11.A Correspondence Grow 2026-05-19 — Pismo Beach City Council, May 19, 2026

From:Andrew Grow
To:City Council
Cc:Ed Waage; Mary Ann Reiss; Scott Newton; Marcia Guthrie; Stacy Inman; City Clerk Subject:Comments on Item 11.A: General Plan/Local Coastal Program (GP/LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) Update and Final Environmental Impact Report
Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 4:06:03 PM
Attachments:Re Item 11.A General PlanLocal Coastal Program (GPLCP).pdf External Email
Dear City Council Members:

Please see attached letter and supporting materials regarding the General Plan/Local Coastal Program (GP/LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) Update and Final Environmental Impact Report:

Kind regards,
Andrew Grow
(805) 903-2836

May 18, 2026

VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Rd.

Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Email: [email protected]
Re: Item 11.A: General Plan/Local Coastal Program (GP/LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) Update and Final Environmental Impact Report, including Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Dear City Council Members,
I’ve been following the General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Coastal Land Use Plan Update for the past few years. I’ve inquired with staff and also submitted comments to both the Planning Commission and City Council at various stages throughout the process.

Most recently, I submitted an email to be included in the draft EIR and to receive comments on my concerns. I was surprised to ﬁnd that my entire correspondence had not been included in the EIR; instead, my concerns and comments were paraphrased, and I did not receive any direct responses from Staff or Consultants.

My main concern is the proposed land-use map (Figure LU-6), which shows the privately owned properties between Shell Beach Rd and Highway 101 as Open Space.

After speaking with neighboring property owners in this area, it became clear to me that there was insufﬁcient outreach to residents and a lack of understanding of the proposed changes, as well as the long-term effects on the subject properties. In 2023, I requested that Staff hold a workshop to explain the reasoning behind these proposed changes, as well as the effects they would have on future zoning and existing development. Unfortunately, no such workshop has been held, and my concerns have yet to be addressed. This is contrary to the “robust community engagement” that has been touted by Staff.

When the topic of land use in this area came up at the February 10, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Staff told the Planning Commission that the land use in this area was not changing and that it has always been open space. This statement is contradictory to Figure LU-3 (Existing Conditions), which shows the current land use in this area as a mixture of Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Vacant/Other.

I respectfully request that the City Council either amend the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation (where the properties are privately owned between Shell Beach Rd and Highway 101) to maintain the current residential designation or delay adopting the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Update and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), including Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, until property owners who would be affected by updated land use designations are informed of the proposed changes and have their questions/ concerns addressed.

The General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Coastal Land Use Plan Update is a long- awaited opportunity for the City of Pismo Beach to not only address land use and zoning issues that have caused problems in the past, but also to plan for the future. I’m hopeful that the City Council recognizes this and acts accordingly.

Please see below for prior correspondence and supporting documentation:

Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Grow
3990 Shell Beach Rd.

Pismo Beach, CA 93449

Land Use
LU-8
Figure LU-3,Existing Conditions
Note:For the purposes of this map and following figures,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.

Sources:City of Pismo Beach (2020),
County of San Luis Obispo (2020)

Land Use
LU-22FigureLU-6,Land Use Map
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.

March 20, 2026

VIA EMAIL

City of Pismo Beach Planning Commission

760 Mattie Rd.

Pismo Beach, CA 93449

Email: [email protected]

Re: Item 7.B: Public Hearing for Adoption of General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report, Including Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Dear Planning Commissioners

I have commented at various stages of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) update process on questions and concerns aﬀecting my property at 3990 Shell Beach Rd, as well as neighboring properties. To date, I have not received a response to my numerous comments, concerns, or questions regarding policy updates and their potential impact on my property and neighborhood. The City Manager previously told me, “We look forward to robust discussion and engagement with the community,” which, unfortunately, is at odds with reality.

