The project would be inconsistent with the County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, in addition to other elements of the General Plan.
The project would be inconsistent with several goals and policies of the Conservation and Open Space Element: Goal BR1 (Native habitat and biodiversity protection), Policy Br 1.2, 1.4, 1.9 and 2.6 (DEIR at 4.11-30). Goal BR3 requires the maintenance of the acreage of native woodlands, forests, and trees at 2008 levels.
- The project would result in the direct loss of 35 acres of Burton Mesa chaparral (97%), 75 acres of oak woodland (96%), and 21.7 acres of oak forest. The project is thus inconsistent with this Goal, and Policies 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, which relate to native tree protection and oak woodland preservation (DEIR at 4.11-31).
Goal 2 requires that the natural and historic character and identity of rural areas be protected.
- The project “would inherently change the visual character of the site and surroundings through the introduction of commercial, institutional, and residential development; the removal of over 4,000 mature oak trees; and substantial landform alteration” (DEIR at 4.11-29). The project is inconsistent with this Goal.
Policy VR 2.1 requires that the review of proposed development encourage designs that are compatible with the natural landscape and with recognized historical character and discourage designs that are clearly out of place within rural areas.
- Again, the same objection from Goal 2, the project “would inherently change the visual character of the site and surroundings through the introduction of commercial, institutional, and residential development; the removal of over 4,000 mature oak trees; and substantial landform alteration’ (DEIR at 4.11-29). The project is inconsistent with this policy.
Policy VR 2.2 requires that the review of proposed development encourage designs that emphasize native vegetation and conform grading to existing natural forms, with abundant native and/or drought-tolerant landscaping that screens buildings and parking lots and blends development with the natural landscape.
- Although the project site would preserve the existing oak ridge, the oak ridge is non-developable and thus not a mitigation. It would severely alter the existing native vegetation and natural landforms of the remainder of the site with the introduction of commercial, institutional, and residential development; the removal of over 4,000 mature oak trees; and substantial landform alteration” (DEIR at 4.11-29). The project is inconsistent with this policy.
The project would be inconsistent with Framework for Planning (Inland)
The project is inconsistent with Principles 1 and 2 and Policies 1 and 2 of these respective principles of Framework for Planning. These policies guide the retention and preservation of open space and natural resources, and the rate of growth in the area (DEIR at 4.11-32).
Principle 1: preservation of open space, scenic natural beauty, and natural resources
• “Although the project would preserve the existing oak ridge, the project would inherently change the visual character of the site and surroundings through the introduction of commercial, institutional, and residential development; the removal of over 4,000 mature oak trees; and substantial sensitive habitat loss and landform alteration” (DEIR at 4.11-32). The project is inconsistent with this principle.
Principle 2, Policy 1 requires that rural areas be maintained in “very low-density residential uses.”
• The project through its large number of residential units and commercial uses would change the character of the area and thus be inconsistent with this policy.
The project would be inconsistent with the South County Inland Area Plan
The project would be inconsistent with several guidelines, goals, and supportive goals of the South County (South) SubArea.
• A key guideline requires “retain land in open space in new land divisions that will preserve oak woodlands, riparian and other important biological habitats and historic place surroundings.” (DEIR at 4.11-34). The project is clearly inconsistent with this guideline in that it retains only 3% of the Burton Mesa chaparral and 4% of the oak woodland on site as Open Space.
• A key supportive goal is stated as follows, in part: “Promote the protection of natural resources and encourage the following in new development proposals: a. retention of sensitive vegetation….” (DEIR at 4.11-35). The removal of over 4,000 mature oak trees and 35 acres of Burton Mesa chaparral is inconsistent with this.
Link to the Land Use Planning EIR section: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Planning-Projects/Dana-Reserve-Specific-Plan/Draft-Program-Environmental-Impact-Report.aspx#:~:text=4%2D11%20Land%20Use%20Planning