HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2013 ph1 luce update
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Daryl, Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE – PHYSICAL
ALTERNATIVES (GPI/ER 15-12).
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements update (TF-LUCE) endorse the physical alternatives presented for further evaluation
through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
DISCUSSION
Background
The Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update process is being funded through an
$880,000 Strategic Growth Council Grant. When the City Council approved the application for the
grant and the subsequent consultant contract, the Council augmented the defined scope of work with
direction to staff to approach the LUCE update as a focused one. Council’s direction was to address
community issues but to not significantly alter the policy direction that is based on values that were
reaffirmed in the Council’s continuation of the current goals as the filter for proposing any changes.
The Council’s statements reflected that many of the factors making our city the happiest in North
America are incorporated in our present Land Use Element which serves our city well by protecting
our quality of life and fiscal sustainability.1
To date, the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) process has been focused on
garnering input from the community regarding issues, opportunities and vision for the future of the
City. Information provided through the community survey, workshops, open houses, advisory
bodies and ideas offered on-line were used by the consultant team, staff, the Task Force for the
Land Use and Circulation Element update (TF-LUCE), and the Planning Commission to identify
areas of potential physical change in the upcoming 20 years. This information will also inform the
policy review and development phase of the update. Tonight’s discussion with the Council focuses
on identifying the potential physical changes to further evaluate through the environmental review
process.
The sites for both land use changes and circulation connections were plotted and considered at a
workshop held on June 1st (Attachment 6: Workshop summary). Subsequent to the workshop, the
TF-LUCE considered input on the physical alternatives to be further evaluated as part of the LUCE
update from the workshop, information from the community survey, testimony from attendees, and
1 Mayor Marx memo to Council, item B-1, and minutes January 17, 2012 (Attachments 1 and 2)
Meeting Date
Item Number 10-15-2013
PH 1
PH1 - 1
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 2
input from residents and other stakeholders garnered through MindMixer (an online public input
tool) and other sources on June 27th, July 1st and July 9th (Attachments 7-9: TF-LUCE minutes. The
Planning Commission further reviewed the Task Force recommendations on July 24th and August
14th (Attachments 10-11: Planning Commission minutes) and confirmed or slightly amended the
options to be forwarded for further evaluation.
The Planning Commission’s recommended alternatives will be presented to the Council along with
basic information regarding the fiscal balance of land uses for consideration and identification of a
“preferred alternative” set. Attachments 1 and 2 provide a summary of the recommendations of
physical alternatives from the Planning Commission along with notations of how those
recommendations correspond to the TF-LUCE recommendations. The final package of alternatives
identified by Council will be fully evaluated along with proposed policy changes currently under
development through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Council is scheduled to review
proposed policy changes in early 2014.
The current discussion is focused on alternatives for physical change. The TF-LUCE recently began
their evaluation of existing policies with review of a legislative draft of the Circulation Element.
This review is expected to occur through late fall. The Council is being asked to review the TF-
LUCE and Planning Commission recommendations for physical alternatives and to confirm or
amend those alternatives as the “preferred alternative” set to be evaluated through the EIR process.
Alternatives
The Planning Commission reviewed Task Force recommendations and confirmed potential land use
changes and areas where circulation changes might be appropriate. Attachments 3 and 4 provide a
summary of Task Force and Planning Commission determinations on the alternatives.
The community was presented with 19 land use alternatives and 19 circulation alternatives at a
workshop held on June 1st. Of the 19 land use alternatives, the Council took separate action on the
South Broad Street Corridor Plan area on September 17, 2013 to include the draft plan as part of the
alternatives to consider through the EIR process.
Attachment #6 provides a summary of the workshop input considered by both the TF-LUCE and the
Planning Commission. In addition to the June 1st workshop input, both the Task Force and
Planning Commission evaluated the alternatives in light of input from previous workshops, the
community wide survey, the Land Use and Circulation elements goals, and input from open houses
and on-line survey tools. Staff will be describing the alternatives in greater detail as part of the staff
presentation and will also present high-level fiscal and circulation information.
Property owners of four of the properties under consideration have submitted letters for the Council
to consider as part of identifying physical alternatives (Attachments 12-14). The following
summarizes the input from these four property owners:
• The San Luis Coastal Unified School District has asked that the Old Pacheco School
site be eliminated from consideration until the District has determined it should be
converted to another use.
PH1 - 2
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 3
• The San Luis Coastal Unified School District has also requested that the Council
consider Commercial Retail uses for the Pacific Beach site rather than the Mixed Use
and park uses suggested by the Planning Commission.
• KFK Family Trust, the owner of property along both sides of Los Osos Valley Road
near Hwy 101, has indicated support for the property being designated to support
Medium High Density Residential.
• The owner of the property at Foothill and Santa Rosa, University Square LLC,
provided a letter that indicates a desire to develop according to the current zoning
and anticipates submitting an application within the upcoming months.
Staff will be prepared to respond to each in the context of the presentation of alternatives at the
hearing.
Update Process
The physical alternatives comprise one part of the update and reflect areas where changes in land
use designations or intensity or type of development may occur over the upcoming 20 years. The
physical alternatives also reflect where circulation connections should change or where the nature of
the type of connection is changing. Once the Council has determined the set of physical alternatives
that should be forwarded for consideration as part of the process, this set becomes the “preferred
alternative” and is used as part of the project description for purposes of environmental review. The
Council’s approval of the resolution does not approve the alternatives, the action provides that more
analysis (i.e. fiscal and environmental, etc) is needed in order to make any final determinations.
Since Council identified the update to the General Plan as a focused one – intended to address infill
opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need to refresh existing policy direction to reflect
current values – many of the areas of physical change will not result in dramatic differences in the
City’s form. However there are several areas where more significant changes are anticipated,
primarily Dalidio, Avila Ranch, and the Madonna properties. These areas have been identified by
the Planning Commission (supported by recommendations from the TF-LUCE) as ones that are
appropriate for more detailed policy development to guide the future development of the areas
based on their location and constraints.
