Open Space and Ecology Committee

Open Space and Ecology Committee

October 25, 2006

Page 1

OPEN SPACE AND ECOLOGY COMMITTEE

October 25, 2006

MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL

50 PARK PLACE, BRISBANE, CA

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Committee Chair Gutekanst called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.

Committee Members Present:Bouscal, Miller, Whitten, and Chair Gutekanst

Staff Members Present:Open Space and Ecology Analyst Pontecorvo, Assistant to the City Manager Smith

Others Present: John Christopher Burr

* MC = Member of Committee

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Chair Gutekanst noted there had been a request from a member of the public to address the committee, and she suggested taking those comments first.

MC Miller proposed adding to “Other Committee Matters” a brief discussion of the presentation made by Universal Paragon Corporation at the recent Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

MC Miller moved to adopt the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by MC Whitten and unanimously approved.

PUBLIC COMMENT

John Christopher Burr noted that both Propositions 84 and 87 on the November ballot are tied to the Conservation element, and perhaps to the Open Space Element as well. Because the law requires all general plan elements to be consistent with one another, he recommended that Brisbane consider adding language to the General Plan as part of the update process.

Mr. Burr said the ballot propositions provide loans for small communities, grants and loans for safe drinking water and pollution prevention projects, multi-objective flood corridor projects, such as a wetlands river park, restoring the flow of streams through CrockerIndustrial Park, and areas around the lagoon. He noted the measures also provide funds for protecting coastal waters, revitalizing communities, local conservation programs, erosion control projects, elimination of exotic species, prescribed burning and fuel hazard reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, and other kinds of restoration projects.

Mr. Burr encouraged the City of Brisbane to take advantage of funds for projects that will make the community safer. He expressed concern about Brisbane’s emergency tents, water supply, and infrastructure weaknesses. He recommended initiating water conservation, water banking, and watershed management and protection programs.

Mr. Burr noted that $138 million in funding is targeted for San FranciscoBay, and an additional $100 million is available for interregional and unallocated programs.

Mr. Burr observed that some of the language in the ballot measures is well crafted and clear, and he recommended using the same kind of wording, modified for Brisbane’s situation, in additions to the General Plan. He suggested including references to specific code sections in the Conservation element.

Mr. Burr proposed forming a San BrunoMountain, lagoon, and beach conservancy so it can be specifically recognized under state law. He said this step would open new funding possibilities covering a wide range of environmental activities.

Mr. Burr noted that Proposition 87 asks for $4 billion in bond indebtedness to fund certain programs, including programs for creating new industries, technologies, and jobs for renewable energy; start-up funds for businesses involved in alternative fuels; green building; and clean energy; funds to support research; and public education. He encouraged the City to consider a wide range of projects that could be eligible for funding and to add policies and programs to the Conservation element reflecting these concepts.

MC Bouscal observed that both Proposition 84 and Proposition 87 have accountability clauses and oversight by a controller and citizens committee, and he asked if funds earmarked for planning could be used to pay for staffing and support. Mr. Burr stated that he believed this kind of effort could be eligible for funding.

Mr. Burr urged committee members to vote in favor of the two propositions. He added that they are likely to pass.

Mr. Burr noted the Proposition 90, dealing with abuse of eminent domain, would also make it more difficult for local jurisdictions to carry out some normal activities. He said the proposition exempts all existing laws and everything done under the guise of public health and safety, as long as those decisions are based on factual findings.

Mr. Burr thanked the committee for providing an opportunity for him to comment.

MC Bouscal said that if these measures pass, Brisbane needs to become aware of potential impacts. In that event, MC Miller noted, the Grants Subcommittee could review and consider possible opportunities for Brisbane the new laws may offer.

Committee members thanked Mr. Burr for his remarks.

Chair Gutekanst endorsed MC Miller’s suggestion, and other committee members agreed.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: REVIEW OF CONSERVATION ELEMENT

MC Miller proposed starting by reviewing the materials prepared by Open Space and Ecology Analyst Pontecorvo. Other committee members expressed support for this approach.

Chair Gutekanst welcomed comments on the proposed goals for the Conservation element. Committee members agreed that the language reflected the committee’s consensus. Chair Gutekanst pointed out two punctuation errors.

MC Bouscal said he liked the idea of adding a table for birds and mammals.

The committee reviewed and discussed the chapter index. MC Miller suggested deciding whether green building should go before or after the categories listed. Chair Gutekanst recommended deferring this decision until after the committee had a chance to review the element.

MC Miller noted the section on aquatic resources should probably be retitled as “Aquatic and Water Resources.”

