mitigation to reduce VMT where appropriate. We look forward to reviewing those project -level documents and providing comment on relevant mitigation options.
Considering the impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, travelers with disabilities, and transit users, as well as countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases is important. Access for pedestrians and bicyclists to transit facilities must be maintained and where possible improved. Caltrans encourages the use of TDM strategies that increases the efficiency of the transportation system by providing options for users other than driving alone, or by shifting travel away from peak periods to help lower VMT.
The DEIR acknowledges the expected increase in VMT from the GP/ LCP Update has the potential to impact pedestrian and bicycle travel. The GP/ LCP Update seeks to address those impacts with goals and policies to improve safety, access, and performance of a multimodal system.
Caltrans District 5 has recently completed its Active Transportation Plan. The plan identifies bicycle and pedestrian needs on, across, and parallel to the State Highway System (SHS) throughout California's Central Coast. Partnership with transportation stakeholders and the public are critical to supporting a safe transportation network and promoting healthy communities. We encourage communication between our agencies regarding future pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The main deliverable of the plan is the prioritized list of Location Based Needs (LBN's)(available at https://www.catplan.orq/district-5) . This prioritized list can be utilized to identify high priority needs areas for new projects.
In addition to the Caltrans District 5 Active Transportation Plan we recommend including in the transportation chapter's regulatory setting discussion the following documents: US 101 Santa Maria to San Luis Obispo Multimodal Corridor Plan (2021) and the 2021 Director's Policy on Complete Streets (DP -37).
Caltrans requests to be included in any future public noticing regarding this project to allow us to prepare for and participate in the public process.
We look forward to coordinating with the City on future projects. If you have any questions, or need further clarification on items discussed above, please contact me at (805) 835-6432 or Jenna.Schudson©dot.ca.gov.
JENNA SCHUDSON
Development Review Coordinator
Caltrans District 5, LDR South Branch
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability"
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
2/10/26, 6:17 PM FW: Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update - Jason Montague - Outlook Letter IIII
From: Graulty, William@CaIOES
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 3:13 PM
To: Cindy Jacinth
Cc: Raether, Constantin@CaIOES ; CaIOES Mitigation
Planning
Subject: Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update External Email
Hello,
The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team has taken the time to review the proposed updates/changes to your General Plan. Government Code 65302(g) (8) states "before preparing or revising its Safety Element, each city and county shall consult.... the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department."
The Cal OES Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team reviews and compares your current Safety Element hazards against those listed in the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
approved San Luis Obispo County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Our office has reviewed your proposed Safety Element and found no substantive changes to your hazard profiles when compared against the most recent FEMA-approved San Luis Obispo County Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Please reach out to our office at mitigationplanning©caloes.ca.gov if you have any further questions or need additional assistance, including AB 2140 compliance.
Kind regards,
William Graulty
Office Technician
Hazard Mitigation Planning Division
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
4-1
about:blank?windowld=SecondaryReadingPane28 2/3
2/10/26, 6:17 PM FW: Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update - Jason Montague - Outlook Cal OES
GO4!ER18DR"S OFFICE
Of IMI*wICY *ER4fCE9
Office: (916) 328-7874
Cell: (916) 247-4057
[email protected]
about:blank?windowld=SecondaryReadingPane28 3/3
Docusign Envelope ID: 341AD8F1-0090-4959-B29B-A942F55505AC State of California — Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.cov
CALIFORNIA
flISH FCH& T M OF
F
WILDLIFE
1191
February 9, 2026
Cindy Jacinth, Planning Manager
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
(805) 773-7043
cjacinth(a�pismobeach.orq
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
VALERIE TERMINI, Acting Director
Subject: Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update (Plan) Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR)
SCH No.: 2021010158
Dear Cindy Jacinth:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received an RDEIR from the City of Pismo Beach (City) in pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Plan that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Plan that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & Game Code, Section 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, Section 21070; CEQA Guidelines Section 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., Section 1802).
Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870
5-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 341AD8F1-0090-4959-B29B-A942F55505AC Cindy Jacinth, Planning Manager
City of Pismo Beach
February 9, 2026
specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, Section 21069; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, reasonably foreseeable future project's tiered from this Plan may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, Section 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of reasonably foreseeable future project's tiered from this Plan may result in "take" as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.
Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds -of -prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).
PLAN DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Pismo Beach
Objective: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Plan was circulated for a 45 -day public review period that began on February 1, 2022 and ended on March 18, 2022. Following the end of the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City prepared an Administrative Draft Final EIR. In addition to addressing public comments, the Administrative Draft Final EIR reflected removal of the Facilities Element from the Plan and incorporation of Facilities Element policies into other elements. The Planning Commission hearings for the Final EIR were held on July 25 and August 22, 2023. The City Council hearing for the Final EIR was scheduled for October 2023. However, prior to the City Council hearing, the City determined that the Safety Element would also be removed from the Plan to incorporate the following: (1) the removal of the Facilities Element and incorporation of Facilities Element policies into other elements, (2) the removal of the Safety Element from the Plan, and (3) changes to the Plan, including to the goals, policies, and actions within the Plan. The Growth Management Element would also be eliminated due to changes in state housing law and Senate Bill 330.
The RDEIR incorporates the changes above and provides the revised goals, policies, and implementation programs, along with reorganization and renumbering to clarify applicability to the Local Coastal Program. It also incorporates new requirements, such as policies added to the Conservation and Open Space Element under Senate Bill 1425 and updates to the Circulation Element.
Docusign Envelope ID: 341AD8F1-0090-4959-B29B-A942F55505AC Cindy Jacinth, Planning Manager
City of Pismo Beach
February 9, 2026
Location: The City of Pismo
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW is aware that this RDEIR is being recirculated to note the changes to the Facilities Element, Safety Element, and Growth Management Element within the Plan.
As such, CDFW has limited comments on the RDEIR; however, there have been several updates to state species listings since circulation of the DEIR in 2021.
Specifically, western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) are candidate species under CESA and receive the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085). As such, CDFW recommends these species statuses be reflected within the documented associated with the RDEIR to reflect their protected status.
FILING FEES
The Plan, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.
Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, Section 753.5; Fish & G. Code, Section 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, Section 21089.)
Conclusion
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the RDEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating this Plan's impacts on biological resources.
More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW's website (httos:// www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols) .
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Evelyn Barajas-Perez, Environmental Scientist, at (805) 503-5738 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
,-DocuSigned by/:
/ 'iY�G� v rrwo
'-FA83F09FE08945A...
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State. [email protected]
Letter 6
February 11, 2026
Cindy Jacinth, Planning Manager
City of Pismo Beach Planning Division
760 Mattie Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on Recirculated Draft Program EIR for City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code Update. State Clearinghouse No. 2021010158 Please see below for my comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR. I understand that the City is requesting that comments be limited to the materials included within the Recirculated Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5(f)(2). Therefore, these comments reflect compliance with that request. However, I have attached an email chain which documents the City's prior receipt of my comments dated January 8, 2024 on the Final EIR. In this chain the City's consultant, Brian Schwartz, indicated that all public comments would be reviewed and responses provided once a new Planning Director was in place. Additionally, the City Manager, Jorge E. Garcia, indicated that he looks forward to a robust discussion and engagement with the community when this item returns for consideration. Limiting comments in response to the new Notice of Availability and the recirculation of the EIR appears to be contradictory to this intent.
The record should show that previous comments were submitted to the City Council and Planning Commission on January 8, 2024 in response to the posted Notice Of Availability for the draft General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report.
During this six -week comment period the public was invited to provide comments and/or questions. These comments should become part of the public record. To date my correspondence has not been acknowledged and does not appear in the record. I request that my previous correspondence dated January 8, 2024 be entered into the record as it was submitted timely.
Issue:
Table 2-4 Land Use Designation
Land Use Designation Description
Open Space: The Open Space land use designation specifies that open space lands, including public and private parks, shall not be developed intensively with buildings or other structures.
Areas with significant natural resources, environmentally sensitive habitats, and/or scenic views to be protected, including hillsides, waterways, coastal and hillside view corridors, public beaches, and parks. Open space lands are not intended to be intensively developed with buildings or other structures but can be used for recreational purposes.
Comment:
This revised Open Space definition does not appear to have been analyzed in the EIR for the environmental impacts that could occur when environmentally sensitive habitats, areas with significant natural resources or similar areas requiring protection by designating them as Open 1 Space are allowed to be used for recreational purposes. Additionally, the revised description of the Open Space Land Use Designation does not describe any allowable residential development which is currently allowed under existing land use policies. Omitting this from the designation description may result in a vertical inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use Designation and any land use policies allowing residential development on open space. This could potentially make residential development that currently exists on Open Space land nonconforming and result in impacts that have not been analyzed in the EIR.
Issue:
Table 2-5 Land Use Density/intensity limits
Footnotes
1. Coasta height imits are provided to ensure t iat the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected consistent wit 1 Coastal Act Section 30251.
2.Over _ay zones may im-iose additional standards for app_icable properties. Please re=er to tie City o= Pismo Beac 1 Municipal Coce or additional requirements.
3. Buildings may be u 3 to forty we (45) feet in leig it where the Planning Commission finds that significant pu Dlic views to and a_ong the coast and other scenic areas are protected.
Comment:
It appears that the EIR does not address the environmental impacts that occur from elimination of the footnotes regarding height limits which protect scenic and visual qualities of the coastal areas. With the elimination of these restrictions how are these areas protected consistent with Coastal Action Section 30251?
Issue:
Action LU-2.1fc: Coastal Public Views Protection. The City's scenic and visual qualities shall be considered and protected. All development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and coasta_ areas avoid having a significant adverse impact on significant public views (which shall include blue water views of the ocean and views of the undeveloped open foothills as seen from Highway 101 (see also Policy COS -2.1e); minimize alteration of natural landforms; be o _ow scale, limited heights, and appropriate building scale and include articulation for visual interest (and to avoid `boxy' and monolithic designs); be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area; and, where feasible, restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Building heights shall be limited to the applicable height provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Protection of sensitive habitats, natural landforms, scenic resources, and other coastal resources shall be a priority in all City actions and decisions, and all development standards (including with respect to height, setback, density, lot coverage, etc.) shall be interpreted as maximums (or minimums) that shall be reduced (or increased) to 3rotect and enhance such resources and meet LCP ob'ectives to the maximum extent feasible.
Comment:
The term "Significant Public View" needs to be defined to avoid arbitrary interpretations or random implementation.
2 Issue:
Reduction of Community Noise Exposure -Table 4.11-5
II1W1�.1VtdLCU Ill Lid Lille pIUjeLL Ue0I tI to IeUULe 11UIDC LC) dLLeptcWie ICVeI�.
Table 4.11-5 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Development Community Noise Exposure (CNEL or Ldn dBA)
Conditionally
Land Use Category Acceptable' Acceptable'
Unacceptable'
Single -Family Residential4, Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls, Meeting Halls, Churches
Multi -Family Residential, Transient Lodging — Motels,
Hotels
X60
60-7065
>7065
4065 ,60 7565-70 >3570
Schools, Libraries, Muscum5, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Playgrounds and Parks
Schools. Libraries, Museums, Office Buildings
75 60 7570 x7570
'Acceptable: specified land use Is satisfactory. No noise mitigation measures are required. 2Conditionally acceptable: use should be permitted only after careful study and inclusion of protective measures as needed to satisfy the policies of the Noise Element.
Unacceptable: development is usually not feasible in accordance with the goals of the Noise Element. ' New single-family residences (individual parcel development) are to be exempt from noise studies but shall require a buyer beware notice that acknowledges the residence may experience noise higher than City standards. New single-family subdivision developments (such as the creation of multiple new residential lots) are sub ect to the noise study requirements and identified exterior noise exposure limits.
source: City of Pismo Beach 2023 Noise Element 2U44
Additionally, the Noise Element sets limits to noise exposure from stationary sources, which apply when a new noise -sensitive land use is proposed, as shown in Table 4.11-6. These noise limits are applied at the property line of the proposed noise -sensitive land use. New development of noise -sensitive land uses may be permitted only where location and design allow the development to meet the daytime and nighttime standards listed in Table 4.11-6.