The Land Use and Circulation elements will include proposed physical alternatives and proposed
policy changes to form the project description that will be reviewed through an Environmental
Impact Report. The graphic below shows the milestones completed to date and the process moving
forward. Endorsing a set of physical alternatives for further review is a key objective to complete in
the update process.
PH1 - 3
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 4
Staff recommends the Council consider public input and the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update (TF-LUCE) and
endorse the physical alternatives proposed as the preferred alternative set to be further evaluated
through an Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review will occur once a project description has been developed. The project
description will include a combination of proposed physical changes and proposed policy changes
associated with the LUCE update.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Land Use and Circulation Elements update have been funded in part by a grant from the
Strategic Growth Council ($880,000) and in part through General Funds ($430,000) as part of the
2011-13 Financial Plan. Activities to date have been fully covered by these encumbered funds and
progress on the update is within budget and on-time. Fiscal impacts of any changes proposed to
land use or infrastructure will be evaluated as part of the update process so that the City’s General
Plan is one that is fiscally balanced.
PH1 - 4
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could identify additional alternatives for consideration or could modify or alter
alternatives recommended by the Planning Commission. Specific direction to staff would be
required.
2. The Council could continue the item so that additional information could be provided. If
this option is chosen, specific direction to staff would be needed and Council may need to
identify a special meeting in order to maintain timely progress on the update project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mayor Marx Letter to Council
2. January 17, 2012 Council Meeting minutes
3. Table 1: Land Use Alternatives summary
4. Table 2: Circulation Alternatives summary
5. Land Use and Circulation Element Goals
6. Workshop Summary from 6-1-13
7. TF-LUCE meeting minutes from 6-27-13
8. TF-LUCE meeting minutes from 7-1-13
9. TF-LUCE meeting minutes from 7-9-13
10. Planning Commission meeting minutes from 7-24-13
11. Planning Commission meeting minutes from 8-14-13
12. San Luis Coastal Unified School District Letter
13. University Square Letter
14. KFK Family letter
15. Land Use and Circulation Alternatives Graphics
16. Resolution
Community wide survey previously provided to the Council is available at:
http://www.slo2035.com/images/meetings/tf/00_slogpu_survey_2012.09.16-rrr.pdf
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
TF-LUCE Binders with agenda materials
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-10-15\LUCE UPdate - PHysical Alternatives (Johnson-Murry)\LUCE-CAR_10-15-13.docx
PH1 - 5
To :
San Luis Obispo City Counci l
From : Jan Marx, Mayo r
Re : Item B-1 (LUCE Update )
Date : January 17, 201 2
The following are my thoughts regarding the LUCE Task Force and process . Council ha s
repeatedly stated that the process is to be resident-centered . Making it so, startin g
tonight, will allow the LUCE Update to be truly owned and affirmed by residents . It also
will allow the process to proceed in an orderly, timely manner .
A . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateTask Force
1.
It should be called the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Task Force .
(Using a different title is confusing).
2.
The Task Force should consist of residents of the City of San Luis Obispo in al l
categories . If a given stakeholder group does not have any city residents willing to serve ,
then it can just submit comments and testify .
3.
Members should also be volunteers, not paid advocates . Selection should reflec t
geographical distribution of residents, living throughout the city .
4.
All residents should receive information about how to participate at the ver y
beginning of the process, possibly as a hand out in the utility bills .
5.
Selection of members should not be delegated to organizations, but should b e
done by council . Council should take open applications, like the advisory bod y
applications, including resumes .
6.
It should have equal representation from the environment, neighborhood an d
business communities . It should be chaired by a Planning Commissioner .
7.
There is no reason to limit membership to 13 . The City Manager's Economi c
Sustainability group had nearly 30 people on it and worked well . Other cities hav e
varying numbers of participants .
8.
In any category, overlapping experience--such as in land use and planning, th e
law, advisory groups, local history, real estate, social services, education, the economy ,
technology, natural resources, conservation, healthy communities, agriculture ,
transportation, recreation, the arts or non-profit organizations and other relevant
expertise—should be considered a "plus" in selection of members . It is not needed t o
have a person representing Cal Poly (a state agency), or any other state agency on th e
Task Force, but a resident who works at a state agency could have special insight whic h
could be useful .
PH1 - 6
9.
Subcommittees of like expertise could caucus and do outreach at their discretion ,
and then present comments to whole task force .
10.
The task force should proceed by vote (recorded) not by forced consensus, with
minority reports possible, if need be . Conflicting points of view from various interes t
groups need to be surfaced, not buried, so that Council has comprehensive information
before it when making the final decisions .
B . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateProcess .
1.
This is a focused update . We do not need to fix what is not broken . The updat e
needs to address actual problems . Many of the factors making our city the happiest i n
North America are incorporated in our present LUE . It serves our city well by protectin g
our quality of life and fiscal sustainability .
2.
The process should begin with workshops in the neighborhoods, occurring during
the same time that the new questionnaire is in the hands of residents . It should be i n
writing and should be based on the 1988 questionnaire, with additional updated question s
if need be . Workshops and questionnaires input should take place before the LUC E
Taskforce is formed or meets .
3.
Council members should read the elements and give input to staff regarding wha t
does and does not need changing. Staff should identify what language it thinks needs t o
be updated, with documentation of said need .
4.
Review of the Elements should be recognizably based on the present document ,
keeping the same numbering whenever possible . It should proceed in an orderly, sectio n
by section, line by line, basis, so that everyone is given adequate notice of exactly wha t
language will be considered and when . Everyone needs to know at every stage exactly
what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by
whom .
5.
Once the decisions about any proposed language changes in a given section ar e
made by Council, there should be no going back and reconsidering said changes .
6.
Definitions of terms should be consistent with the present LUCE and an y
proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in publi c
hearings .