My previous attempts to reach out to Planning Commissioners and City Council members have also had limited impact, as City planning staﬀ continues to state when questioned by the decision makers that there are no proposed changes to the Shell Beach Rd area, and further state that the direction given was that there will be no analysis of the land use in the area. This eﬀectively shuts down the discussion before it starts. It should be noted that, when asked, staﬀ were unable to provide any documentation of the apparent direction given to them. Staﬀ indicates that nothing will change regarding the residential uses allowed in the Open Space designation. However, the new deﬁnition or purpose statement for the Open Space designation does not deﬁne allowable residential use.

Property owners along Shell Beach Rd have long believed that residential uses are allowed, and numerous existing homes are in the open space area designated along Shell Beach Rd. In fact, some properties are currently zoned residential. It is concerning that the new purpose statement does not provide reassurance that residential uses will continue to be allowed in the Open Space designation.

As a homeowner, I have concerns about this change and its potential impacts, which could render existing homes nonconforming if residential use is no longer allowed. The City should modify the statement to include residential uses to ensure the longevity of the existing residential units in the area.

Many property owners do not understand the importance of the land use designation and rely on the zoning. When city staﬀ have been asked if the zoning is changing, they have stated that it is not.

While the GP/LCP may not directly be changing the zoning, the subsequent policy update (the zoning ordinance) will. To the planners, this may seem obvious, but to the layperson, it is not; the lack of transparency is very misleading.

During a recent public hearing on the GP/LCP update, the Community Development Director stated that Pismo Beach is a built-out community, and further discussions ensued regarding potentially seeking a reduced Regional Housing Need based on that premise. Ignoring the current and potential future housing sites along Shell Beach Rd in this update is contradictory to the policies provided in the 2020-2026 Housing Element, which states:

The California Government Code requires that all the elements of a general plan be consistent, so that no conﬂicts exist. The most important aspect of consistency among general plan elements is that policies and implementation measures in the general plan elements support one another to achieve the goals and vision of the general plan. (Housing Element page 1-3)

The city is currently updating the General Plan/Local Coastal Program, which will address consistency with the housing element throughout the rest of the General Plan/LCP. (Housing Element Page 1-3)

To my knowledge, there has been no speciﬁc analysis regarding the proposed changes to the GP/LCP and their consistency with the Housing Element. Continuing to support the land use along Shell Beach Rd as Open Space enforces a constraint to the potential housing this area could provide. This area is already developed with housing and fully improved, with utilities and a street, providing ample opportunities for inﬁll housing. The rationale provided in the GP/LCP update is the need to protect scenic views. In the past, this view has been protected by a height limit. The public has not been provided with any studies, detailed maps demonstrating the scenic views, or an explanation of how height limits are no longer eﬀective in protecting these views. The decision to maintain the area as Open Space without analyzing its potential for housing is in direct conﬂict with the above policies.

The Housing element speciﬁcally addresses Governmental Constraints and identiﬁes them as Local policies and regulations. It further states that government policies and regulations aﬀect the price and availability of housing, as well as the provision of aﬀordable housing. It is confusing that one element of the General Plan (Housing Element) notes potential housing opportunities, while another element (Land Use) speciﬁcally deﬁnes Open Space without indicating that it allows housing. Bifurcating the elements rather than reviewing them for a seamless, comprehensive, and internally consistent General Plan is not in keeping with the City of Pismo Beach's stated policies and appears to be an approach that allows the City to meet the goals of one element while continuing to restrict residential development along Shell Beach Rd.

Additionally, separating each process (Zoning, Environmental, General Plan/LCP, Safety Element, etc.) makes it diﬃcult for the public to understand the overall impacts of the City's decisions. One example is the rezoning of the properties along Shell Beach Rd to be consistent with the General Plan land use.

When members of the public have asked about the changes along Shell Beach Rd, they have been told there are no changes. While this may be true to those who understand that the Land Use is the superior policy, the public understands zoning. This confusion is ampliﬁed by the bifurcation of the processing of these important documents.