I he f3l'/L.C:N Update would not change the noise standards tor stationary sources shown in Table 4.11-6.
Comment:
There appears to be no new sound study or additional technical studies that indicate why the limits were reduced. This would include any impacts to land use when the limit is reduced from 70 to 65. This change has the potential to affect properties in proximity to the highway that may be unable to meet the updated limits.
Issue:
Maps throughout the document are at a very small scale making them difficult to read and nearly impossible to identify individual properties.
3 City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
Figure 4.1-1 Scenic Vistas and Roadways
Soul r - City of Pismo Bench. 2021. Conservation and Open Spare Element.
4.1-2
Comment:
The scenic vistas map does not depict the specific view or show the view corridor. Small dots on a map fail to define the view corridor and do not provide objective information.
Figure 4.1-1 on Page 4.1-2 of the Draft EIR was revised as follows to update the scenic vistas mapping for consistency with the GP/LCP Update.
Oman Blvd.
Pismo Beach City Limits
Pismo Beach Scenic Roadways
Scenic Vistas
2,000 FT.
Highway 1/DOlliver St.
C
4 Issue/Comment:
There is no reference to additional studies or information that resulted in the revisions to these maps (4.11-1 & 4.13-1). Maps are difficult to read due to small scale.
Revisions to the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Figure 4.11-1 on Page 4.11-4 of the Draft EIR was revised as follows to expand the Noise Sensitive Land Uses.
Figure 4.11-1 Noise -Sensitive Land Uses and Major Noise Sources 6-7
Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2-119
Environ ental Impact Analysis
Pobiic Servicm es and RecreaRon
Figure 4.13-1 Open Space and Conservation Areas
ti
nsmo Bear, ay umm
open span tasl
Conservation aeas
Loos Er.
so.. e IPi.inu Beach. 2021.ConseNation and Open Space Element.
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
4.13-5
5 cont
Issue/Comment:
There is no additional study or information provided to explain the change in the map. Map is difficult to read due to its small scale. The General Plan is a long-term document and should have maps that are of a appropriate scale and with sufficient detail to be able to determine how individual properties are affected. The Draft GP/LCP uses the term Open Space in various contexts including as a land use designation and to reference land that is Open Space (recreational). The General Plan update should strive to address this issue to avoid confusion with a Land Use Designation and the Open Space Element policies.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Grow
3990 Shell Beach Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
6 6-8
cont
� Gmail
Andrew Grow
General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report Comments
Brian Schwartz Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 8:47 AM
To: Andrew Grow
Cc: Jorge Garcia , Ian Livingston , "Fleishman, Dave"
Hi Andrew,
Staff will be reviewing all public comments submitted and will wait to provide responses until after the new Planning Director is in place and a new City Council hearing date is established.
Staff will keep your comments for consideration, however I recommend keeping them yourself and resubmitting them prior to the next public hearing.
Hope this answers your questions.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Schwartz, AICP
Principal Planner
upc
URBAN
PLANNING
CONCEPTS INC.
2624 Airpark Drive
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 934-5760 (office)
(805) 574-0377 (cell)
From: Andrew Grow
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 5:15 PM
To: Brian Schwartz
Cc: Jorge Garcia ; Ian Livingston ; Fleishman, Dave
Subject: Re: General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report Comments Hi Brian- Thank you for the update. Has your office also paused work on the update until the City fills their open staff positions?
Are you able to respond to my concerns in the meantime or will I need to wait until the next comment period to resubmit my correspondence?
Thanks,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:33AM Brian Schwartz wrote:
Andrew,
Thank you for your follow-up email which was directed to my attention.
A new Notice of Availability will be issued prior to the future public hearing(s) to inform and invite the public to review and comment on the documents.
Should you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Brian
Brian Schwartz, AICP
Principal Planner
.„. f.
r.►wrtii,,i, ... ,
tr
2624 Airpark Drive
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 934-5760 (office)
(805) 574-0377 (cell)
From: Andrew Grow
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 8:00:00 AM
To: Jorge Garcia
Cc: Andrew Grow ; Clare Malone Prichard ;
Don Oberhelman ; Erica Inderlied ; Greg Alex
; Lindsay Christiansen ; Planning Commission
; Reed Van Rozeboom ; Shauna Wills
Subject: Re: General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report Comments External Email
Mr. Garcia- Thank you for your prompt response. My correspondence was in response to the Notice Of Availability that states there is a six -week public review and comment period for the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report, beginning on November 28, 2023.
Pausing the update process while the city works to fill vacant positions makes sense. In the meantime will my comment letter be entered into the record or will the city be re -posting the Notice Of Availability and re -opening the comment period once new staff is in place and up to speed? I appreciate the city's desire to engage with the community through this update and look forward to the process resuming in the future.
Kind Regards,
Andrew Grow
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 3:04 PM Jorge Garcia wrote:
Thank you for your email to the City Council on this very important issue. Due to some changes in staffing in our Community Development Department, including both the Director and the Planning Manager, the City has decided to postpone the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan changes until our staffing is in place and can get up to speed.
As one of the most important planning documents for our community, we want to make sure that those charged with implementation of the City Council's direction are in place, understands the documents, and provides their professional recommendations on any possible modifications that might help execute that vision and direction.
We look forward to robust discussion and engagement with the community when this item returns for consideration.
(City Council blind copied on this email)
Best,
Jorge E. Garcia
City Manager
Office: (805) 773-7928
Email:
[email protected]
Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube
From: Andrew Grow
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 4:56 PM
To: Lindsay Christiansen ; Ed Waage ; Mary Ann
Reiss ; Stacy Inman ; Marcia Guthrie
; Scott Newton ; Clare Malone Prichard
; Reed Van Rozeboom ; Shauna Wills
; Don Oberhelman ; Greg Alex
; City Council ; Planning Commission
; Erica Inderlied
Cc: Andrew Grow
Subject: General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report Comments External Email
Dear City Council Members & Planning Commissioners:
Please see attached letter and supporting materials regarding the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report.
Kind Regards,
Andrew Grow
(805) 903-2836
January 8, 2024
VIA EMAIL
City Council & Planning
Commission City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Email: [email protected], [email protected] Re: Comments on General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear: Pismo Beach care of L. Christiansen
I have read the draft General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and the associated environmental documents (SCH#: 2021010158) and have the following comments:
I would first like to state that I submitted a letter on October 26, 2023, commenting on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program update that apparently was not distributed to Council Members or Planning Commissioners prior to the October 27, 2023 Zoning Code/ Implementation Plan Update Workshop and was also not entered into the record until after the workshop had already taken place. As such, I will include that letter and others submitted to the city as an attachment to this correspondence with the intent that they also be distributed and included into the record.
Issue: Public participation and public record.
Members of the public living along Shell Beach have inquired with the city about what the long-term consequences of the update will be for this area. The City's response has been that the General Plan/LCP update will not result in any changes to the area. However, the Zoning Ordinance update includes rezoning a portion of this area from residential to open space. A change in zoning for this area does result in substantial changes. The city has not exercised it's responsibility to inform the public as to the intentions of the city to rezone this area and in some cases require dedication of private land to the city when a project is pursued. The reasoning expressed by the city is that this area should be keep as permanent undeveloped open space. It has not been made clear whether or not the city has intensions to keep the area undeveloped open space or to actually acquire the land piece by piece for some other public purpose. The long-term plan for this area should be clearly identified in the City's long range planning document (GP/LCP) and public meetings should be held with the property owners to explain the City's long-term intentions.
Issue: The appropriateness of an Open Space designation for the Shell Beach Road area.
The city continues to state that the Open Space designation is required to protect the open space value of the land along Shell Beach Road. Goal LU-9 states: "Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades: An ocean -oriented residential neighborhood with an emphasis on preservation of natural resources, open space, coastal views and scenic corridors". The EIR shows that Shell Beach Road is designated as scenic, however the other technical reports such as the habitat map do not show any sensitive resources within this area. The record as to how this area became designated as open space clearly establishes that the only issue identified is a protection of views. It also indicates that the height limitations and overlays contained within the city's existing regulations are sufficient to protect the views. This determination goes all the way back to when this area was subdivided, and housing was proposed. In the 40 years that has transpired there has been no additional information provided to the public which identifies any additional environmental concerns beyond view protection that require continuing the open space designation, prohibiting all development (permanent open space) and restricting development rights.
Action LU-8.1a: Identify and Map natural resources states: The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems -based maps of the City, identifying the natural resources such as wildlife habitats and open space, view sheds, terrain and hillsides. The natural resource map shall also show development constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction), and Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones. The maps shall provide the basis of determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where other needs of the community, or requirements to protect coastal resources, outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings of these maps, the City shall re-evaluate it's land use designations and future plans for undeveloped area and revise the Land Use Map accordingly.
The Shell Beach Road area is not an undeveloped area, in fact it is developed with parking lots, tennis courts and residential units. The area is served with streets, water and sewer connections. The studies conducted for the General Plan/LCP update clearly show that this area does not contain natural resources or hazards but does contain scenic view sheds. Based on the overall character of the area and the fact that the existing height restrictions protect the views the City should re-evaluate the appropriateness of the Open Space designation following action LU-8.1 a.
Issue: Shell Beach as an open space area.
The sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades area is characterized in the EIR as "almost totally developed with low density residential use with a few scattered vacant residential lots.
Figure 2.5
Neighborhood Planning Areas
— Pismo Beach City Limrls
— California Coastal Zone Boundary
Planning Areas
Sunset Pa iisadesfihe Bluffs/South Palisades
- North Spyglass/ Spyglass
St Andrews/Spindrift
- Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves
Motel
Downtown Core
- Plsrno Creek/Pismo Marsh
- Oak Park Heights
- Pismo Heights
IN Freeway Foothills/Mettle Hoed Annex
2O00 FT.
Action LU-1.6d Permanent Open Space states: The area between Shell Beach Road and the Freeway shall remain in permanent open space. No further land division shall be allowed in this area.
The majority of the area between Shell Beach Road and the freeway is developed and cannot be characterized as undeveloped open space. As stated previously the area is developed with parking lots, tennis courts and residential units. The term "permanent open space" is not defined in the General Plan/LCP documents. Is this referring to the GP designation? Or referencing that current vacant lots cannot be developed? It would appear that action LU-1.6d is in conflict with Policy LU-1.6: Preserve Open Space which states that Open space lands shall not be developed intensively with buildings or other structures. Is it no development,/permanent open space or less intense development? Issue: BIO-2: General Plan/LCP update would facilitate development that could result in construction within riparian habitat and direct placement of fill in wetlands.
The EIR identifies that the proposed growth areas have the potential to affect riparian habitat and/or wetlands. The document seems to restrict development completely along Shell Beach Road even though height restrictions would and have in the past protected scenic views but the General P1an/LCUP update provides for additional development that would have the potential to negatively impact land that have environmental resources. Restricting development along Shell Beach Road applies development pressure on other lands which actually have resources needing protection.
Issue: Removal of obstacles to Growth:
The EIR addresses the need for removal of obstacles to growth. The EIR acknowledges that by focusing development within already urbanized areas (Shell Beach Road) it reduces growth pressure in undeveloped areas along the periphery of the city where there is biological, traffic and air quality issues. The Shell Beach Road area is served with utilities, streets and could be designated for infill growth while still protecting the scenic view sheds via height restrictions, continuing to designate this area as permanent open space despite the fact the area is developed and that it is without environmental resources that require all development be restricted is in conflict with the documents desire to remove obstacles to orderly development within the urban core.
Issue: Permanent open space
The EIR does not analyze the impacts created with the removal of housing units within the Shell Beach Road area to facilitate this area being maintained as permanent open space.