PH1 - 7
PH1 - 8
PH1 - 9
Attachment 3
Table 1: Land Use Alternatives
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
A
Nativity
Church
Site
Agree with TF-LUCE
Remove from
consideration
Deed restriction
prohibits anything
but church-related
uses.
Remove from
consideration N/A
B
Santa Rosa
and
Foothill
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Consider both horizontal
and vertical mixed use.
Emphasis on retail and
housing near campus.
Policies to support
parking and height
changes to facilitate
mixed use.
Currently only
corner of property
at Santa Rosa and
Foothill is General
Retail – the
remainder is
neighborhood
commercial.
Property owner
requests
development
according to
current zoning of
Commercial
Retail.
Support Alternative
B-3/B-4 - Consider
mixed use in the area
on both sides of
Foothill between
Chorro and Santa
Rosa.
C
Old
Pacheco
School Site Agree with TF-LUCE
Be flexible about site
development/layout (i.e.
park shouldn’t look like
an “L”).
School District has
requested
removal from
consideration.
Option C-4. Cluster
medium high density
housing adjacent to
streets with park
buffer near existing
residential uses.
PRC - Loss of
park/turf area is
concerning and
challenge of
smaller,
fragmented
facilities to meet
community/
neighborhood
needs. Consider
no-net loss policy
for parks.
D
Diocese
property
along
Bressi
Agree with TF-LUCE
Remove from
consideration
Steeper hillsides
and wildlife
corridor in COSE.
Keep RSF and OS
designations.
Remove from
consideration N/A
PH1 - 10
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
E
Upper
Monterey
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Added potential to
explore Form-based
codes for the area.
No physical land use
changes proposed.
Consider policies to
support more
pedestrian -friendly
development.
Consider policies for
area that include
conference center,
parking options, lot
assembly, addressing
appearance of
properties in public
ownership, and
addressing the
transit center
location.
N/A
F
Downtown
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
No physical land use
changes proposed.
Consider policies and
desirability of plazas
and public views.
G
Mid-
Higuera
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
No changes
proposed.
H
Cal Trans
Site
Agree with TF-LUCE
Consider more public
open space uses to serve
as gateway and
supporting uses
compatible with
conference center.
Mixed use to include
tourist commercial,
office and some
residential as shown
in H-2 and H-4. Site
may be appropriate
to review height limit
changes to
accommodate
desired
development.
I
General
Agree with TF-LUCE
Policies should support
Support additional
residential
development on the
PH1 - 11
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
Hospital
Site
flexibility so that a range
of residential uses can be
considered (i.e.
residential care, adjunct
to transitional care use,
other residential uses
consistent with area).
site behind existing
structure (I-3) but
delete the residential
development
proposed between
the URL and the City
limit line currently
designated OS.
J
Broad
Street
Area Plan Agree with TF-LUCE
Strongly supports draft
plan as amended.
Council identified
this area to be
evaluated as part
of the physical
alternatives on
September 17,
2013.
Supports the land
uses and form-based
codes as expressed
in the Draft South
Broad Street Area
Plan with provisions
to protect existing
businesses and
excluding the
McMillan area from
the plan.
K
Sunset
Drive in
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to
address appropriate mix
of uses.
Support alternative
K3 which shows
mixed use.
L
Dalidio
Agree with TF-LUCE
Alt. L5 without specific
direction of particular
sizes or shapes.
Residential component
to be consistent with
applicable airport
policies.
Support a mix of uses
through LUE policies
with significant open
space/agricultural (at
least 50%)
component.
M
Pacific
Beach
School Site
Agree with TF-LUCE
Policy development to
support a non-residential
buffer along LOVR and
Froom Ranch. Consider
medium high density
School District has
requested
Commercial Retail
designation and
no park
requirement.
Support M3/M4 that
shows mix of uses
with residential and
park.
PRC - Loss of
park/turf area is
concerning and
challenge of
smaller,
fragmented
facilities to meet
community/
PH1 - 12
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
residential development
and park.
neighborhood
needs. Consider
no-net loss policy
for parks.
N
Calle
Joaquin
Auto Sales
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to
address appropriate mix
of uses.
Support mixed use in
the context with the
Dalidio property and
the City’s agricultural
parcel and focus on
connectivity to the
neighborhoods to
the north.
O
Madonna
Property
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to
address appropriate mix
of uses.
Support policies to
address future
development. These
should include
viewshed, hillside
and open space
protection, potential
height limits,
wetland protection,
access to other
connections, historic
farm buildings,
mixed use to
accommodate
workforce housing,
and neighborhood
commercial type
uses.
P
LOVR near
overpass
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Property Owner
requests medium
high residential
density for this
site.
Support a modified
Alternative P-5
reflecting infill
housing with open
space.
Q
MASP
Agree with TF-LUCE
Policy/program to
evaluate/consider
changes to MASP.
Support Q2 - changes
to MASP to allow
increased density if
appropriate along
with supporting
neighborhood
commercial.
PH1 - 13
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
R
Tank Farm
@ Broad
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support a mix of
commercial uses
with limited
residential on upper
floors. Commercial
uses should serve
the surrounding
businesses and
bicycle and
pedestrian
connectivity must be
addressed.
S
Avila
Ranch
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to direct
future development.
Support a mix of
residential densities,
connection to shops
to the north,
connection to S.
Higuera and a mix of
uses similar to what
is shown in owners’
concept.
Respect
creek/wildlife
corridor.
PH1 - 14
Attachment 4
Table 2: Circulation Alternatives
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
1
Boysen &
Santa Rosa
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support separated
crossing for
bikes/peds of Santa
Rosa at Boysen.
Consider all vehicular
alternatives for
Boysen intersection
at SR 1 including full
closure, access
restrictions, and
retaining its current
configuration.
2
Realign
Chorro,
Boysen, and
Broad
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
2-3 realignment of
Chorro and Broad
and Boysen.
3
Potential
Ramp
closures at
HWY 101 and
SR 1 Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
3-2 ramp closures
and consolidated
SR1/HWY 101
interchange for
further evaluation
including impacts to
residential streets
and the need for a
signage/way-finding
program.
