirements for adoption in the COSE update.

Agricultural lands are open space by definition and should be included in the open space element where open space requirements must be applied.

Government Code §65560 defines open space land as:

“…any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in this section, and which is designated on alocal, regional or state open space plan as any of the following:
…..
(2) Open space used for the managed production of resources, including … agricultural lands …”

Agricultural land is by definition open space. LandWatch is concerned that agricultural lands are not included in the Open Space Resources chapter and are not included in the provisions for open space protection in the element. No clear reason for separation of agricultural land from the open space element is provided and it is not evident that the remaining agricultural element will perform the functions required by the open space element as to agricultural lands.

Open space designation of agricultural lands is the statutory method provided for comprehensive managed production of agricultural resources. This comprehensive management of agricultural production should not be given up or diminished by pulling agricultural lands out of the open space element and LandWatch requests that the COSE be revised to include agricultural lands in the open space element.

Lands designated as open space should not be used for disposal of bio-solids.

By definition (§65560) open space lands are dedicated to open space uses and are designated as open space for preservation of natural resources, for managed production of resources, for outdoor recreations, and for public health and safety. State policy (§65561) establishes that preservation of open space land is necessary for maintaining the states economy and for the “… continued availability of land for production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources.

Consistent with this definition, open space goal 2 states that open space resources on public lands will be protected and sustained.

Policy OS 2.5 and its implementation strategy contradict both the policy and the government code in that they open the door to degradation of open space lands by allowing disposal of bio-solids. Application of treated sewage to open space lands will not preserve open space land. LandWatch recommends that open space policy 2.5 should be deleted as detrimental to open space lands and as inconsistent with other general plan provisions and other goals and policies for protection of open space lands.

The goal of protecting significant marine resources is not “fully implemented by policies and programs in the County’s certified Local Coastal Program.”

Goal 7 to protect significant marine resources is qualified by the statement that the goal is “… fully implemented by policies and programs in the County’s certified Local Coastal Program”. However, no specific parts of the LCP are cited to back up this statement or incorporated by reference into the draft COSE.

The fact is that little or no data on marine habitats, resident plant and animal species, and on migratory corridors and migratory species exist in the certified Local Coastal Program. The North Coast Area Plan, for example, is entirely antiquated because, among other things, it contains no current data on biological resources and no data on marine resources. It is impossible to protect “significant marine resources” without knowing what marine resources are designated as “significant”, where those resources exist, what condition they are in, what conditions they require for sustainability, what habitat they require, and how that habitat is impacted by development, among other things.

Objectives, policies, and implementation plans for protection of marine resources can be developed only upon the foundation of a complete inventory and mapping of ecosystems, habitats, and species, analyses of the environmental requirements of those resources for sustainability, and identification of effective development restrictions that will ensure protection.

The idea that the County “… should continue to advocate sound … coastal protection policies and oppose proposals along … the coastline that are inconsistent with the County’s Local Coastal Program” (Policy BR 7.1) is empty of meaning. It is only a policy to advocate policies, and a policy to oppose development that is already against the law as inconsistent with the LCP.

In addition, to “[S]upport efforts … on lands to keep Chorro Creek, Los Osos Creek, and other watercourses free of excessive sediment and other pollutants” falls short of reducing sediment and pollutant transport to coastal waters. (Policy BR 7.4) Policies to reduce sedimentation and other pollution in coastal creeks must be based on “… sound ecologic principles and should recognize the relationships among natural communities and the importance of the natural environment in land use planning.” (General Plan Guidelines p. 76)

Among many other suggestions for data and analyses within a conservation element (pages 76-80), the Guidelines state the need for comprehensive inventories of resources including examination of existing quality of waters, identification of areas subject to soil erosion using data from the Natural Resources and Conservation Service, and identification of existing and planned development in flood plains. It is upon such data and analyses that the County can and must exercise its land use decisionmaking powers to develop, among other things, land use designations and combining designation overlay maps to ensure that the County’s creeks and watercourses are protected from development that would cause sedimentation and pollution.

The County is the local agency charged with the power to determine land use and to protect the public health, safety and welfare through land use decisions. This power can not be delegated and where keeping creeks free of sedimentation and pollution is an articulated necessity for protection of public trust waters, the County must not sidestep its duty by limiting its role to supporting the efforts of others to reduce sedimentation. The County must assume full responsibility to reduce sedimentation and pollution by development of effective, data-based policies and ordinances and by strictly applying those policies and ordinances to its land use decisions.

The section on water resources must be prepared in coordination with water agencies.

Government code §65302(d) requires:

That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies which have developed, served, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the county or city agencies for which the plan is prepared.

This coordination must include discussion and evaluation of water supply and demand information provided to the County pursuant to Government Code §65352.5 and must be provided by water agencies upon notice of the County’s proposed action to substantially amend the general plan. The expressed legislative intent of this section is to:

“ …. provide a standardized process for determining the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on these water supplies.”

Together these sections show the close association between the conservation element and the regional water supply coordination required by state law and the importance of the legislature’s intent to coordinate land use planning and development with California’s water supplies. According to §65352.5(c), the information that must, as relevant, be provided to the County by all water agencies in the unincorporated area includes:

1. Current urban water management plan;
2. Current capital improvement plan under Water Code 31144.73;
3. Description of sources of total available water supply “… taking into account historical data concerning west,normal, and dry runoff years;
4. Description of the quantity of surface water purveyed in the previous five years;
5. Description of quantity of groundwater purveyed in the previous five years;
6. Description of all proposed additional sources of water including estimated dates of availability and proposed quantities;
7. Description of total number of current customers by category;
8. Quantification of reductions in demand as identified in the urban water management plan; and,
9. Additional information relevant to determining adequacy of existing and planned supplies.