Chair Gutekanst drew attention to Page 3. In the second paragraph, instead of the narrow term “all projects,” she suggested using “all City-sponsored and City-regulated activities.” She noted the “projects” connotes development projects rather than day-to-day operations and activities. Committee members discussed changing the language to “all projects and City operations.” They agreed to give the terminology further consideration.

Chair Gutekanst recommended deleting “measures of” from the next sentence. She recommended changing the three dots in the next paragraph to a period. Committee members concurred.

Chair Gutekanst questioned the meaning of “so as not to overwhelm the long-term environment.” She proposed leaving that phrase out. MC Miller observed that analysis alone was not sufficient; he clarified that the intent was that development decisions be analyzed as well as made from the perspective of sustainable development. He emphasized the need to include action. Chair Gutekanst proposed using “analyzed and implemented.”

In the note to the first paragraph on Page 4, Chair Gutekanst suggesting saying, “The City may implement a variety of policies and programs and, with some restrictions, enact requirements that go beyond the minimums set by outside agencies.” Mr. Smith questioned whether that language would address concerns about federal and state law preemption. Chair Gutekanst expressed her opinion that the City Attorney was being overly cautious in advising the City against any actions that restrict use of private property. She questioned the accuracy of his advice.

MC Miller advocated using the language proposed by the staff, noting it recognizes the possibility of federal and state preemption without identifying specific issues. He stated there are occasions when a city can go beyond state and federal law, but those situations are restricted. Mr. Smith said the language proposed by Chair Gutekanst implies that the City can regulate as much as it chooses, which is not the case. After some discussion, the committee decided to use the staff’s language.

MC Miller noted that the revisions to the next paragraph will depend on how the document is organized.

Referring to Page 6, MC Miller recommended repeating the first paragraph note regarding the technical documents for the second paragraph as well.

In the second line of the next paragraph, MC Miller recommended inserting the date the HCP was approved.

Chair Gutekanst noted the reference to a “biological program” could be more descriptive. Mr. Smith said that terminology comes from the HCP. MC Whitten proposed “environmental management program.” MC Miller added that most of the language in this element was drafted by former Planning Director Carole Nelson. Chair Gutekanst said she would try to think of better wording.

Chair Gutekanst pointed out that “silverspot” in the last sentence should be one word.

MC Miller proposed adding the following after the second sentence in the next paragraph: “The plan operator works with the trustees of the HCP. The trustees include representation from the County and the surrounding cities that are signatory to the HCP, Brisbane, Daly City, and South San Francisco.”

MC Bouscal commented that PG&E, the San Francisco Water Department, and Colma may join in the future.

Chair Gutekanst proposed rearranging the following sentence by deleting the word “when” and inserting “which” after “development proposals.”

Chair Gutekanst directed the committee’s attention to the language regarding the City’s proposed green building ordinance. MC Miller recommended inserting this text before the policies and programs of the element.

Referring to the fourth paragraph, Chair Gutekanst recommended deleting the sentence, “A number of local and national systems have developed to serve as guides to green building practices.”

Chair Gutekanst proposed adding that the Green Points program is becoming a standard for California.

MC Bouscal clarified that the policy regarding the threshold based on square footage or number of units of new construction had not been changed. MC Miller suggested adding language explaining the green building ordinance threshold.

Mr. Smith said City Attorney Toppel recommends applying the green building ordinance to commercial new construction over 10,000 square feet and residential developments over 20 units. He noted that Mr. Toppel feels one of the best ways to justify and defend the City’s green building ordinance is to have a set of strong policies and programs in the General Plan.

MC Miller provided some language he drafted for proposed goals, policies, and programs. He noted the green building threshold and the LEED-Plus standard should be reflected in General Plan programs. He recommended including energy efficiency and City-sponsored incentives in the programs.

MC Miller recommended reviewing the existing policies and programs first, and then looking at comments from the Baylands scoping sessions for other items that should be included. Other committee members expressed support for this approach.

Chair Gutekanst drew attention to Page 148 of the text. The committee reviewed and approved Policies 118 through 122, and Program 122a.

MC Miller recommended clarifying the intent of Program 122b. Mr. Smith noted the technical background reports for the General Plan include maps showing populations of insects and the areas with the most sensitive resources, and Program 122b refers to those maps. He added that the intent is to use the maps to avoid impacts on the most sensitive areas with the most endangered habitat. MC Miller suggested identifying the specific maps and articulating the intent. Mr. Smith said the staff would draft some additional wording.

Chair Gutekanst expressed concern that some of the maps in the background reports might be outdated. Mr. Smith said that anyone wishing to develop an unplanned parcel would have to conduct new field surveys and environmental studies.