Additionally, once this area is not allowed to have urban development including landscaping it will create wild land interface issues with the surrounding urban development. This wild land/fire issue is not addressed in the EIR.
Conclusion:
The General Plan/LCP update contains several beneficial policies and actions which will protect environmental resources. But, as you can see the Shell Beach Road area does not contain environmental resources other than the scenic view shed. This scenic view shed has been protected by the height limitations for decades and houses have been built without obstructions to the scenic quality of the area. Characterizing this area as "open space" and restricting this area beyond all other Open Space areas with Action LU 1.6 d is without merit and is not substantiated in the studies conducted for the EIR. Restricting all development in lieu of applying a reasonable height restriction is an arbitrary restriction giving rise to takings and other constitutional concerns, and not substantiated in the record and in fact in conflict with other General Plan/LCP policies.
Please see below for prior correspondence and supporting documentation:
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Grow
3990 Shell Beach Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
October 26, 2023
VIA EMAIL
City Council & Planning Commission
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Email: [email protected], [email protected] Re: Item 3.A: Zoning Code/Implementation Plan Update Workshop Dear City Council Members & Planning Commissioners,
I've spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the draft zoning code update as it pertains to the East side of Shell Beach Road within the Sunset Palisades area, the neighborhood which includes my home and would like to bring some fundamental issues to your attention. Multiple neighboring property owners and I have attempted to participate in this update process. To date our concerns have not been addressed and many questions remain unanswered. I've been told by multiple property owners between Shell Beach Rd & 101s that they have contacted staff regarding the zoning update and have been told it won't affect their properties, which is contrary to all the draft update materials I've seen. Staff has also stated on the record that property owners will be notified of zoning code update workshops & invited to participate which has not happened as far as I'm aware. General notification to the public at large is not sufficient. It is important that the city reach out to the property owners along Shell Beach and state the city's exact intentions. What are the plans for this area? Is it to have the area attrit to a natural state devoid of any development? Is it to acquire the land for public purpose by restricting private development? Or is leaving it in an Open Space designation another way to restrict residential development in the city? To continue to have the statement "permanent open space" within a document but not define it appears to be a backdoor to removing all development from this area.
When a project is proposed for a specific area each affected property owner within a certain radius must receive direct notice, while a general notification is allowed under the law it is not in keeping with an outreach program that would directly inform those whose property rights are being affected by the combination of a general plan update, a zoning ordinance update and redefining terms used in both. Now is the time to have documents that are consistent and clear that include terms that are well defined and not left open for interpretation by staff.
I've included links below to the letter(s) that were submitted prior to the last Planning Commission hearing for reference:
2023-08-22 Grow Item 7.A.
2023-08-22 January Item 7.A.
2023-08-22 Markiewicz Item 7.A.
2023-08-22 Stricklen Item 7.A.
I've also included links to the proposed maps from the draft update that appear to be inconsistent:
8. Maps_8.b - Proposed Land Use Map
8. Maps_8.d - Proposed Zoning Man
The City Council adopted a Housing Element in 2019 (5th cycle 2014-2020) and again in 2021 (6th cycle 2020-2028) both of these documents indicate that multiple properties between Shell Beach Rd & 101s (in the PR zone with an Open Space designation) are suitable for additional residential units. These units were counted in the vacant lot inventory and therefore are presumably available for housing opportunities. Pismo Beach's regional housing needs are identified as 459 units. The Vacant land inventory shows 449 lots suitable for residential units. It is important to note that all elements of the city's General Plan should be consistent with each other as the current General Plan as well as the General Plan update draft are in direct conflict with the Housing Element as the proposed Land Use and zoning prohibit any form of development in the "Permanent Open Space" area between Shell Beach Rd & 101s.
This was reaffirmed by the statement of Community Development Director Matthew Downing at the 10/3 City Council hearing; that the city must require a fee title dedication on the portion of the McNeal parcel between Shell Beach Rd & 101s to ensure that it is not developed and remains in "permanent open space." Interestingly enough the Current Land Use Map shows this entire strip between Shell Beach Rd & 101s as low & medium density residential. Not only does this area have no open space qualities, 13 of the 17 lots in this area are already developed and do not resemble "open space" in any way. Despite numerous inquiries we have yet to see a documented explanation or environmental report that explains why the area between Shell Beach Rd & 101s must be placed in "permanent open space." I explained in my previous letter to the Planning Commission there are no known resources or habitat that requires protection other than the views from 101 which are already protected by the view consideration overlay and height limitation overlay. What resources does the proposed "Open Space - Preservation" zoning aim to preserve? In light of the current state housing crisis, continuing to place governmental constraints, without justification, on privately owned land to not only prohibit residential development but eventually force removal of existing residential development is in violation of the spirit of the Housing Element and may place the city in conflict with the state. I've included an open letter from REACH that outlines the significance of the current local housing crisis.
During the Planning Commission's recent review of the General Plan update I requested a definition of "permanent open space" be supplied in the definition section of the General Plan.
While my request(s) were not addressed and I have still yet to see a definition, that term is now being used to describe an area without any development allowed and as Mr. Downing stated at the 10/3 City Council hearing "everything is considered development." This is in direct conflict with not only how a significant portion of this area is currently being used (residential use, parking lots etc.) but also how some of this area was described to the State in the Housing Element (as having potential for additional housing units). 6-18
cont
6-19
6-20
6-21
6-22
So, the question is how is the City going to explain to the state that they counted units in the housing element while prohibiting development on them in the Land use element? The General Plan update process is a long overdue opportunity for the city to fix a problem that has gone on for far too long. It would be a shame if they continued down the current path that would inevitably compound the issue.
I respectfully request that materials presented online for this item on the agenda include all emails to staff with inquiries on the project, submitted letters and any other questions or comments by the public. Additionally, the agenda should be presented to the public directly not under the March 2022 agenda. Making materials difficult to find, presenting inaccurate materials (zoning maps) and not presenting submitted materials in the agenda packet are not in keeping with an appropriate outreach program.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Grow
3990 Shell Beach Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
6-22
cont
6-23
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Email: [email protected]
Re: Item 7.A: Continued public hearing for General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update Dear Planning Commissioners,
I have reviewed the proposed General Plan update as it relates to the East side of Shell Beach Road within the Sunset Palisades area, the neighborhood which includes my home. I realize a policy update of this scale is a large undertaking and appreciate the opportunity to bring some of my concerns to your attention.
The General Plan draft update designates the entire strip of land between Shell Beach Road & HWY 101 from El Portal to Spyglass Drive as Open Space. It appears that both the proposed Land Use Element and the proposed Conservation and Open Space Element address Open Space.
The policies contained within the Land Use Element addressing the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach Road area appear to be inconsistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element's description of open space as well as the policies and actions contained in the element. The Conservation and Open Space Element guides "the protection of natural, scenic, and cultural resources and conservation areas important to the environment and the sustained economic prosperity of Pismo Beach." Further, the Conservation/Open Space Element states that it shall inform the Land Use Element and therefore the two documents should be consistent. The land between Shell Beach Road and Highway 101 is identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element as requiring protection for scenic views only. This element does not identify (in the north Shell Beach Road area) any of the other resources described in the Conservation and Open space element as needing protection such as: Oak trees, wetlands, Riparian Habitat/Natural drainage, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat or Marine Resources.
The main policy proposed for protection of scenic resources and applicable to the area is Policy COS -2.1:
Policy COS -2.1: Protect Scenic Resources. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding 6-24
6-25
areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. See Figure CO -1, Scenic Roadways and Vistas.
Figure CO -2 in the Conservation and Open Space Element clearly identifies the conservation areas within the city including the foothills, beaches, the Pismo Marsh, the Monarch Butterfly Grove and Pismo Creek but does not identify the land between Shell Beach Road and Highway 101 within the Sunset Palisades neighborhood as a conservation area.
There are several actions proposed to implement the above policy. They include actions to enforce height limits, enforce the view consideration overlay zone, require design review for all projects within 200 feet of Highway 101 and require view corridors on development projects.
The following Land Use policies or actions do not appear in the Conservation and Open Space Element:
Policy LU-9.2: Open Space. Maintain the area between Shell Beach Road and the 101 Freeway as permanent open space. No further land divisions shall be in this approved area.
Action LU-9.1b: Remainder ofSunset Palisades Area. No structure shall exceed 15 feet in height as measured from the height of the center of the finished building pad grade as designated in the final tract Grading Plan at the time of recordation.
Action LU-9.2a: Open Space Character. Require that any development approved on site maintain the open space character. The amount of site area that may be developed with improvements shall not exceed 5,000 square feet or 60% of gross site area whichever is lesser.
The term "permanent open space" used in Policy LU-9.2 is not defined and the policy does not establish a nexus between the policy and the objective (protection of views). The Conservation and Open Space element clearly establishes other restrictions that protect scenic views without stripping private property owners of their property/development rights.
Additionally, the term "open space character" is not defined and there is no nexus between action item LU-9.2a and the protection of scenic views as established in the Conservation and Open Space Element. The very specific limitations contained in this action item belong in the implementation document (Zoning Ordinance) not the General Plan.
Table LU-2 showing existing development by Neighborhood Planning Area details the Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades planning area as developed with 478 single family homes and has 97 acres of open space. It is unclear whether or not these 97 acres are developed or "permanent open space" i.e. undeveloped. Table LU-2 should be clarified to show existing development (residential) in "Open Space." The term "Open Space" is used throughout the document in several different ways. It is a General Plan designation; it is used to describe areas of sensitive natural habitat, existing parking lots, parkland/recreation areas, areas which include 6-25
cont.
6-26
6-27
current residential uses, and it is also used to identify land which may not be developed at all. It goes on to say that the property between Shell Beach Road and U.S. Highway 101 has historically been utilized as open space with limited residential development. This is not a true statement. The area was planned for residential development and currently contains a mixture of residentially developed lots as well as undeveloped lots. In fact, one home within the subject area is approximately 100 years old. Additionally, the area is not in a natural state as much of it has been subject to grading/disturbance during the construction of Highway 101 and Shell Beach Road and would likely be considered a potential "infill" area in most cities. The vast majority of these lots are currently zoned Planned Residential (PR). The presumed rezoning of these parcels from residential to open space preservation (OS -P) would result in existing residential development becoming designated as nonconforming and would ultimately have a negative impact on property values.
Action LU-8.2h Legal Non -conforming Structures and Uses establishes the effective date of the updated GP/LCP to determine that structures legally built prior to that date that do not conform to the GP/LCP would be considered legal non -conforming structures moving forward. The privately held residential units on Shell Beach Road in the Sunset Palisades neighborhood would presumably be designated as legal non -conforming structures and would become subject to the new more restrictive regulations proposed in the companion zoning ordinance update. These regulations could result in significant financial implications as property owners find that the nonconforming designation now limits their ability to repair, rebuild or replace existing improvements unless they are significantly reduced in size. Additionally, the regulations may also require the removal of other property improvements to bring the property back to conformity with the Open Space regulations.
In conclusion, the proposed Conservation and Open Space Element scenic view policies adequately protect the view resources along north Shell Beach Road. The more restrictive policies contained in the Land Use Element are not needed to protect the scenic view corridor and only serve to restrict private property rights, limit the long-term viability of the existing homes, and restrict additional residential development. In the age of critical housing shortages, it is imperative that the city protects existing homes and not adopt policies that encourage their eventual removal, reducing the housing stock. The restrictive policies contained in the Land Use element pertaining to the northern Shell Beach Road area won't provide further protection for scenic views or provide a public benefit, but it will mandate areas of undeveloped land that will result in fallow, unrnaintained, unsightly properties, create potential fire hazards, dust nuisances and other problems associated with vacant weed infested lots. It is worth noting that this is all located in a residential area. This area serves as a gateway to our city and therefore should not only be allowed to be maintained but improved over time.