It appears the city has used the GP/LCP update as an opportunity to wordsmith policies rather than evaluate current policies to ensure they allow what is best for the city over the next twenty years. The city should take the opportunity of a General Plan/Local Coastal Plan update to address the appropriateness of the land use designation along Shell Beach Rd, an area with a large amount of vacant and underutilized land that could provide future housing opportunities for the City.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Grow

3990 Shell Beach Rd.

Pismo Beach, CA 93449

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. Coastal height limits are provided to ensure that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251.

2. Overlay zones may impose additional standards for applicable properties. Please refer to the City of Pismo Beach Municipal Code for additional requirements.

3. Buildings may be up to forty-ﬁve (45) feet in height where the Planning Commission ﬁnds that signiﬁcant public views to and along 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 coastal 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 of low 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 protect and enhance such resources and meet LCP objectives 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

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 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. 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. 5 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 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
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 sophospsmartbannerend
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 9:33 AM 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
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-8.1a.

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.

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 Plan/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 Map
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).

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

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

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 of Sunset 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

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, unmaintained, 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

From: Pat January
To: Planning Commission; Don Oberhelman; [email protected]; Clare Malone Prichard; Reed Van Rozeboom; Mauna Wi g
Subject: Letter for meeting on 8-22-31
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:24:47 PM
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 Hanh
Cc: Lindsay Christiansen
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:24:53 PM
Attachments: Outlook-dtei m2m u. onq
Also FYI in case you didn't receive a copy.

Clare Malone Prichard
Planning Commissioner
Office: (805) 773-4658
Email: [email protected]
From: Anthony Markiewicz
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: Planning Commission
Cc: Don Oberhelman; Greg Alex; Clare Malone Prichard; Reed Van Rozeboom; Shauna Wills; Erica Inderlied Subject: Pismo Beach General Plan Update - Hearing 8-22-23 Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:16:39 PM
External Email
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
1 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

Inventory of properties along the east side of Shell Beach Rd.(4000 Shell Beach Road to 2770 Shell Beach Rd.) As of October,2023
2 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.

Inventory of properties along the east side of Shell Beach Rd.(4000 Shell Beach Road to 2770 Shell Beach Rd.) As of October,2023
3 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.

i
to02t cilia
i, 01041>54022 010183(308
010154008 / 5
¢101540;34
! flair
411154012
01 119
040154044
010154027
0146",„,010153028 010454021 s
�/Pr+Pa aces nark
/010153037
0101530047 `010551045k, �qj
010201009 ` 01fl55104G)
)
110204 5 _ _ 010551017v,
00 010551023
`.. 'y = 010551021 01055,4034
010205001! v 5t>. , .�. 1
1 010551012 .•camo 0185510f
‘ke010202006 01010139
01020500518105�55Y40�0__8� 1,.0Ca
dijAys010141030
UCl1"7
.40
010141028/

1.010141051
010141044
040141054''010144019
010144018
010444005
010144003
„+mouth
Palisades
010152008
,Ebb'Tidrifik
0101/3003
1_ .n�nl�ln
South Palisades
Park South Staircase
079181008
6010152025
7P
010152028
iv
010143014
,x010143054•.`•
!M!1
010041043
010143043
010047010
NN
010047001
a{. I
•
010047004

Appendix

City of Pismo Beach
2020 – 2028 Housing Element
Appendix B: Vacant Land Inventory Maps

Appendix

City of Pismo Beach
2020 – 2028 Housing Element
Appendix C: Vacant Land Inventory
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
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

Appendix

City of Pismo Beach
2020 – 2028 Housing Element
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

Land Use and Community Design Element
LU-8
Figure LU-3,Existing Conditions
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.

23FigureLU-5, Land Use Map

Land Use and Community Design Element
LU-46
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
GOAL LU-10
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.

Figure LU-8,North Spyglass/Spyglass
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 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.