Committee members reviewed and approved Program 122c. With respect to Program 122d, MC Miller asked if motorcycles were still a problem. He recalled that motorcycles were a problem before the park was established. Committee members noted there were occasional unauthorized vehicles. MC Miller recommended updating and expanding Program 122d to cover mountain bikes. Mr. Smith observed that most problems occur because of failure to keep gates closed.

MC Bouscal observed that some invasive plants are spread by bulldozers and fire protection equipment. He emphasized the importance of properly cleaning all equipment before using it in sensitive areas. Chair Gutekanst questioned the City’s jurisdiction to do anything about this problem. MC Miller pointed out that as a trustee, it might be appropriate for the City to recommend reducing habitat destruction from firefighting equipment. Committee members agreed to add this item as Program 122f.

MC Whitten proposed changing “motorbikes” to “mountain bikes.” MC Miller clarified that mountain bikes are currently allowed on San BrunoMountain, but only on paved trails. He explained that the intent is to prevent unauthorized off-road use. MC Whitten suggested using the term “unauthorized off-road vehicles,” and other committee members agreed.

MC Miller recommended clarifying the intent of Program 122e. He proposed saying, “Encourage applicants to initiate early CEQA consultation with appropriate agencies on conservation issues.” The committee approved this addition.

Committee members reviewed and approved Policy 123. Chair Gutekanst suggested changing the wording of Program 123a to refer to “native” or “sensitive” biological communities. After some discussion, the committee decided to keep “biological communities.”

MC Miller proposed rewording Program 123b as follows: “Work with the HCP operator in studying how the 40 percent requirement of the HCP for conserved habitat can be approached in the Brisbane Acres and other areas in an ecologically and systematically planned fashion, rather than by a piecemeal, parcel-by-parcel fashion.”

Chair Gutekanst recalled that the committee had previously endorsed a policy that the City-owned parcels in Brisbane Acres not be counted toward the 40 percent. She recommended adding this as a General Plan policy.

Mr. Smith noted the grants used to purchase some of the City-owned parcels forbid using those acquisitions to mitigate impacts of development elsewhere, which is what the 40 percent requirement is intended to do. He said this restriction does not apply to parcels that were acquired with other funds. Committee members agreed that this should be a General Plan policy.

Mr. Smith clarified that donor-acquired parcels, such as those acquired as part of a density transfer application, could be counted toward mitigation. To address this concern, committee members suggested specifying that “City-acquired parcels” cannot be counted toward the 40 percent requirement.

MC Miller proposed adding another new program under Policy 123: “Operate a vegetation management program on City-owned open space, following the best conservation principles.” Committee members expressed support for this addition.

Turning to Page 149, the committee reviewed the next program. MC Miller questioned the meaning of “urban environment.” MC Whitten explained the distinction between urban and natural environments. MC Miller proposed saying “within the urban environment,” and committee members approved that wording.

Chair Gutekanst questioned the point of Policy 124 and suggested deleting it. MC Miller recommended changing Policy 124 to read: “Conserve and promote planning of the urban environment.” MC Miller argued in favor of articulating the City’s intent that trees, garden plants, and other landscaped areas should be conserved. He noted the street tree program, street beautification, and park maintenance would all fit well under this policy.

MC Whitten suggested the following: “Conserve and promote greenscaping in the urban setting.” Committee members expressed support for this revision.

Chair Gutekanst drew attention to Policy 125, regarding heritage trees. MC Bouscal said he had a problem with allowing heritage trees to become huge and dangerous. He suggested adding a program to evaluate and appropriately deal with large trees. Mr. Smith stated that the City no longer uses the term “heritage tree” in its ordinance. Instead, the ordinance identifies certain categories of protected trees, for which removal permits are required; all other trees, regardless of size, can be cut down at the discretion of the property owners. Mr. Smith said protected trees include three native species: oak, bay laurel, and buckeye; trees with circumferences greater than 30 inches when measured 24 inches above grade; and street trees.

MC Bouscal expressed his opinion that Brisbane should have an ordinance requiring all large trees on public and private property to be maintained in order to protect the rest of the community from fire hazards and falling hazards. MC Whitten pointed out that the risk of liability motivates most property owners to cut dangerous trees. MC Miller cautioned that the City should not get involved in identifying dangerous trees on private property; he pointed out the potential liability to the City.

MC Miller recommended revising the policy to reflect the current ordinance. Mr. Smith suggested adding a program about conserving trees protected by the City’s ordinance, and committee members expressed support for this approach.

MC Whitten suggested addressing nuisance trees. Mr. Smith said the current tree ordinance provides a process for removing problem trees. MC Bouscal emphasized the need for proper tree maintenance.