As part of a large city-wide General Plan update the property owners in this area were not made aware of the specific impacts to their properties. There appears to be a significant lack of notice and public outreach during this update as the neighbors that I have spoken with were all unaware of the update and the potential impacts on their properties. Perhaps a workshop specifically
noticed to the private property owners that would be affected by the General Plan update and corresponding Zoning update along Shell Beach Road would have helped provide the necessary information and allowed opportunity for input from citizens & property owners earlier in the process?
Based on the aforementioned concerns I hereby request the following:
• That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it amend the General Plan Designation of this area (where the property is privately owned) back to a residential designation with the appropriate overlay for view protection as detailed in the Conservation and Open Space element, reflecting the current reality that the area is fully developed with homes - and should remain so.
▪ That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Policies protecting scenic views in the Shell Beach Road area be limited to those identified within the Conservation and Open Space Element. ' That the City reaffirm that the concepts of "permanent open space" and "open space character" are intended only to protect view -sheds.
' That the City removes from the General Plan document specific development standards more appropriate for the implementation document (zoning ordinance).
Thank you in advance for your time to review my concerns and consider my subsequent requests.
Andrew Grow
3990 Shell Beach Rd.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
6-30
cont.
6-31
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Pat.anuary
P ann•na Commission; Don Oberie man; as
5,auna Wi 5
Letter for meeting on 8-22-31
Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:24:47 PM
ax0Dismobeac
i.orq; C
are Malone Pric
gar
• Reec Van Rozeboom;
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We live at 2928 Shell Beach Road. We understand you are considering General Plan amendments that will affect our home, which is zoned PR (Planned Residential). Updating our zoning designation to OS -P (Open Space - Preservation) makes no sense given that ours is a fully developed residential neighborhood. Please use this opportunity to recommend to the City Council that our neighborhood be rezoned "R-1" in order to reflect the reality on the ground, and to allow us to protect our future property values and property rights.
Thank you,
Rick & Pat January
From: Clare Malone Pricharc
To: Matt Downing; Cory -anh
Cc: Lincsav Christiansen
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:24:53 PM
Attachments: Outloo
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:53 PM
To: Don Oberhelman
Cc: Greg Alex ; Don Oberhelman ; Clare
Malone Prichard ; Reed Van Rozeboom
; Shauna Wills ; Erica Inderlied
Subject: Planning Commission
External Email
Dear Planning Commission,
I am the owner of the property at 2920 Shell Beach Rd. It is my understanding that there are proposals being made to change the zoning of my property. Would you please confirm whether this is true or not? If it is true, I feel that I should have notified of the proposed changes to my property before this meeting. Also, how would these changes affect what I can do to my property? How would these changes affect my future property value? Thank you for your attention to my questions and concerns. I was planning on attending this meeting but was called out of state to attend to my sister who was placed on hospice.
Thank you for your understanding.
Anthony F. Markiewicz, Major
From: Kim Blesener
To: P ann.no Commission
Cc: Don Oberie man; GGr g Alex; C are Na one Prichard; Reec Van Rozeboom; Shauna Wills; Erica Inderliec.
Subject: Pismo Beach General Plan Update - Hearing 8-22-23 Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:16:39 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We live at 4000 Shell Beach Road. We understand you are considering General Plan amendments that will affect our home, which is zoned OS -1. That zoning designation makes no sense given that ours is a fully developed residential neighborhood. Please use this opportunity to recommend to the City Council that our neighborhood be rezoned "R-1" in order to reflect the reality on the ground, and to allow us to protect our future property values and property rights.
This has been a concern for quite some time and urge you to approve this request as rapidly as possible.
Thank you.
Richard H. Stricklen
661-978-2722
Inventory of properties along the east side of Shell Beach Rd. (4000 Shell Beach Road to 2770 Shell Beach Rd.) As of October, 2023
Map
I.D.
Address
Owner
APN
Mailing
Current
General
Plan
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Re -Zoning
(Per Draft
Map)
Existing
Development?
(13/17
Developed)
Notes
1 4000 Shell
Beach Rd
Stricklen
Richard H
Trust
010-183-007
PO BOX
40340
BAKERSFI
ELD, CA
93384-519
6 OS
OS -1
OS -P
Single Family
Residence
Homeowner was not made
aware of potential changes
to zoning
2 3998 Shell
Beach Rd
West Carl D
Trust
010-183-008
3998 Shell
Beach Rd
Pismo
Beach, Ca.
93449
OS
OS -1
OS -P
Single Family
Residence
Homeowner was not made
aware of potential changes
to zoning
3 3990 Shell
Beach Rd
Grow Andrew
C Trust
010-154-037
3990 Shell
Beach Rd
Pismo
Beach, Ca.
93449
OS
OS -1
OS -P
Single Family
Residence
Homeowner was not made
aware of potential changes
to zoning
4 "0" Shell
Beach Rd
City of Pismo
Beach
010-551-049
760 Mattie
Road,
Pismo
Beach, Ca.
93449
OS
OS\R
OS -P
Tennis
Courts/Parking
Lot/Basketball
courts
5 "0" Shell
Beach Rd
City of Pismo
Beach
010-141-041
760 Mattie
Road,
Pismo
Beach, Ca.
93449
OS
PR
OS -P
None
6 2928 Shell
Beach Rd
January Rick
G and
Patricia A
010-141-071
2928 Shell
Beach Rd
Pismo
Beach, Ca.
93449
OS
PR
OS -P
Single Family
Residence
Homeowner was not made
aware of potential changes
to zoning
1 Inventory of properties along the east side of Shell Beach Rd. (4000 Shell Beach Road to 2770 Shell Beach Rd.) As of October, 2023
7 "0" Shell
Beach Rd
City of Pismo
Beach
010-141-044
760 Mattie
Road
Pismo
Beach
Ca. 93449
OS
PR
OS -P
None
8 "0" Shell
Beach Rd
City of Pismo
Beach
010-144-023
760 Mattie
Road
Pismo
Beach
Ca. 93449
OS
PR
OS -P
Parking Lot
9 "0" Shell
Beach Rd
McNeal
Thomas R
Trust
010-144-025
1030
Glorietta
Blvd.
Coronado
CA. 92118
OS
PR
OS -P
None
Tied to the proposed
development across the
street - City requiring fee
title dedication
10 2920 Shell
Beach Rd
Markiewicz
Anthony F
Trust
010-152-033
2920 Shell
Beach Rd
Pismo
Beach
Ca. 93449
OS
PR
OS -P
Single Family
Residence
Homeowner was not made
aware of potential changes
to zoning.
11 "0"
Frontage
Rd
Silver Shoals
Investors
LLC
010-152-036
941 Griffin
St.
Grover
Beach Ca.
94333
OS
PR
OS -P
None
Property owner was not
made aware of potential
changes to zoning
12 2850 Shell
Beach Rd
May
Margaret A
Trust
010-152-035
2850 Shell
Beach Rd
Pismo
Beach
Ca. 93449
OS
PR
OS -P
Single Family
Residence
Homeowner was not made
aware of potential changes
to zoning
13 "0" Shell
Beach Rd
Cliffs Resort
LLC
010-152-026
258 Bridge
St. San
Luis
Obispo,
Ca. 93401
OS
PR
OS -P
Parking Lot
Cliffs hotel parking lot
northeast of the hotel.
2 Inventory of properties along the east side of Shell Beach Rd. (4000 Shell Beach Road to 2770 Shell Beach Rd.) As of October, 2023
14 "0" Shell
Beach
Road
Shaffer Lane
LLC
010-143-014
285 Bridge
Street, San
Luis
Obispo,
Ca. 93401
OS
PR
OS -P
Parking Lot
Cliffs hotel parking lot
northeast of the hotel.
15 2770 Shell
Beach Rd
Sunset
Beach
Estates
Homeowners
Assn
010-143-036
P.O. Box
12060, San
Luis
Obispo,
Ca. 93408
OS
PR
OS -P
Parking Lot
Open Space easement?
Apparently this parcel was
previously dedicated to the
city, pending acceptance
16 "0" Shell
Beach
Road
Sunset
Beach
Estates LLC
010-143-039
PO BOX
12060
SLO, CA
93406-206
0 OS
R-4
OS -P
Parking Lot
17 "0" Shell
Beach
Road
Cliffs Resort
LLC
010-041-043
285
BRIDGE
ST
SLO, CA
93401-551
0 OS
R-4
VL-C
Parking Lot
Cliffs hotel parking lot
across from the hotel.
3 4 01O154O34
O-
0101540;2
010154031 1015sa11, 010'
losek,
lgr.72-1k 44
01011554, O029
'f.0 f/ 010154017'
53022 010154027'
~ 4 00110154019
153023 010153027
0153024 `r 4'g0101540;
____,4010153,028
<yO1O15a
-Hr... O1, O153O2.9
s :; 7[
'4,[( )"= / 0101540?�2a
010153037
A1A46RAAI
1438
4/-
010651038 tP
4010551054,.@�,,�
rKi 010551078 y
010551412VP +1 .,.010551018 rt• �'0f0551a01�
5500J ` - ' .4
010202006 4, � 1055100.1 Q110Y41
114
016154029V
,des P
010S310q'
• ^ 4'®
"Po 0105510
0105510
01055101E ("'-010551022
010551013 '010551021
•
&Tenn Cour
t �:al6sadettPark
. 1Y
010551011
0105ot01' w
11020500/ 010202008',
t
010205005 ^
- \+ #M } o"
01020. 0/015.1029
010141asteal�µ
0/0141009
010111013, 0101410M
010141010 0141063 •01 0
01014100 • 01011tOt5f 016fItO5ir�°
0101 3 61O141O26 rC�� 1►�
010141041
010141070)
4}1
010141
XO1O141
010/41040
Alma
010141045•
�} 4
010141041•
1104 0,, 0/0144019 t x',01014/023
4r' „ „ 010144013 010144072 di
01014/009 ; \\\\\\ 010144011 ' Ot 01
�aa,, r!. ,�1e °f}
01/.41105 010/44012 7r1+�
ft
6£08400to
'.ti1P0111,00 1 0
�_ -- L10211,00 10
1S6£trt010 4 B10E1 -010!,
"6 — n N4 100£11010 940E110 t 0
050£11010 S00£n010
i 1rO£11010 `°""E00£11010 ,,
6£00 1011 4 f * ,,,IMP -N---
\41
. ZI0tPIO10
600zS1010.�` n
110£41010 4 line
)1Jed aPl
aco€rtOt03'ulnQS >1 -Jed
sapesougliMOS
" £zozYl
lzoz11010
9£OZStO10 ; z-
btOZltoto
stoznotO soot
awn,. ��S3at
'1 , 410L1tOt02%Zi..1t010
N1 £EOZS10t0 i .t
002_ 010182009LJI
'y
1018 010183008
010184022 I
10154008
010154034
LL
.. '41015401 2
010154014
010154027
14.1/4,,,°1°15362814010154021 I •
s nark
010153037
eleisnaili. 6010551045k/ N,
Ot0551040,
_.010551017,,.
01 0205005 1 01 0551008 • 4\14:7•,C;4` C . j 010141044
*10141013
0101.41-030`` ('1.
i/ 1s 010141054 010144019
N� 010142024 ` l 010152035
CP
"r+s ,
010152026
010152008 ^
ilk
,. ♦ 010143014
Ebb Tic�c Fk ;a.,,
4�* 010143005 010143054•
010143901 lre1
K\N- .010041043
Soutfl PaIISafieSi i 010143043
Park South Staircase' 1, v.
010041044
(61Y 6.1.\\
•iirirl inllllll!