Da
te
3 2
2 2
02 2
L
a
s
t
s
av
e
d
b
y
m
m
c
gin
n
is
P
a
th
Z
P
r
oje
c
ts
j119
24 0
0 M
A
P
D
O
C
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
Z
on
ing
C
ity
o
fP
is
m
o
B
ea
c
h
Z
o
n
ing
P
r
o
pos
ed
G
P
L
C
P
m
x
d
NO a k P a rkBlvd
Oak P ark Blvd
N 4th St
W Grand Ave
S
4 t
h
S
t
Farroll Rd
James Way
Price St
HindsAve
AvilaBeach Dr
S
1 3
t
h
S
t
OntarioRd
Wadsworth
S
t
S
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
l
v
d
MonteRd
WadsworthAve
P r i c e C a n y o n R d
Shell Beach Rd
Ol
d
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
R
d
Five Cities Dr
Mattie Rd
Atlantic City Ave
1 101
Proposed GP/LCP Zoning
City of Pismo Beach
SOURCE: ESRI 2020; San Luis Obispo County 2019
0 2,1001,050
Feet
City Limits from County
Coastal Zone
Proposed GP/LCP 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)
FIGURE N-2

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-2
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in Pismo Beach

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands in Pismo Beach

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-10
Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat in Pismo Beach

10 Figure CO-2 Conservation Areas
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

Land Use Figure LU-2
Pismo Beach General Plan
Coastal Zone
Boundary
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
B
e
l
o
w
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
A
b
o
v
e
low density residential
medium density residential
high density residential
mobile home park
resort commercial
commercial
public
open space

EFFECTIVE DATE Dec . 12, 1983
V

ALL RIGHTS TO THIS MAP ARE

VESTED IN THE CITY OF PISMO

BEACH AND MAY NOT BE

REPRODUCED,IN WHOLE OR

IN PART, WITHOUT PERMISSON

ALL RIGHTS TO THIS MAP ARE

VESTED IN THE CITY OF PISMO

BEACH AND MAY NOT BE

REPROOUCED,IN WHOLE OR

IN PART, WITHOUT PERMISSION

OF TI -E CITY OF PISMO BEACH
L
EFFECTIVE DATE Dec. 12, 1983
L J
u
J /1L
J

It’s time to act on housing. Read an open letter from SLO County housing advocates 

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 , 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 — Housing and Infrastructure Regional Framework

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

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.

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

Ken Trigueiro Scott Collins
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 100 private and public sector stakeholders worked collaboratively over the course of 52 meetings to develop the next major milestone: the , 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,
Housing and Infrastructure Regional Framework

SEND FEEDBACK

President & CEO, People’s Self-Help Housing
Jim Dantona
President & CEO, SLO Chamber of Commerce
Nick Rasmussen
Chief Executive Officer, Habitat for Humanity
Lindy Hatcher
Executive Director, Home Builders Association
Chuck Davison
President & CEO, Visit SLO CAL
Jocelyn Brennan
Government Affairs Director, San Luis Obispo
County Realtors Region 31
Melissa James
President & CEO, REACH
Executive Director, Housing Authority of SLO
Jeff Eckles
CEO, San Luis Obispo Housing Trust Fund
Lenny Grant, BD&C Co-Chair
Co-Chair, Building Design + Construction
council
Kathy McCorry
CEO, South County Chambers of Commerce
Krista Jeffries
Lead Organizer, SLO County YIMBY
Steve Delmartini
Broker, Housing Advocate


WHAT LOCAL BUSINESS LEADERS ARE SAYING

SEND FEEDBACK

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?
“Our ability to attract and retain talented physicians and healthcare prov County is directly threatened by the housing crisis. Immediate action is criti able to recruit.”
Sue Andersen
President & CEO, Marian Regional Medical Center!"

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

Pismo Beach City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Pismo Beach City Council
May 19, 2026