4
Broad & HWY
101 Ramp
closure Agree with TF-LUCE
Bike and
pedestrian
overpass at this
location is
currently in the
BTP.
Support alternative
4-2 ramp closures at
Broad with the
addition of bike and
pedestrian overpass.
5
Convert
Marsh &
Higuera to 2
Way
(Santa Rosa
to California)
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support two way
vehicular circulation
of Marsh and
Higuera between
Santa Rosa and
California.
PH1 - 15
Attachment 4
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
6
Transit Center
location on
Santa Rosa
and Higuera Agree with TF-LUCE
Support site/block of
Higuera/Santa
Rosa/Monterey for
the transit center
location and
consider use of both
public and private
property. Include
ideas from student
projects and the
Downtown Concept
Plan.
7
Mission Plaza
“dog leg”
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policy direction
regarding desired
outcomes and nature
and phasing of
treatment for the area.
Support alternatives
7-2 and 7-3 (varying
degrees of streets
affected) using a
woonerf concept
instead of full
closure of the
streets.
8
Realign
Bianchi and
Pismo
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
8-3 realignment of
street intersection
(Pismo to Bianchi).
9
Realign
Madonna to
Bridge St
instead of
Higuera
Did not oppose TF-LUCE
but felt that
development of Caltrans
site would determine
best location for
intersection.
Support alternative
9-2 showing
realigned Madonna
to Bridge instead of
Higuera.
10
Bishop St.
Extension
Agree with TF-LUCE
Current
Circulation
Element has
Bishop Street
extending over
railroad tracks via
bridge.
Support evaluation
of three options: a
bridge over the
Railroad tracks for all
modes of traffic; one
for bicycles and peds
only; and complete
elimination of bridge
facility.
PH1 - 16
Attachment 4
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
11
Victoria
connection to
Emily
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support Victoria
connection to Emily.
12
Broad Street-
consolidate
access
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support Broad Street
consolidation of
access points.
13
Orcutt Road
Overpass
Disagree with TF-LUCE.
Keep facility as part of
Circulation Element. Do
not consider removing
facility due to concerns
about increasing rail
traffic.
Overpass is
currently part of
Circulation
Element
Support evaluating
removal of overpass
at Orcutt Road.
14
Froom
connect to
Oceanaire
neighborhood
Agree with TF-LUCE
Provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity
only.
Neighborhood
input opposed to
vehicular
connections and
is concerned
about cut-
through traffic
Remove from
consideration.
15
Prado Road
interchange
vs overpass
Agree with TF-LUCE
Evaluate both
interchange and
overpass
Interchange is
part of existing
Circulation
Element.
Evaluate both
interchange (15-2)
and overpass (15-3)
16
Connections
to Dalidio
from Froom
and/or Calle
Joaquin Agree with TF-LUCE
Evaluate whether
one or more
connections are
needed to provide
an additional
connection between
LOVR and
Prado/Dalidio; and
whether an internal
east-west or loop
road is needed to
connect these roads
on the Dalidio
property.
PH1 - 17
Attachment 4
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
17
Realign
Vachel Lane Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
17-2 Vachel to
Higuera connection
as a “back up”
alternative in the
event Buckley Road
does not connect to
S. Higuera.
18
N-S
connection
between
Tank Farm
and Buckley
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
18-2 creating a
north-south
connection between
Tank Farm and
Buckley for future
connectivity.
19
Buckley to
LOVR
connections
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternatives
19-2 (Buckley to
Higuera) and 19-3
(Higuera to LOVR
behind Los Verdes –
101 bypass)
PH1 - 18
Land Use
THE GENERAL PLAN
1-14
Community’s Goals
Introduction
Goals describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the
community's preferences for basic future directions. In the goal statements, "San Luis
Obispo" means the community as a whole, not just the City as a municipal corporation. The
statements also indicate what the City should do and what it should influence others to do.
The goals state San Luis Obispo's basic positions on the extent, rate, composition, and
financing of growth. The following Growth Management section includes policies and
programs which offer more specific guidance on these topics. Later sections, dealing with
parts of the City and with land-use categories, give more detailed direction on preserving
neighborhoods and designing new development.
Approach to Planning
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Choose its future, rather than let it happen. San Luis Obispo
should be proactive in implementing its vision of the future, and should
work with other agencies and institutions to create our desired mutual
future.
Environment
San Luis Obispo should:
2. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality
of air, water, soil, and open space.
3. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife
habitat on land surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks and
other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse,
native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area.
4. Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains.
5. Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of the
planning area and the county, protect agriculture from development and
from incompatible uses, and protect remaining undeveloped prime
agricultural soils.
6. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the
city, such as the volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks.
7. Foster appreciation among citizens of the complex abundance of
the planning area's environment, and of the need to respect natural
systems.
8. Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets to
preserve and protect them.
Society and Economy
San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community. Environmental, social, and
economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Luis
Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. The social fabric of
the community for both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance.
Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives of this element, the City shall
maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well being
of the community.
San Luis Obispo should:
9. Provide employment opportunities appropriate for area residents'
desires and skills.
PH1 - 19
Land Use
THE GENERAL PLAN
1-15
10. Provide goods and services which substantial numbers of area
residents leave the area regularly to obtain, provided doing so is consistent
with other goals.
11. Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate
expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals.
12. Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings
and land areas already committed to urban development.
13. Provide an adequate revenue base for local government and
public schools.
14. Provide high quality public services, ensuring that demands do not
exceed resources and that adequate facilities and services can be
provided in pace with development.
15. Cooperate with other agencies in the county to assure that
increases in the numbers of workers and college and university students in
the San Luis Obispo area do not outpace housing availability.
16. Accommodate residents within all income groups.
17. Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents with
very low, low, and moderate incomes.
18. Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to
residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes, within existing
neighborhoods and within expansion areas.
19. Encourage opportunities for elder care and child care within the
city.