According to the General Plan Guidelines prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (p. 75), the conservation element is to establish policies that reconcile conflicting demands on resources such as water. There is no current data or discussion of current data on water availability, demand, and planned new water sources in the conservation element upon which relevant policies and implementation plans can be based.

To fulfill the purpose of the conservation element in terms of water resources, the County must obtain and analyze current data from all water purveyors as the bases for policies and implementation plans.

Comments on specific issues.

Approval of desalination as a way to expand water supplies is inconsistent with the COSE. Water Policy 1.2 to expand desalination opportunities states that desalination projects “will balance water supply needs with potential effects on biological resources, especially marine resources” has no clear meaning.

The policy is inconsistent with goals for biological resources which require protection of native habitat and biodiversity, require protection of threatened, rare, endangered, and sensitive species, require protection of fisheries and aquatic habitats, and require protection of “significant” marine resources. It is not possible to meet these requirements without adopting, or making specific commitments to adopt identified specific plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and project consistency requirements that will govern the siting, design, intake systems, and discharge systems including allowable volumes and composition of discharge of desalination plants.

Carrying out the policies, goals, and implementation strategies for protection of marine biological resources means starting from the beginning, as discussed at other places in these comments, to identify and inventory species, ecosystems and habitat areas and the requirements for protecting healthy species, ecosystems and habitats. Just as we have identified and distinguished the characteristics of estuaries, wetlands, and riparian areas, we must now identify and distinguish the characteristics of the underwater ecosystems and habitats. Just as we have identified plant and animal species and determined the environmental needs of plants and animals on land, we must now do the same for the plants and animals that live under the surface of the ocean before we begin to develop desalination plants that rely on discharge of toxic effluent into the sea.

Consistency with requirements for protection of biodiversity of marine ecosystems, habitats, and species requires the first step of building the baseline data, developing the essential knowledge of species and system requirements, and adopting appropriate mandatory regulations prior to permitting desalination plants.

LandWatch suggests that to maintain internal consistency, the County must adopt an implementation strategy to the effect that:

Prior to approval of coastal development permits for desalination facilities, a specific plan shall be prepared and adopted that includes policy statements, regulations, criteria, standards, and ordinances for siting and development of desalination facilities. The policy statements, regulations, criteria, standards and ordinances shall be based on comprehensive baseline environmental data and analyses of effects of intake system and effluent discharge on the identified ecosystems, habitats, and plant and animal species.

Sand and gravel mining should be addressed. Government Code §65302(d)(6) provides that the County may include in the conservation element “[T]he location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources.” Immediate demands for new sand and gravel mining in the Salinas River watershed system threaten the biological and hydrological systems posed by degradation of water quality and undetermined downstream erosion and sedimentation and the destruction of habitats and species. The conservation and open space element should require development of a watershed-wide specific plan for future mines based on a watershed-wide analysis of data. The COSE should implement the goal of watershed protection by prohibiting additional permitting of new and expansion of existing sand and gravel mines until the sand and gravel mining specific plan is adopted.

Reduction of greenhouse gases requires legally binding measures. While the draft COSE provides goals for reducing greenhouse gases, the “shalls” are still missing in the policies and implementation strategies. For example, air quality policy 1.6 mirrors its 1974 counterpart by calling for a transportation system that “should enable convenient and efficient use of transportation alternatives” and “should also provide multi-modal transfer sites that incorporate auto, bike parking, transit, pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as park and ride pickup points.”

LandWatch points out that implementation strategies must be carried out if the goals and policies are to be realized. For example, the current conservation element adopted in 1974 states on page 33:

Facilities for low-polluting transport systems should be initiated. Public and private mass transport systems should be promoted.

The County might be a different place today if “should” had been replaced by “shall”, and if the “shall” had been backed up with specific ordinances that “shall” be adopted and actual new funding sources such as increased sales tax or bed tax were implemented. Identification of “possible funding sources” does not ensure implementation.

The general plan is the mandatory constitution for future development of the County.

The general plan is the long term plan for the physical development of the County (§653000). The general plan is required and according to the California Supreme Court, the general plan is the constitution for future development. State law requires that subdivisions, capital improvements, development agreements, zoning, specific plans and many other land use actions must be consistent with all elements of the County’s general plan. The conservation and open space elements are both mandatory components of the general plan designed to provide specific directions related to conservation and use of resources and land.

The conservation element is the long term plan for “… the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.” (Government Code §65302(d)) At page 76 the General Plan Guidelines (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) clarify that “[E]valuating and quantifying … natural resources, including the condition and sustainability of natural resources systems, is necessary for the preparation of a comprehensive conservation element.”

Thus, the conservation element is a long term plan for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources based on evaluations of the locations, quantities, conditions, and sustainability of each resource.

The open space element is broad in scope and contains provisions for implementation of other required elements such as the land use element, conservation element and safety element. According to statute at §65560(b), “open space” is defined as any unimproved parcel or area of land or water that is dedicated to open space use. These uses include recreation, protection of natural resources, managed production of resources, and protection of public health and safety.

Last 5 posts by anne

• Landwatch San Luis Obispo County position on the Hearst Corp Request for lot line adjustment
• "...County officials in San Diego recently gave the Palomar Mountain volunteer fire department a grant to buy gel that residents can spray on their homes."
• Public Information Requests
• About the "Community Park"
• Joint Use Agreement between County and CCSD for Acquisition of Community Park

This post was submitted by anne.