\O B
Appendix
Appendix B: Vacant Land Inventory Maps
PLACEWORKS
HO!? ING EL WENT 20 21 -2CG&
C:ft FPN E6, (:H
SITES INVENTORY
Zori ng
C-1
C-2
CG
MI PR
—I R-1
R-3
LI R-4
R -R
RSL
ouRe:Crt fF'crn0Eeach
30 81
11 -Amidst t b ok-
O
is 'to "� 1
X51
'4;
9.50 1.1
122
•117
•
Sites Analysis: North
City of Pismo Beach
2020 — 2028 Housing Element
Appendix
Appendix C: Vacant Land Inventory
2020-2028
Housing APN Possible Realistic
Address Street Name General Plan Zoning Planning Area Acres Notes Vacant Water Sewer Internet Electricity Inventory Number Units Units
Number
Vacant Parcels Suitable for Above -Moderate Income Units CG
1 005-398-042
0 Oak Park
Medium Density Residential
CG
Toucan Terrace
2.47 2.5
2.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2 005-398-043
0 Oak Park
Medium Density Residential
CG
Toucan Terrace
1.06 1.1
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.53 3.5
3.0 PR
3 010-045-063
2121
Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.17 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4 010-141-034
168
Searidge
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5 010-141-037
148
Searidge
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
6 010-141-038
130
Searidge
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.13 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7 010-141-039
120
Searidge
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.12 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
8 010-152-007
2900
Shell Beach
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
3.67 52.0
32.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
9 010-152-036
0 Frontage
Open Space
PR
South Palisades
0.57 0.0
0.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10 010-152-009
2799
Shell Beach
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
1.46 22.0
22.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
11 010-155-023
380
Encanto
Low Density Residential
PR
Sunset Palisades
0.13 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
12 010-562-012
98 Bluff
Low Density Residential
PR
Sunset Palisades
1.18 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
13 010-562-014
82 Low Density Residential
PR
Sunset Palisades
1.24 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
14 010-531-052
2251
Shell Beach
High Density Residential
PR
Spindrift
1.17 12.0
12.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
15 010-143-041
303
Radda
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.19 0.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
16 010-143-049
205
Radda
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.12 0.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
17 010-143-042
305
Radda
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
0.18 0.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
18 010-144-025
3000
Shell Beach
Medium Density Residential
PR
South Palisades
2.99 44.0
32.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
19 010-144-023
0 Shell Beach
Open Space
PR
South Palisades
1.27 44.0
32.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
20 010-562-022
22 Bluff
Low Density Residential
PR
Sunset Palisades
0.93 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
21 010-073-037
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.17 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
22 010-073-032
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.17 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
23 010-073-010
1270
Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
24 010-073-031
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.17 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
25 010-043-011
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.11 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
26 010-043-012
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.13 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
27 010-073-012
0 Mattie
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.15 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
28 010-047-004
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.12 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
29 010-043-016
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
30 010-562-018
50 Bluffs
Low Density Residential
PR
Sunset Palisades
1.20 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
31 010-073-027
1279
Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.20 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
City of Pismo Beach
2020 - 2028 Housing Element
Appendix
2020-2028
Housing
Inventory
Number
APN
Number
Address
Street Name
General Plan
Zoning
Planning Area
Acres
Possible
Units
Realistic
Units
Notes
Vacant
Water
Sewer
Internet
Electricity
32 010-073-014
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
33 010-073-039
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
34 010-073-035
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
35 010-073-013
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
36 010-043-004
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
37 010-141-044
0 Shell Beach
Open Space
PR
South Palisades
0.37 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
38 010-043-003
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
39 010-073-009
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.15 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
40 010-073-040
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.20 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
41 010-073-038
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
42 010-073-015
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.13 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
43 010-073-034
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
44 010-073-036
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.17 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
45 010-073-041
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
46 010-047-010
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
47 010-043-013
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
48 010-073-008
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.15 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
49 010-073-030
0 Costa Brava
Medium Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.17 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
50 010-043-014
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.30 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
51 010-043-017
0 Mattie
Low Density Residential
PR
Freeway Foothills
0.29 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
22.13 214.0
173.0
R-1
52 005-011-031
990
Fresno
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.11 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
53 005-011-032
990
Fresno
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.26 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
54 005-013-026
991
Stratford
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.32 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
55 005-022-035
620
Hanford
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.18 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
56 005-023-019
233
Porterville
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.13 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
57 005-026-003
222
Porterville
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.11 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
58 005-031-030
921
Hanford
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.14 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
59 005-032-007
0 Bay
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
60 005-032-021
681
Bay
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.10 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
61 005-032-077
0 Baxter
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.22 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
62 005-235-024
990
Bakersfield
Low Density Residential
R-1
Pismo Heights
0.36 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
63 010-311-036
240
Boeker
Medium Density Residential
R-1
Shell Beach
0.06 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
64 010-521-012
335
Terrace
Low Density Residential
R-1
Terrace Ave
0.28 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
65 010-521-049
135
Terrace
Low Density Residential
R-1
Terrace Ave
0.16 1.0
1.0 Vacant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
City of Pismo Beach
2020 - 2028 Housing Element
Land Use and Community Design Element
— Pismo Beach City Limits
California Coastal Zone Boundary
Land Use
E
IN
Single -Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential
Mobile Home Park
Commercial
Hotel/Motel
Industrial
Public/Semi Public
Open Space
Vacant/Other
2,000 FT. $
Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for full Pismo Beach City Limits.
Figure LU-3, Existing Conditions
LU-8
Pismo
Creek
Prire Canyon Rd. ---,
Pismo Beach City Limits
California Coastal Zone Boundary
Land Use
Low Density Residential James Way
Medium -Density Residential
High -Density Residential Industrial
Mobile Home Park Mixed -Use
- Commercial Public/Semi Public
Central Commercial Open Space
Resort Commercial �f:'' Very High -Density Residential Overlay 2,000 FT. A
Figure LU-5, Land Use Map
23 Land Use and Community Design Element
and do not result in bluff instability should be used to protect the bluffs rather than chain link fencing.
The Topaz cul-de-sac may be eliminated in favor of a pocket park or expanded viewpoint. The access points should be maintained so that the landscaping of abutting properties does not intrude on them.
North Spyglass/Spyglass
A planning area with a mix of visitor -serving hotel uses and a variety of housing types, with access to parks, the beach, and neighborhood shopping. - Planning Area Border
Land Use
Open Space
Low -Density Residential
Medium -Density Residential
High -Density Residential
- Commercial
Resort Commercial
.5 MILE
Planning area
detailed above
2,000 Ft
Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for full Pismo Beach City Limits.
North Spyglass
South Spyglass -
Figure LU-8, North Spyglass/Spyglass
Shell Beach Rd.
Solana Rd.
Policy LU-10.1: Bluff -Top Access and Protection. Protect the bluff -top open space, residential uses, hotels, and coastal access areas in this planning area.
Action LU-10.1a: North Spyglass Dedication Requirement. Increase the width of the lateral bluff - top conservation/open space and access dedication requirement set forth in the Parks, Recreation, and Access Element to a distance equal to the sum of the bluff retreat line over the anticipated lifespan LU-46
City Limits from County
1 Coastal Zone
Proposed GPILCP Zoning
•
•
•
Commercial Downtown, Coastal (CD -C)
Commercial Recreation, Coastal (CR-C)
General Commercial, Coastal (C -2-C)
Retail Commercial, Coastal (C -1-C)
Retail Commercial (C-1)
Village Commercial, Coastal (VC -C)
Mixed Use. Coastal (MU -C)
Public Facilities, Coastal (PF-C)
Public Facilities (PF)
Service Industrial, Coastal (I -C)
Service Industrial (I)
Mobile Home (MH)
One -Family Residential, Coastal (R -1-C)
One -Family Residential (R-1)
Two -Family Residential. Coastal (R -2-C)
Two -Family Residential (R-2)
Three -Family Residential, Coastal (R -3-C)
Visitor Lodging, Coastal (VL-C)
Open Space (OS -R)
Open Space (OS -P)
SOURCE: ESRI 2020; San Luis Obispo County 2019
DUDEK e
1 050 2,100
Feet
i4
0. •'
4 ' r : • S.
I a
r • .161ite. 44. e
' . ill ie ....A. i .
•
M414 416
t + d
•• ' ter'•..
et 4
4.1 •1 M
Proposed GP/LCP Zoning
City of Plartio Beach
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in Pismo Beach Pismo Beach City Limits
L _ ; Sphere of Influence
Vegetation Community/Cover Type
= Chaparral
Conifer -Oak Forest and Woodland
I. Developed
E Freshwater Marsh
L Grassland
lin Introduced Annual and Perennial
IM Open Water
Q Pacific Coastal Scrub
0 Sparse Vegetation
E7 Tidal Marsh
® Western Oak Woodland and Savanna
EM Western Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
0 0.5 1 N
Miles
'A
Source: LANDFIRE, 2016, Existing Vegetation Type Layer. Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2021.
4.3-2
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands in Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Wetland Type
lllll� Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
llllll■ Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors O 2021.
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
0 0.5 1
I t I
Miles
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
4.3-7
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat in Pismo Beach
imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2021 Pismo Beach City Limits
Critical Habitat - Tidewater goby
4.3-10
Figure CO -2 Conservation Areas
LEGEND
Pismo Beach City Limits
CONSERVATION AREAS
Freeway Foothills
Northern Rocky Beaches
Price Canyon Foothills
Southern Beach Community
Oak Park Heights Foothills
I Pismo Marsh
Monarch Butterfly Grove
Pismo Creek
Pismo Heights Foothills
2,000 FT.
Mattie
Road
Annex
Subtidal Zone
Pismo
Preserve
Price
Canyon Rd.
Pismo Creek
Chumash
Park
a
%
O
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
Some of the conservation areas within the City's Coastal Zone are considered environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) (as identified by the coastal icon) and thus are afforded additional protection under the Coastal Act and therefore, this GP/LCP. ESHA is defined in the Coastal Act as "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments" (Section 30107.5). ESHA designations are based on the presence of rare, sensitive, or especially valuable species or habitats.
Historically, the following types of habitats have generally been found to meet the definition of ESHA:
• Habitat areas that are rare or especially valuable from a local, regional, or statewide basis. • Habitat areas that support plant or animal species designated or candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law.
• Habitat areas that support species designated as Fully Protected or Species of Special Concern 10 Land Use Figure LU-2
Pismo Beach General Plan
mJax.a
A.
Continued Above
. . . .
Coastal Zone
Boundary
low density residential resort commercial
medium density residential commercial
high density residential
mobile home park
public
open space
J
Continued Below
AI The City Of
PISMO BEACH
•
A
'
SPECIAL CRITERIA
AREA A
f
• •
•
SPECIAL( RITERIA
AIR* B
:
ID
SPECIAL CRITERIA
AREA A
i
•
•
-
VIEW ©© o IDERATO @HO o
Mk. . AAA �A✓�
4SM. r • I coy w Ae
al MA MO woe AY AL
AIoAroC•J M MAY AO
a. OW Wow* AlOWANCA
or lira N• or AMpstICw
v
EFFECTIVE DATE
Doc t2
ve
(1CW ?©@
•
Da
•
•
•
•
i
The City Of
PISMO BEACH
HL 5
HL 2
•
•
•
•••
HL 5
HL
7'
L
au Noon itt hob muse"
*Unlit w ,N car or Poo
• a H u riYr w• r
�A'A�tJ/. �I1r4t ,t
w IM, MIKyt IIIIMOVIONP
o n• <„r o �O rK••
EfFECTIvE DATE Dee• II. IMa
bE00b4 d0 IN0WT000 rnlO onoQOsw ECM®
•
It's time to act on housing. Read an open letter from SLO County housing advocates > REACH
Ideas +Action for a Thriving Central Coast
Search Q
SIGN UP FOR NEWS
WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE A
HOUSING PROBLEM.
LET'S GET TO WORK.