20. Enrich community cultural and social life by accommodating
people with various backgrounds, talents, occupations, and interests.
21. Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its
parts without causing overall harm to the community.
22. Have developments bear the costs of resources and services
needed to serve them, except where the community deliberately chooses
to help pay in order to achieve other community goals.
23. Provide for high quality education and access to related services
such as museums, art galleries, public art, and libraries.
24. Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government;
education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural,
professional, medical, and social services; community organizations; retail
trade.
25. Provide a wide range of parks and sports and recreational facilities
for the enjoyment of our citizens.
26. Retain accessible, responsive, and capable local government.
27. Ensure that residents' opportunities for direct participation in City
government and their sense of community can continue.
City Form
San Luis Obispo should:
28. Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place
to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it
from other urban development.
29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development
occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern.
30. Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban
development and surrounding open land.
31. Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate
boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form.
PH1 - 20
Land Use
THE GENERAL PLAN
1-16
32. Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, and
preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places.
33. Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense
of place and architectural heritage.
34. Develop buildings and places which complement the natural
landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods.
35. Focus its government and cultural facilities and provide a variety of
business services and housing in the downtown.
36. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, for
recreation and other daily activities.
37. Be a safe place to live.
PH1 - 21
Circulation
THE GENERAL PLAN
2-8
1.5 Goals and objectives
Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to
express the community's preferences for current and future conditions and directions. In
the following statements, San Luis Obispo means the community as a whole, not just the
city as a municipal corporation.
Transportation Goals
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo
while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal
of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such
as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of
transportation.
4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the
projects will cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.
6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.
7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San
Luis Obispo County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly.
8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies,
telecommuting and compact work weeks.
Overall Transportation Strategy
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by:
1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element;
2. Funding alternative forms of transportation;
3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities;
4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in
transportation modes;
5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and
Highways;
7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety.
Transportation Objectives
1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits
San Luis Obispo should:
1.Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Figure #1) and
depend less on the single-occupant use of vehicles.
2.Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective
similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single-
occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation.
1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:
1.Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths
within existing developed parts of the city by 2000, and extend the system to serve
new growth areas.
2.Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed
areas by 2000, and provide service to new growth areas.
PH1 - 22
Circulation
THE GENERAL PLAN
2-9
3.Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic
reduction programs.
4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of
transportation other than the single-occupant vehicle.
1.8 Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development
to the rates and levels stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing
regulations. Limit increases in ADT and VMT to the increase in employment within
the City's Urban Reserve.
2. Support county-wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county-
wide travel demand.
3. Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing
road system and reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of
transportation throughout the city and connect with Regional Routes and
Highways.
5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic
levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased
headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists.
6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted
to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.
7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood-serving business and
provide parks and recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by
pedestrians or bicyclists.
8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or
controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets.
9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of
land uses around the airport to avoid noise and safety problems.
1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of
air pollution.
A. The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed
natural gas fueling stations in the San Luis Obispo area.
B. When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City
will consider purchasing alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution.
C. The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis.
2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of
information to substitute for travel to work or meetings. Develop goals and policies
for City employee participation in telecommuting systems.
3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of
innovative transportation technologies in San Luis Obispo.
4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and
other transportation corridors.
1.10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation.
San Luis Obispo will:
PH1 - 23
Circulation
THE GENERAL PLAN
2-10
1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Figure
#1 and bi-annually review and adjust transportation programs if necessary.
1.11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors.
The City will:
1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that
create safe, attractive, and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining
land uses and the traveling public.
PH1 - 24
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
4 Public Input 2013 06 11b RRR.docx
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
#4
,
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
Ju
n
e
1,
20
1
3
Th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
ho
s
t
e
d
th
e
fo
u
r
t
h
in
a
se
r
i
e
s
of
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
in
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Up
d
a
t
e
on
Ju
n
e
1,
20
1
3
.
Th
e
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
ev
e
n
t
,
ca
l
l
e
d
“F
u
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2”
,
wa
s
at
t
e
n
d
e
d
by
ov
e
r
30
0
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
me
m
b
e
r
s
,
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
me
m
b
e
r
s
,
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
,
an
d
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
.
Wh
i
l
e
20
8
si
g
n
e
d
in
(1
6
8
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
40
ot
h
e
r
s
wh
o
we
r
e
ei
t
h
e
r
no
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
or
wh
o
di
d
n
’
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
st
r
e
e
t
ad
d
r
e
s
s
)
,
ot
h
e
r
s
ch
o
s
e
no
t
to
si
g
n
in
an
d
st
a
f
f
at
th
e
si
gn
‐in
ta
b
l
e
s
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
an
o
t
h
e
r
80
‐
10
0
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
di
d
no
t
si
g
n
in
.
At
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
ab
l
e
to
dr
o
p
in
be
t
w
e
e
n
1:
0
0
–
5:
0
0
pm
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
p
u
t
at
si
x
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Fi
v
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
fe
a
t
u
r
e
d
a
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
ar
e
a
of
th
e
ci
t
y
an
d
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
va
r
i
o
u
s
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
bo
t
h
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
o
s
e
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
wh
o
si
g
n
e
d
in
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
co
l
o
r
‐co
d
e
d
do
t
s
to
us
e
at
ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
e
i
r
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
fo
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
or
la
n
d
us
e
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
by
th
e
al
te
r
n
at
i
v
e
s
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
co
m
m
e
n
t
bo
x
e
s
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
at
ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
so
th
a
t
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
mo
r
e
le
n
g
t
h
y
an
d
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
ab
o
u
t
ea
c
h
of
th
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
or
pr
o
p
o
s
e
th
e
i
r
ow
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
si
x
t
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
tw
o
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
fi
r
s
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
ma
p
of
th
e
ci
t
y
wi
t
h
ei
g
h
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
.
Ea
c
h
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
wa
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
ha
n
d
o
u
t
wh
e
r
e
th
e
y
co
u
l
d
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
e
i
r
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
fo
r
wh
i
c
h
mo
d
e
of
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
.
e
.