An urgent call to approve and move on the housing our families, workforce, and economy desperately need
SLO COUNTY SUPERVISORS, MAYORS, COUNCILMEMBERS,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, AND ALL INTERESTED IN CREATING
MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSING:
SLO County's persistent housing shortage has become a fundamental threat to our community's livelihood. Businesses can't hire, workers can't afford to live here, and our economy can't sustain our way of life.
As members of the housing advocacy team and partners that supported development of the new Housing and Infrastructure Regional Framework, we believe that swift leadership to create more housing is an economic imperative.
We applaud the regional coordination of SLOCOG, the County and the seven cities in developing new strategies and tools to counteract the overwhelming challenges we face -
SEND FEEDBACK
and we urge you to take action now to approve and move forward on housing of all types and in all stages of development.
PROMISING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
AS DETERMINED BY EXTENSIVE PLANNING AMONG THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES
TOWN CENTER
`49 NORTH CHANDLER RANCH
BEECHWOOD
SANTA MARGARITA RANCH
•/
OM RANCH
ti • .-ORCUTT AREA
MARGARITA AREA
TANK FARM MIXED USE
_-SOUTHEAST ARROYO GRANDE EXPANSION
Project development status
L Decision imminent
L Projects pending
/DANA RESERVE
This map illustrates potential projects in SLO County where planning allows for over 200 units at the time of this letter.
It is not all inclusive and is not meant to represent the totality of possible projects nor their timetables.
Further information about projects can be seen below under the details of the Regional Housing Framework.
Decades of inaction have compounded the housing shortage and thwarted our ability to grow and thrive. As we look at our region's project pipeline it is essential that we resist the tendency to delay or deny the housing we need.
We must work urgently at every stage to build the homes and neighborhoods that our teachers, public servants, service workers, nurses and doctors, small business owners and beyond desperately need — moving projects through the planning pipeline more quickly and approving them without delay. Not in 2 years. Not in 5 years. Today.
IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROGRESS
Before us right now and in the months ahead are housing projects such as the Dana Reserve
SEND FEEDBACK
in Nipomo, Margarita Area in SLO, and North Chandler Ranch in Paso Robles that will create homes for thousands of families and begin to bridge the huge housing gap straining every facet of our community and economy.
Regional planning shows potential to activate the creation of 15,714 homes and apartments across SLO County. And we have the foundation for action.
SLO County, the seven cities and SLOCOG set the stage with the 2020 Regional Compact, a shared commitment to developing the housing and infrastructure needed to support the economy. Earlier this year, more than loo private and public sector stakeholders worked collaboratively over the course of 52 meetings to develop the next major milestone: the Housing and Infrastructure Regional Framework, a planning tool that aligns regional priorities around proposed projects and opportunities.
WHAT'S NEEDED NOW
We have the plan and tools to do the job. Each community has a role and responsibility, spanning the government leaders who are indispensable in making housing a reality to the community members needed to champion it. And region -wide collaboration will be essential to measure our progress, share best practices, and mobilize resources toward housing and supporting infrastructure.
Local government leaders should revisit policies such as density limits and parking requirements, streamline review processes and move on infrastructure projects to unlock longer -term housing opportunities.
Community members have a critical role to play in voicing support by showing up in the public square to ensure we collectively stay true to the north star of creating more housing that's attainable for our residents and supports our community's future.
We have the organizations and partners committed to supporting and advancing this vital community dialogue. We have a new framework and tools to leverage and a foundation of collaboration to channel our efforts efficiently and effectively.
The time is now. Let's respond with unity, urgency, and unwavering determination to secure a bright future for all.
Sincerely,
Ken Trigueiro
Scott Collins
SEND FEEDBACK
President & CEO, People's Self -Help Housing Executive Director, Housing Authority of SLO Jim Dantona Jeff Eckles
President & CEO, SLO Chamber of Commerce CEO, San Luis Obispo Housing Trust Fund Nick Rasmussen Lenny Grant, BD&C Co -Chair
Chief Executive Officer, Habitat for Humanity Co -Chair, Building Design + Construction council
Lindy Hatcher
Executive Director, Home Builders AssociationKathy McCorry CEO, South County Chambers of Commerce
Chuck Davison
President & CEO, Visit SLO CAL Krista Jeffries
Lead Organizer, SLO County YIMBY
Jocelyn Brennan
Government Affairs Director, San Luis Obispo Steve Delmartini County Realtors Region 31 Broker, Housing Advocate
Melissa James
President & CEO, REACH
TaPeople's
Self -Help
Housing
1 S
H l0
HOUSING AUTHORITY SAN LUIS OBISPO
Housing Our Community
M II•
seH iuis oe�svo couHrr
Housing Trust Fund
WHAT LOCAL BUSINESS LEADERS ARE SAYING
SEND FEEDBACK
"Our ability to attract and retain talented physician:
County is directly threatened by the housing crisis. Imr able to recruit."
Sue Andersen M
President & CEO, Marian Regional dic
ABOUT THE HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK
What is the the Housing and Infrastructure Framework?
Who was involved in the creation of the Framework?
What projects were identified in the Framework?
What are the main priorities to address to bring more
housing?
SEND FEEDBACK
Why do we need a regional approach for housing and
infrastructure?
What are the priority areas?
What successes have taken place so far?
What can the government do to support housing?
What we mean by "workforce housing"
How we got here
Economic growth not your thing? It's also quality of life What infrastructure has to do with it
SEND FEEDBACK
State of California • Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Armando Quintero, Director January 5, 2024
Roger Jacobs, District Planning Chief
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Oceano Dunes District
340 James Way, Suite 270
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
City of Pismo Beach
Planning Department
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
RE: Comments on City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report
To whom it may concern,
The Department of Parks and Recreation, Oceano Dunes District (Parks) appreciates the opportunities to provide comments on the Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update and Associated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code Update State Clearinghouse No. 2021010158.
This is the (3rd) comment letter the Oceano Dunes District, CA State parks has provided to the City of Pismo Beach.
Dates on each comment letter below:
• February 14, 2022 (1St)
• December 22, 2022 (2nd)
• January 5, 2024 (3rd)
There are outstanding items that State Parks encourages The City of Pismo beach to consider before finalizing the General Plan and associated `Elements'. This includes updates to the various elements and documents throughout the GP/LP, listed below.
Parks is a landowner of Pismo State Beach, which includes a parking lot at the western terminus of Addie Street, North Beach campground, Pismo Lake, the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, and approximately 8 miles of state beach, of which the City of Pismo Beach manages approximately 1.25 miles through a Lease Agreement with the state.
Parks is a state agency with the mission, To provide for the health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high -quality outdoor recreation.
STATE PARK GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS:
Administrative Comment (A)- Operating Agreement
The City of Pismo Beach operates portions of Pismo State Beach under an expired operating agreement. The agreement covers approximately 1 mile of sandy beach that forms the core attraction for most visitors to the city with most activities centered around the Pismo Pier. The land has two parking lots, two public restroom buildings, a lateral boardwalk, and other small improvements. State Parks does not own the pier or the land directly under the Pier.
State Parks recommends identifying this a priority within the City's General Plan to develop a new operating agreement that meets the needs of the City but also offers protection for the State Parks Department and is consistent with the Unit General Plan, Public Resource Code, and Department policies.
The City performs a full range of tasks on this land including building maintenance, parking area maintenance, housekeeping, trash service, and public safety (law enforcement and lifeguard services). The City will also hold special events like car shows, junior lifeguard activities, fun runs, and other organized events on the land. State Parks manages the beach south of this land and provides services to the public like natural resource management, lifeguard/public safety, and public outreach and education.
In the past State Parks has had concerns about aspects of the City's operation of the land.
Some concerns have focused on improvements (permanent structures) that were not reviewed with the State in advance; coordination of lifeguard and public safety services; concerns about wildlife issues (stranded wildlife, poaching of Pismo Clam, leashed dog regulations); water quality from streets that drain to the beach/ocean; and general collaboration on activities.
In addition, there are a number of emerging issues that should be considered when renewing this agreement include:
•
•
•
•
Sea Level Rise and coastal armoring
Water Quality issues concerning trash and pollutants from adjacent streets and parking areas
Changes in visitation and public use trends
State Parks Habitat Conservation Plan and the need to manage areas for endangered species
California Coastal Act policies
The need for additional public facilities to meet new visitor needs (restrooms, showers, public changing areas, limited parking)
State-wide policy changes and emerging legislation that guide local agency operating agreements
Comment: State Parks recommends identifying this a goal and or priority within the City's General Plan/ LCP to develop a new operating agreement that meets the needs of the city but also offers protection for the State Parks Department and is consistent with the Unit General Plan. According to the city, the LCP contains the Coastal Element of the General Plan and provides the overall goals and policies that protect a City's coastal resources and is intended to implement the goals and policies in the City's Land Use Plan and includes sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plans within the Coastal Zone.
Therefore, State Parks recommends using the GP/LCP update as an opportunity to initiate the update of a new Operating Agreement to bring both the City of Pismo Beach and State Parks current and to adopt appropriate policies to manage these state-owned lands.
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT REVIEW
AUGUST 2023 REVISION:
State Parks Comment # 1:
Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 5. Conservation Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, page 12
Examples of ESHA in Pismo Beach include portions of Pismo State Beach, Pismo Lake, Price Canyon, Pismo Creek, Pismo Preserve, Meadow Creek, dunes habitat of the Pismo State Beach, and the Monarch Butterfly Grove.
An important component of the combined GP/LCP is to ensure that ESHA is identified and protected in future development proposals consistent with Coastal Act requirements.
Comment: Incorrect naming of Pismo Marsh, Pismo Lake and Monarch Butterfly Grove.
These are state-owned and operated property and recommend referencing accurately throughout the entirety of the document element.
The appropriate name of both the marsh and lake is: Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve The appropriate name of Butterfly Grove is: Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove State Parks Comment # 2:
Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 7. Goals, Policies, and Actions, Action COS -3.2a. page 30:
Action COS -3.2a: Definition of ESHA. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) shall be defined as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. An area shall be considered ESHA if it fits this Coastal Act definition, and likely includes portions of Pismo State Beach, Pismo Lake, Price Canyon, Pismo Creek, Pismo Preserve, Meadow Creek, dunes habitat of the Pismo State Beach, and the Monarch Butterfly Grove.
Comment: Incorrect naming of Pismo Marsh, Pismo Lake and Monarch Butterfly Grove.
These are state-owned and operated property and recommend referencing accurately throughout entirety of the document element.
The appropriate name of both the marsh and lake is: Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve The appropriate name of Butterfly Grove is: Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove State Parks Comment # 3:
Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 7. Goals, Policies, and Actions, Policy COS -3.9 and Action COS -3.9a -3.9i, page 38-40:
Action COS -3.9d: Implement Habitat Objectives. Seek funding to implement the following objectives for the habitat value of Pismo Lake in coordination with applicable resource agencies:
Comment: State parks recommends that State Parks be referenced as the appropriate contact for any collaboration or future planning regarding Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve.
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW:
AUGUST 2023 REVISION:
State Parks Comment # 4:
Land Use Element, Section 3. Goals, Policies, and Actions, Action LU-15.2m, page p.62:
Action LU-15.2m: Improved Pismo Marsh Sign. Create an improved Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve Marsh sign.
Comment: The State requests that any signage related to state owned and operated property be named and referenced appropriately, Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. In addition, any proposed signage for this property be reviewed by State Parks, Oceano Dunes District.
State Parks Comment # 5 :
Land Use Element, Throughout, North Beach Campground, Butterfly Grove and Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve Land Use and Zoning
Comment: Change state property designation from OS- P to CR- C and OS -R " The state owns and operates North Beach Campground, the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, and Pismo Lake units and may, in the future, wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures which may conflict with this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach review the proposed open space land use designation and zoning for these properties to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation." •More specifically, the state requests that the City consider applying the Open Space Recreation Zone (OS -R) to these properties, which is intended for "areas with significant natural resources, environmentally sensitive habitats, and/or scenic views to be protected and used for recreational uses where compatible with those characteristics",
and for which the City's proposed zoning ordinance identifies parks and playgrounds as permitted uses. Further, the state notes that the North Beach Campground is a developed recreational resource which includes high priority coastal camping and RV facilities, which would not be considered a permitted use under the City's proposed land use and zone designation for this site.