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
bi
k
e
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
or
ve
h
i
c
l
e
)
sh
o
u
l
d
be
em
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
d
on
th
a
t
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
ro
a
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
se
c
o
n
d
pa
r
t
of
th
i
s
st
a
t
i
o
n
wa
s
an
in
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
we
b
pr
o
g
r
a
m
wh
e
r
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
on
tr
a
n
s
i
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
mi
s
s
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
ar
e
a
s
,
he
a
d
w
a
y
ti
m
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
,
or
ge
n
e
r
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ag
a
i
n
,
co
m
m
e
n
t
ca
r
d
s
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
so
th
a
t
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
Ki
d
’
s
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
ar
e
a
an
d
a
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
to
wr
i
t
e
do
w
n
ot
h
e
r
id
e
a
s
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Th
e
ev
e
n
t
wa
s
ca
l
l
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2 to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
a
t
it
wa
s
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
th
e
in
p
u
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
at
th
e
fi
r
s
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
he
l
d
in
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
2
.
Id
e
a
s
an
d
co
n
c
e
p
t
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
th
i
s
ea
r
l
i
e
r
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
we
r
e
ad
d
e
d
to
ot
h
e
r
in
p
u
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
fr
o
m
on
‐li
n
e
in
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
pu
b
l
i
c
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
an
d
a
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
wi
d
e
su
r
v
e
y
.
Th
e
s
e
in
p
u
t
s
we
r
e
us
e
d
by
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
to
id
en
t
i
f
y
each of the alternatives
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
at
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
en
d
e
d
at 5:00 p.m. after City staff
an
d
th
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
team informed attendees of
ne
x
t
st
e
p
s
in
th
e
process. The workshop
su
m
m
a
r
y
wi
l
l
be
added to the Land Use and
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
Update website at:
ww
w
.
s
l
o
2
0
3
5
.
c
o
m
Th
i
s
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Update process is focused on
re
v
i
e
w
of
ar
e
a
s
of
potential physical changes in
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
As
these potential changes are
fu
r
t
h
e
r
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
,
they will be added to the
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
of
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
policy changes or
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
agreed with the Task
Fo
r
c
e
th
a
t
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
goals should be used as a
to
o
l
to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
la
n
d
use and circulation changes
an
d
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
poli
c
i
e
s
wi
l
l
be reviewed for how well
th
e
y
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
se
r
v
e
the community’s stated
go
a
l
s
an
d
ne
w
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
will be considered where
ne
e
d
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
new areas or topics identified
by
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
,
state law, or policy gaps
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
.
The upcoming phase of the
up
d
a
t
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
wi
l
l
entail getting into the “meat”
of
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Land Use and Circulation
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
PH1 - 25
Th
e
gr
a
p
h
i
c
to
th
e
ri
g
h
t
ou
t
l
i
n
e
s
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
th
a
t
ha
v
e
or
wi
l
l
oc
c
u
r
to
cr
e
a
t
e
a pl
a
n
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
’
s
va
l
u
e
s
an
d
no
r
m
s
an
d
Co
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
th
i
s
fo
c
u
s
e
d
up
d
a
t
e
.
In
th
e
up
c
o
m
i
n
g
mo
n
t
h
s
,
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
,
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
wi
l
l
ov
e
r
s
e
e
th
e
si
f
t
i
n
g
of
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
an
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
of
cu
r
r
e
n
t
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
By
la
t
e
Fa
l
l
,
an
o
t
he
r
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
wi
l
l
pr
e
s
e
n
t
mo
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
ea
c
h
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
pa
c
k
a
g
e
so
th
a
t
th
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
is
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
th
e
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
fo
r
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
po
l
i
c
y
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
be
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
an
d
fi
s
c
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
Vi
e
w
of
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
PH1 - 26
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
fo
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
Si
m
i
l
a
r
to
th
e
la
s
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
pu
b
l
i
c
no
t
i
c
e
of
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
us
i
n
g
a
nu
m
b
e
r
of
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
me
t
h
o
d
s
.
Po
s
t
e
d
fl
y
e
r
s
an
n
o
u
n
c
i
n
g
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Ra
n
tw
o
di
s
p
l
a
y
ad
s
in
th
e
SL
O
Tr
i
b
u
n
e
an
d
on
e
in
th
e
Ne
w
Ti
m
e
s
.
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
ne
w
s
re
l
e
a
s
e
pr
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
in
pr
e
‐
an
d
po
s
t
‐
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
co
v
e
r
a
g
e
by
KS
B
Y
,
Th
e
Tr
i
b
u
n
e
,
an
d
To
l
o
s
a
Pr
e
s
s
.
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
eB
l
a
s
t
s
(e
‐ma
i
l
no
t
i
c
e
s
)
to
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
e‐ma
i
l
li
s
t
th
r
e
e
ti
m
e
s
pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
an
d
hu
n
g
a
ba
n
n
e
r
fo
r
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
ov
e
r
th
e
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
to
th
e
Li
b
r
a
r
y
.
Po
s
t
e
d
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
on
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Up
d
a
t
e
we
b
s
i
t
e
wi
t
h
me
e
t
i
n
g
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
At
t
e
n
d
e
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
fo
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
,
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
of
Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
,
Ro
t
a
r
y
,
an
d
La
t
i
n
o
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
Co
u
n
c
i
l
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
to
pr
o
m
o
t
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Se
c
u
r
e
d
sp
e
c
i
a
l
eN
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
fr
o
m
th
e
SL
O
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
of
Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
to
al
l
me
m
b
e
r
s
.
Co
n
t
a
c
t
e
d
fa
i
t
h
ba
s
e
d
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
in
Ci
t
y
.
KC
B
X
in
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
pr
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
ai
r
e
d
on
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
pr
i
o
r
to
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Pl
a
c
a
r
d
s
we
r
e
po
s
t
e
d
in
al
l
Ci
t
y
bu
s
e
s
.