•Accordingly, the state requests that the City consider applying the Commercial Recreation Zone, Coastal (CR-C) zone to this property, which is intended for "areas suitable for recreational vehicle parks and other visitor -serving uses". The state requests that the City consider only land use and zoning designation for the state's property which would not render existing uses legal, non -conforming.
State Parks Comment # 6:
Land Use Elements Action LU-8.2e: Permitted Development (in the areas zoned for public beach access or open space recreation) and associated zoning designations, and Conservation Open Space Element Action COS-3.2c-ESHA Buffers, Action COS -3.2d - Existing Development Within ESHA Buffers, Action COS -3.2h- Monarch Butterfly Habitat Protection, Action COS-3.7a-Streamside Protection Zone, Action COS -3.5d -Wetland Buffers, and Action COS -3.5e -Existing Development Within Wetlands Buffers Comment: The state requests the City to consider the development limitations proposed to ensure these proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain, improve and propose new State Parks recreational facilities within the city, where located and designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible.
In addition, the state requests the City to consider the development limitations proposed pursuant to Draft Safety Element Action 2.5b -Restrictions on Development Within the 100 - Year Floodplain, Action 2.5c -Shoreline Setbacks, and Action 2.5d-Floodplain Zoning Standards to ensure these proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain and improve existing State Parks recreational and operational facilities within the City as provided for in proposed Action LU-4.21: Maintenance of Campgrounds and RV Parks. The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in advance with the state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations concerning sea level rise.
EIR REVIEW:
*State Parks Comments and recommendations regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Clearinghouse No. 2021010158*
Numbered (1 — 18) Various Elements
1. Draft EIR Section 2.4.4 General Plan Land Use Designations and Density The state operates Pismo Lake, North Beach campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, units which are identified as Open Space. The state may in the future wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures and would like
to ensure such improvements would not potentially be inconsistent with the requirements of this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach review this land use designation to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation. Pismo Coast Village RV Resort (PCV) and North Beach campground (NB) both operate campgrounds to support a recreational vehicle (RV) camping experience. PCV is designated as resort commercial, and NB is designated as open space. The state recommends reviewing this disparate designation for consistent application. Given the developed, recreational use of NB campground, the state recommends the City consider a Resort Commercial land use and Commercial Recreation zoning designation.
2. Draft EIR Section 3.2.4 Natural Setting and Section 4.3.1.c. Biological Resources Setting (page 3-2)
The state recommends removing Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) from their environmentally sensitive habitat area designations as this area is not within city of Pismo Beach GP/LCP responsibility areas. Correspondingly, the state recommends removing reference to the ODSVRA from the Draft Conservation Open Space Element, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area description and page 12, and in proposed Action COS -3.2a.
3. Draft EIR Section 4.2.3 Air Quality Impact Analysis, Table 4.2-6, Policy CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40 (page 4.2-13)
The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach to consult with the state on any planned improvements to state property within the GP/LCP Project area (i.e., Addie Street).
Correspondingly, the state recommends this change to the Draft Circulation Element Policies CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40.
4. Draft EIR Section 4.2.3 Air Quality Impact Analysis, Action COS -1.1c (page 4.2-21) The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach to consult with the state on any planned improvements to state property within the GP/LCP Project area (i.e., Addie Street).
Correspondingly, the state recommends this change to the Draft Conservation Open Space Element Action COS -1.1c.
5. Draft EIR Section 4.3.1.d Biological Resources Setting, Special Status Species (page 4.3-12)
The City of Pismo Beach recognizes special status species that are known or have potential to occur and list Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) as one such species.
The state would request the city to include Western snowy plover within their Special Status Wildlife Species, Appendix G, Table G-2 as one such species.
6. Draft EIR Section 4.3.3 Biological Resources Impact Analysis, Policy COS -3.2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (page 4.3-22)
The state recognizes the importance of protecting significant natural and cultural resources and will manage and/or design any state projects on state lands consistent with state rules, regulations and policies. Please see additional comments regarding Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, wetland and stream resources and buffers under Comment #11, below.
7. Draft EIR Section 4.3.3 Biological Resources Impact Analysis (page 4.3-33)
The state continues to pursue a final Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Oceano Dunes District (Parks), including those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement. Upon an approved Parks HCP, all portions of Pismo State Beach, including those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, shall comply with HCP conditions as approved.
8. Draft EIR Section 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources
The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in advance with state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations concerning sensitive tribal and cultural resources.
The state would also request notification of any proposed Projects on city property which have potential to impact known cultural resources with boundaries that abut and/or overlap onto state property.
9. Draft EIR Section 4.4.1.d Cultural and Tribal Resources Setting, Previously Identified Cultural Resources (page 4.4-4)
The state recommends environmental, or planning documents should not contain information about the location of Native American archaeological resources, sacred sites, or other tribal and cultural resources.
The state recommends all archaeological or other cultural resources be considered important or significant until formal evaluation for California Register of Historical Resources and/or National Register of Historic Places occurs and indicates otherwise.
10. Draft EIR Section 4.9.1.e, Hydrology/Water Quality Setting, Sea Level Rise (page
4.9-12)
The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in advance with state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations concerning sea level rise.
In addition, the state requests the City to consider the development limitations proposed pursuant to Draft Safety Element Action 2.5b -Restrictions on Development Within the 100 - Year Floodplain, Action 2.5c -Shoreline Setbacks, and Action 2.5d-Floodplain Zoning Standards to ensure these proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain and improve existing State Parks recreational and operational facilities within the City as provided for in proposed Action LU-4.21: Maintenance of Campgrounds and RV Parks.
11. Draft EIR Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning
The state operates Pismo Lake, North Beach campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, units which are identified as Open Space. The state may in the future wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures which may conflict with this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach review this land use designation to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation.
In addition, the state requests the City to consider the development limitations proposed pursuant to Draft Land Use Elements Action LU-8.2e: Permitted Development (in the areas
zoned for public beach access or open space recreation) and associated zoning designations, and Draft Conservation Open Space Element Action COS-3.2c-ESHA Buffers, Action COS -3.2d -Existing Development Within ESHA Buffers, Action COS -3.2h - Monarch Butterfly Habitat Protection, Action COS-3.7a-Streamside Protection Zone, Action COS -3.5d -Wetland Buffers, and Action COS -3.5e -Existing Development Within Wetlands Buffers to ensure these proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain, improve and propose new State Parks recreational facilities within the City, where located and designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible.
12. Draft EIR Section 4.13.1.e, Public Services and Recreation Setting, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (page 4.13-4), and Policy COS -3.9 Pismo Creek Marsh (page 4.13-14)
The Draft EIR describes "resource -based open space" as lands "primarily managed to protect and preserve natural resources while providing scenic and passive uses for residents and visitors" and as "generally unimproved areas that preserve open space, such as environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Figure 4.13.1 indicates that Pismo Lake, NB campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove are mapped resource - based open space. However, as noted herein, given the developed recreational use of NB campground and potential future plans to improve public access amenities for Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove (including visitor parking and restrooms as provided for in proposed Action COS-3.2h.e, Monarch Butterfly Habitat Protection), the state recommends the City consider if the proposed resource -based open space designated for NB campground and Pismo State Monarch Beach Butterfly Grove is appropriate.
In addition, Pismo Lake (i.e. Pismo Creek Marsh) is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. The state may in the future wish to reclassify this unit consistent with Department of Parks and Recreation unit designation and/or improve public access to this area consistent with such designation. Correspondingly, the state recommends proposed Policy COS -3.9: Pismo Marsh Protection and its associated Actions be revised to reflect the correct ownership of the land and to ensure the Department of Parks and Recreation is consulted with regards to any proposed project design, mitigation measures and/or habitat resource protection program potentially affect the property.
13. Draft EIR Appendix C- Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet Pismo Creek Marsh is identified in Figure CO -1 and pg. 23/520 and is listed as owned and managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This property is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. The state requests the City to correct the identified ownership for this property throughout the Draft EIR and updated LCP Elements.
14. Draft EIR Appendix C- Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet- Figure CO -2 pg. 25/520. The state operates Pismo Lake, North Beach campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, units which are identified as Open Space. The state may in the future wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures which may conflict with this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach
review this land use designation to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation.
15. Draft EIR Appendix D- Land Use Fact Sheet- Figure LU-5 pg. 47/520. The state identified that the City of Pismo Beach incorrectly identified a state- owned parking lot as being a city -owned parking lot (Addie Street).
16. Draft EIR Appendix D- Public Access and Recreation Facilities pg. 48/520. The state identified that the City of Pismo Beach incorrectly identified, "The City owns four parking lots within walking distance to the coast, two of which are directly adjacent to the beach." A state-owned parking lot is incorrectly identified as being city - owned (Addie Street).
17. Draft EIR Appendix K- Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study pg. 416/520. The state recognizes the importance the state property identified as Addie Street parking lot, provides to the City of Pismo Beach, its citizenry and visitors by providing parking and public access.
18. Draft EIR Appendix K- Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study pg. 511/520. Bullet 6.e.- The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of state property operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in advance with state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations.
END OF EIR REVIEW
Thank you,
ArA,
Roger Jac
District Planning Chief
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Oceano Dunes District
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 805-904-4018
CC:
Kevin Pearce, Acting District Superintendent
Ronnie Glick, Supervising Environmental Scientist
Jeff Findlay, District Maintenance Chief
Danielle Bronson, Interpretation and Cultural Manager
Casey Dakin, Administrative Chief
Jennifer Holiday, District Planning Analyst
EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT A
ADDIE STREET PARKING LOT OWNERSHIP, COUNTY PARCEL REPORT Owner- State of California
a. 110 Park Avenue, Pismo Beach, CA
EXHIBIT B
EXPIRED OPERATING AGREEMENT- CITY OF PISMO BEACH
b. Executed May 7, 1951
Expired Circa May 7, 2001,
711114 Frog--nenr .
F"Innnir4; R Pt Ming
Parcel Report
APR: 405-162-413
Parcel Information
APN: 005-162-013
Owner Address:
7D? 3RD Sr 5TH FL WEST SA CRAM ENTr }
CA 95605
Site Address:
00110 PARK ST
Deso-iptsan: 000.9L C RECFIEATION
Tax Rate Area Code: 009401
Estimated ADares: 1.43
Community Code: PISB
Supervisor Disbricb Sadist 3
Average Percent Slope: 4
Land Use Information
smmyeu REMO
Land uses
Combining Designations
Flood Hazard Area
C.C.CLI I Zone
CITY
Permit Information
I
t'
L,r.r
Permit Description
Addresses on this Property
Application Date
Recorded Ownership Documents
Parcel History
Me map Is a user gene -atm staff nor: t twit ao tneeniet mapping ire as1 Is Ilan recereme 41410. Iayer& that agar en rS Map May Cr May nut be acute. current. a °Me r■l regable.
Assessor street address- 110 Park Street
SLO County Parcel- 005-162-013
County Land Use property information here.
Parcel Report attached as reference.
Report generated:
1#9/2024 3:55:17 PM
EXHIBIT B- EXPIRED LEASE AGREEEMENT
1 s
4 h
7 a
10 11.