At
t
e
n
d
e
d
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
an
d
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
Fa
r
m
e
r
’
s
Ma
r
k
e
t
s
(M
a
y
30
an
d
Ju
n
e
1,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
)
to
pr
o
m
o
t
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
th
e
ev
e
n
t
.
2,
0
0
0
cu
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
d
po
s
t
c
a
r
d
s
we
r
e
ma
i
l
e
d
to
si
x
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
wh
e
r
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ch
a
n
g
e
s
we
r
e
be
i
n
g
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
to
al
l
wa
t
e
r
/
s
e
w
e
r
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
pr
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
of
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
Th
e
ma
i
n
ro
o
m
fo
r
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
ha
d
fo
u
r
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
a
si
d
e
ro
o
m
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
th
e
fi
f
t
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
on
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Th
e
fi
v
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
co
v
e
r
e
d
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
pa
r
t
s
of
th
e
ci
t
y
(s
e
e
ma
p
on
ne
x
t
pa
g
e
)
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
bo
t
h
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
wa
s
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
a co
l
o
r
to
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
in
wh
a
t
pa
r
t
of
th
e
ci
t
y
th
a
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wa
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
.
Ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
nu
m
b
e
r
of
si
te
s
th
a
t
we
r
e
be
i
n
g
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
.
Si
t
e
s
th
a
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
we
r
e
gi
v
e
n
a
le
t
t
e
r
,
A
–
S.
Si
t
e
s
th
a
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
we
r
e
gi
v
e
n
a
nu
m
b
e
r
,
1
–
19
.
Fo
r
ea
c
h
of
th
e
38
si
t
e
s
,
a
po
s
t
e
r
wa
s
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
th
e
wa
l
l
th
a
t
sh
o
w
e
d
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
th
a
t
ha
d
be
e
n
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
Ea
c
h
po
s
t
e
r
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
to
le
a
v
e
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
un
ch
a
n
g
e
d
or
to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
“n
o
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e”
.
Th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
we
r
e
di
v
i
d
e
d
as follows (and shown
on
th
e
ma
p
on
th
e
ne
x
t
page):
Re
d
St
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ar
e
a
on
no
r
t
h
side of city
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
A – D
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 1 – 2
Ye
l
l
o
w
St
a
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
/ Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
/ Mid‐Higuera Area
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
E – H
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 3 – 9
Bl
u
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
/ Br
o
a
d
Ar
e
a
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
I – J
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 10 – 13
Gr
e
e
n
St
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/ LO
V
R
Ar
e
a
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
K – O
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 14 – 16
Or
a
n
g
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
t
h
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
/ Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Area
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
P – S
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 17 – 19
At
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
as
k
e
d
to visit each station and
us
e
do
t
st
i
c
k
e
r
s
to
mark their preference for each
si
t
e
(t
h
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
they liked best). Each
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
wa
s
gi
v
e
n
enough dots to place one on
ea
c
h
po
s
t
e
r
.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
were also able to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
wr
i
t
t
e
n
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
at each station.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
PH1 - 27
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
4
PH
1
-
28
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
Th
e
si
x
t
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
at
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
de
a
l
t
wi
t
h
th
e
co
n
c
e
p
t
of
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
.
Th
e
te
r
m
“C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
”
is
de
f
i
n
e
d
as
a
ro
a
d
w
a
y
th
a
t
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
sa
f
e
ac
c
e
s
s
al
o
n
g
an
d
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
fo
r
al
l
tr
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
:
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
,
an
d
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
mo
d
e
s
.
At
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
sh
o
w
n
ni
n
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
as
k
e
d
to
as
s
i
g
n
a
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
to
ea
c
h
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
mo
d
e
fo
r
th
a
t
st
r
e
e
t
.
In
ot
h
e
r
wo
r
d
s
,
fo
r
ea
c
h
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
,
ra
n
k
th
e
mo
d
e
s
fr
o
m
1
to
4,
wi
t
h
1
be
i
n
g
th
e
mo
d
e
wi
t
h
th
e
hi
g
h
e
s
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
an
d
4
be
i
n
g
th
e
lo
w
e
s
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
.
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
ar
e
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
(a
n
d
sh
o
w
n
on
ma
p
to
ri
g
h
t
)
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Bl
v
d
.
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St
.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
.
Lo
s
Os
o
s
Va
l
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
At
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
al
s
o
as
k
e
d
th
e
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
“W
o
u
l
d
yo
u
be
wi
l
l
i
n
g
to
do
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
th
e
wa
l
k
i
n
g
an
d
/
o
r
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ar
e
a
?
”
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
ra
n
k
i
n
g
s
an
d
the response to the above
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
ar
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
following the land use
an
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
PH1 - 29
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Th
e
pa
g
e
s
th
a
t
fo
l
l
o
w
sh
o
w
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
th
a
t
we
r
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
fo
r
ea
c
h
si
t
e
at
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2.
Th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
in
th
e
ci
r
c
l
e
in
th
e
upper right corner of each
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
do
t
s
(r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
th
a
t
we
r
e
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
ea
c
h
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
by
th
o
s
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
in the fair’s activity.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
PH1 - 30
RE
D
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Land Use
Mu
c
h
mo
r
e
at
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
ne
e
d
s
to
be
pa
i
d
to
SR
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
fr
o
m
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
to
10
1
.
It
is
ou
r
pr
i
m
a
r
y
ga
t
e
w
a
y
.
Ke
e
p
th
e
Fa
s
t
food / Gas to a min. add in
cl
a
s
s
A of
f
i
c
e
an
d
mi
x
e
d
us
e
.
Ge
t
ri
d
of
ol
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
an
d
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
N.
Ch
o
r
r
o
as
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
bi
k
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
.