12 13
14 14
1e
17 18
10 R0
21 22
,!4
2E
27 28
,L8
30 El
.EASE AGR Et+ENT
(Adsdnistration and control of
certain Mate Eeaco Areas for
purrosea of Stage Park 5Fatem,
'ecr 50-yr. period)
ddF 9-i#a
TArt; AU.EmMwNT made s triplicate and entered into. this IY
•iay ' , 1951, by and between the STATE
F CAIL A, acting by end through the ESTATE; FARE WO I35t0[d, f the Stage of California, libreinafter designated "STATE'" and ITT ,F PIS3rC BEACH, hereinafter designated "CTI,"
W I T N E S S E T H:
wiiEIiA3, Stets has heretofore acquired far park, play - round, and recreational pe:rpcaee certain real proper-tie4 coraatat1 . of beach frontage or the Pacific Ocean, in the CQ.anty of Saar Luis tielpa, which real prvp,ereiee are hereinafter nor, particularly Identified; Endo
WHEREAS, said properties are under the jurisdiction and control of State} and,
WHEREAS, State i5 authorised pUrena5t to the proviainne o f Section 5007 of time Public 4esonrces Code, tb enter into agree- ents $ddth titiea, counties, and other goli1icai aubdivieione of the State for the care, melrtenanCeo and Cor-.rolo for the purposes Of -the State Park SYds.eea, by either party to Such -ontract, o lands under the ,jurisdiction of nha cthfr party to such contract, and to jsr-pvide for the a andas of such care, maintenance, and control ya he paid from the general fund of Such city, county or e ther political subdivision, or fret the funds of State, d: the Cane nay be; ends,
WHEREAS, it is Che judgment of the parties hereto that
more advantageous public v,ae, cart, maintenance, and control of avid real properties hereinafter identified, for the pure aeea of
1 2
3 4
5 8
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 18
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 28
27 28
29 30
31 the State Park System, will be had and obtained if said real property is maintained and developed for playground, recreational, and beach park use, and to that end that the use, care, maintenanc and control of said real property, for the purposes of the State Park System, be placed under the jurisdiction of City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the pa ties hereto agree as follows, to wit (I)
That City shall have, for a period of fifty (50) years
from date hereof, the care, maintenance, and control of the real properties hereinafter identified, for the purposes of the State Park System, and to that end and during said period of years, City is hereby given jurisdiction and control of said properties for the purposes of developing, maintaining, controlling, using, and operating the same for playground, recreational, and beach park purposes; and that during said period City shall pay all the costs of developing, maintaining, controlling, using, and operating said beach properties for said purposes, and the State shall not, durin said period, be called .upon or be liable for the cost of said development, maintenance, control, use, or operation.
Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrar this agreement may be terminated and the provisions of this agree- ment may be altered, changed, or amended, by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
II.
While this lease agreement is in force and effect, said properties shall at all times be accessible and subject to the use and enjoyment of all citizens of the State of California, and all other persons entitled to use and enjoy the same, subject, however, in the matter of such use and enjoyment, to the juris- diction of City in conformity with this lease agreement. In this -2-
1 3
4 5
e
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 18
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
E5
28 27
28 E9
30 31
32 respect City is hereby authorized to grant such concessions of special benefit to the public using said beach areas to the end that greater use and enjoyment thereof will be derived. Such con- cession agreements shall be submitted to and receive the approval of the State Park Commission prior to the effective date thereof.
The rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of said beach areas shall thereupon became subject to such concession agreements or to such rules or regulations as may be promulgated by City for the use and enjoyment of such areas. Any such rules promulgated by City shall conform to and be consistent with the rules and regulations promulgated by the said State Park Commission and generally applicable to the State Park System. The properties hereinafter identified shall not be used for any other purpose than the purposes herein enumerated.
III.
City shall maintain and keep in good order and repair
any and all buildings or other structures that are now located on said beach premises or that may hereafter be constructed thereon.
In connection with such buildings or structures as are now located on said beach premises, it is understood and agreed that any liability which may arise or be adjudged, decreed, or declared, shall be assumed by City if such liability should arise or grow out of neglect and failure of City to keep said structures in proper condition and repair.
IV.
City may, subject to the approval of the State Park Com- mission, grant concessions in or upon said State Park areas con- sistent with the use thereof for park and playground purposes, such concessions to be primarily for the benefits and enjoyment of the public using said beach park areas and not for the profit or revenue purposes to City. If any profit is derived therefrom, such profit or the profits from other charges for special -3-
20 21
22 23
24 25
28 27
28 29
30 31
1 services or accommodations collected by City shall be paid into 2 the treasury of City: It is agreed and understood between the parties hereto that any such charges, fees, or collections made 4 by City for services, benefits, or accommodations to the general 5 public in connection with the operation, control, care, and manage e ment of said State beach areas shall be limited as far as prac- 7 ticable to actual needs for maintenance, safety, sanitation, and 8 bodily comfort, and that commercialization for profit shall not be O engaged in by City.
10 V.
11 It is further agreed and understood between the parties 12 hereto that any development, beach erosion, control or protection 13 work which may be undertaken by the State or the United States of 14 America, along or on said State beach areas, in the manner provide 15 by law or under the rules of the State Park Commission, shall not, 18 in any way, be construed as constituting a termination of this 17 lease agreement or in any way affecting the same.
18 State shall have the right to enter into agreements for 19 such work during the term hereof and to go upon said beach parks or to authorize any person, firm, or corporation to go upon the same for the purpose of such construction, beach erosion, protec- tion, or control work, or the doing of other public work for the improvement or development of said State beach areas.
VI.
It is further agreed that any and all development, con- struction, or improvement other than the above mentioned shall be under the supervision, control, and subject to the approval of, State.
VII.
It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto
that the books, records, and accounts applying to the operation of -4-
3 4
7 8
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
18 17
18 19
20 21
zz
23 24
25 28
27 28
29 30
31 1 said beaches kept by City shall always be open for audit and in- spection by State.
Upon the termination of this lease agreement all improve ments and other installations shall be the property of the State of California, and City shall not be entitled to any reimbursemen for payment for any work, labor, or material placed in or upon properties.
VIII.
It is understood that the State intends to acquire ad-
ditional real property suitable for` operation by the City under this lease -agreement and that the parties hereto may from time to time and by mutual consent (to be evidenced by an amendment executed by said parties) amend this agreement to provide for the inclusion of such other real property within the terms hereof.
I%.
The real property owned by State, the control, juris-
diction, care, and maintenance of which is by this lease agreemen given over to City, is identified as follows:
/Deed from Larry F. Coe recorded on November
•
27, 1950, in Book 587, Page 501 of Official
Records, Records of San Luis Obispo County,
California.
Deed from William W. Kerrick, Lawrence M.
Kerrick, Larry F. Coe and Betty Coe to the
State of California dated January 25, 1951.
(µ)
f.1(�l
Deed from Claire D. Franklin to the State of col
California, dated January 12, 1951.
,o ,/Deed from R. C. Itjen, a widower, to the
State of California dated January 17, 1951. (I) -
Deed from Herbert P. Sears and Bessy V.
Sears to the State of California dated
January 29, 1951. \
-5-
( K)
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these 2 presents to be executed by their respective officers thereunto 3 duly authorized on the day, month, and year first above written. 4 5
8 7 ATTEST:
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
18 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
28 Z7
28 29
30 31
Executive S- retary
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
ATTEST:
rector ' inance
-6-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
By and Through Its
STATE PARK COMMISSION
y
J. tt. Knowiand, Chairman
APPROVED:
Deputy >jirector-ComptrorJ
ARTMENT OF FINANCE
PPROVED
JUN 1 1951
AMES S. • AN, 'rector
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these 2 presents to be executed by their respective officers thereunto 3 duly authorized on the day, month, and year first above written. 4 5
8 7 ATTEST:
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
18 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
28 Z7
28 29
30 31
Executive S- retary
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
ATTEST:
rector ' inance
-6-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
By and Through Its
STATE PARK COMMISSION
y
J. tt. Knowiand, Chairman
APPROVED:
Deputy >jirector-ComptrorJ
ARTMENT OF FINANCE
PPROVED
JUN 1 1951
AMES S. • AN, 'rector
EXCERPT': FROM THE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARK COMMISSION
San Francisco, California
May 4, 1951 •
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MASTER PLAN. Lands Officer
Hennessey asked the adoption of a resolution approving the fifty year operating agreement between the City of Pismo Beach and the State of California covering properties acquired for park purposes situated within said City of Pismo Beach. He stated that the agreement is the standard form previously approved by the Department of Finance and has received the approval of and has been executed by the City of Pismo Beach.
It was moved by Commissioner Waldner that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS,. the City of Pismo Beach has entered into a
certain fifty (50) year operating agreement with the State of California covering the use, care and maintenance of properties in the City of Pismo Beach and vicinity, acquired by the State of California; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED that the certain fifty (50) year operating agreement by and between the State of California and the City of Pismo Beach covering the use, care and maintenance of those certain parcels of land in the City of Pismo Beach acquired by
the State be, and the same is hereby approved by this Commission and its Chairman and Secretary are hereby authorized to execute said fifty (50) year operating agreement. -
Seconded by Commissioner Kasch. ROLL CALL -- AYES:
Waldner, Kasch and Knowland. NOES: None. ABSENT: Scott and Carrillo.
oOo oOo oOo
I, J. H. Covington, Executive Secretary of the State Park Com- mission of the State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the majority vote of the members of the State Park Commission at a meeting held pursuant to due and legal notice to the members thereof at San Francisco, California, May 4, 1951.
-2-
t e tate ar
tate of California
H. E. BOOSINGER,, Mayor .
•
ELIZABETH JATTA, Clams
LILLIAN SIMMONS, Treasurer RICHARD HARRIS, Attorney
COUNCIL MEETS FIRST MONDAY OF EVERY MONTH
CITY Y OF PISMO BEACH CH, CALIFORNIA
RESOLDTION NO. 129
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City -of Pismo Beach that'the'siid'City'Councii enter"into".'Lease Agreement with the St -1 to of California - d- through' it's Park Commission rot 'the—Aauiiiiietration end' Cbhti+ol' of. certain State Beab Areas -for purposes of -State -Park System for fifty year period; `
BE " IT FURTHERTRESOLVED' th4t - the`7dayor— and" -the City Clerk be and are hereby"authbrized':to'sign"'"such Lease Agreement.
On motion of Counoilman,-Antoa`Doko,- seconded by
Councilman`Floyd-C.-Jones, and on the following roll call vote, to -wit:
Ayes: H.` E. Boosinger
AlexanderC.H.Chamberlin
Anton Doko
Floyd C Jpnes
Noes: Nona_.
Absent: Harry P. Norman
the foregoing resolution is adopted this 11th day of April, 1951.
I hereby certify that the'foregoing'resolution was duly and. • regularly passed by the City Council of the City of'Pismo Beach at an adjourned meeting thereof held April 11, 1951.
PORTION LOT 13
RANLRO EL PISMO
PORTION Of HARRIS SUBDIVISION
0 SEE ACC . PCAAi ag745
•rr.,
4•
try,
C4T£g
(O, Iq T t4cr
C
.Y lj r.
U.
OC£4Nt,
f4gti3
ZS YA.
Ada OY77c
SYSTEM QKFMEVr
Aritax. LoatnarJ.
Sii I 4d`5
8 118IHX8 JO GN8
cc
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DISTRIC T S
\
\\)\ s/ ' -, \'y//C
/ \ -®
/ -'// Il / \
11 \/
/ \s -----
f
ti `
1 \\, • INDEX TO SUBDIVISION DETAIL SHEETS.
+ not NO I - rat OC[*NO !UIOW1E d1 - T
5 M[T M0. 7 - rat a:[. No p1SOIV It10M NO.! a {
\ SK[T NO - PON. oC[SNO sumo SIGN No. I 0 {
\ SNE[T POP - POE OCEA N° {USOIVISIO N NO. I
SHEET aS10 - NRICVO N TEACH SUBDIV ISIO N
SHEET M0. 11\M - SOR. LA GNAW SUBDIVISION
SM[[T BO A - SO OOISINCE YEW TERRA CE
EL it NO.
R 2
LEGEND
m
ttb
4 if 2
O WNERSHIP RECORD
14740