Ne
e
d
bi
k
e
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
10
1
to
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
on
th
e
we
s
t
si
d
e
of the railroad tracks – need
a us
e
r
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Th
i
s
is
a to
u
r
i
s
m
ga
t
e
w
a
y
in
t
o
th
e
ci
t
y
– it
sh
o
u
l
d
lo
o
k
gr
e
a
t
,
be
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
fo
r
th
e
un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
/ co
l
l
e
g
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
flow well all the way to 101
To
u
r
i
s
m
ga
t
e
w
a
y
– it
sh
o
u
l
d
lo
o
k
be
t
t
e
r
al
l
al
o
n
g
th
e
10
1
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
re
l
a
t
e
d
– So
u
t
h
bo
u
n
d
Hw
y
1 to
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
an
d
bl
o
c
k
ac
c
e
s
s
to
Ch
o
r
r
o
.
Re
m
o
v
e
se
c
t
i
o
n
of
Is
l
a
n
d
to
al
l
o
w
bi
c
y
c
l
e
travel to south bound
Hw
y
1 to
so
u
t
h
bo
u
n
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
– Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
bi
k
e
la
n
e
fr
o
m
we
s
t
bo
u
n
d
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
fr
o
m
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
to
we
s
t
of
Mu
s
t
a
n
g
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Conditions
We
bo
u
g
h
t
ou
r
ho
m
e
6 ye
a
r
s
ag
o
– 4 ho
u
s
e
s
ha
v
e
so
l
d
an
d
be
c
o
m
e
ro
w
d
y
an
d
no
i
s
y
Ca
l
Po
l
y
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
!
We
ha
v
e
co
n
f
r
o
n
t
e
d
the new owners
wh
o
ar
e
bu
y
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
(R
‐1)
an
d
ab
u
s
i
n
g
th
e
co
d
e
of
5 mi
l
e
s
Wh
y
no
t
ha
v
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
li
v
e
in
ca
m
p
u
s
ho
u
s
i
n
g
so
th
a
t
st
a
f
f
,
in
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
et
c
.
ca
n
li
v
e
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
li
k
e
th
e
y
us
e
d
to
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
ci
t
y
to
se
a
bi
c
y
c
l
e
pa
t
h
s
Th
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l
fo
c
u
s
on
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
ar
e
a
s
.
Ar
e
a
s
se
e
m
li
k
e
a lo
s
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
Pe
r
h
a
p
s
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
co
u
l
d
be expanded slightly to
lo
o
k
at
th
o
s
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
br
o
a
d
e
r
ar
e
a
th
a
n
th
e
y
ar
e
in
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
/ Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
an
d
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
ar
e
a
to
o
na
r
r
o
w
in
fo
c
u
s
(w
h
y
ju
s
t
on
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
an
d
do
e
s
no
t
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
me
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
land use discussion
ab
o
u
t
th
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
ar
e
a
s
.
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
an
d
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
ar
e
go
o
d
ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
of
a li
t
t
l
e
br
o
a
d
e
r
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
to
la
n
d
us
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ca
l
Po
l
y
mu
s
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
un
d
e
r
a
g
e
(2
1
)
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
to
re
s
i
d
e
on
ca
m
p
u
s
an
d
no
t
in
cl
u
s
t
e
r
s
of
5 mi
l
e
aw
a
y
R‐1 ho
u
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
/ ne
e
d
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
re
v
i
s
i
t
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
in
ce
r
t
a
i
n
ar
e
a
s
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
an
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
It
is
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
/ pl
a
n
n
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ke
y
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
ci
t
y
’
s
stated jobs / housing
ba
l
a
n
c
e
go
a
l
s
,
th
e
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
pl
a
n
,
cl
i
m
a
t
e
ac
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
an
d
th
e
ge
n
e
r
a
l
pl
a
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
fo
r
th
e
fu
t
u
r
e
bu
i
l
d
ou
t
of
th
e
ci
t
y
so
th
a
t
co
m
m
o
n
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ex
t
e
n
d
s
be
y
o
n
d
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
up
d
a
t
e
/ 20 year horizon
So
m
e
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
ap
p
e
a
r
to
o
ov
e
r
l
y
fo
c
u
s
e
d
on
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
PH1 - 31
1
A.
Di
o
c
e
s
e
Si
t
e
on
Da
l
y
Av
e
.
A-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A-
2
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
i
-
P
a
r
k
A-
3
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
w
i
t
h
P
a
r
k
S
e
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
PF
Da
l
y
A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
PA
R
K
RM
D
Da
l
y
A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
PA
R
K
RM
D
RL
D
Da
l
y
A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
RL
D
PF
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
A‐2
Un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
sp
a
c
e
be
h
i
n
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
m
e
s
be
c
o
m
e
s
park
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
on
Je
f
f
e
r
y
Dr. and Daly Ave.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
A‐3
Sh
a
r
e
d
on
‐si
t
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
ch
u
r
c
h
/ pa
r
k
Us
e
s
pa
r
k
to
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
ne
w
ho
m
e
s
fr
o
m
ch
u
r
c
h
/ pre‐school
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
on
Je
f
f
e
r
y
Dr. and Daly Ave.
12
10
49
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
PH1 - 32
Si
t
e
A
Land Use
Wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
A‐2 wi
t
h
RM
D
an
d
Pa
r
k
ma
d
e
to
OS
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
op
t
i
o
n
A3
ON
L
Y
re
u
s
e
pa
r
k
an
d
MD
R
so
th
e
r
e
is
a bu
f
f
e
r
be
t
w
e
e
n
MD
R
to
SF
R
on
Je
f
f
r
e
y
In
c
l
u
d
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
la
n
d
us
e
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
a sm
a
l
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ma
r
k
e
t
th
a
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
co
u
l
d
walk to for basic
gr
o
c
e
r
y
su
p
p
l
y
.
Di
o
c
e
s
e
Si
t
e
on
Da
l
y
ha
s
de
e
d
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
so
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
is
mo
o
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
PH1 - 33
2
B.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
@ Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St.
B-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B-
2
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
B-
3
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
fo
r
se
n
i
o
r
s
/
e
m
p
t
y
ne
s
t
e
r
s
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
z
e
st
r
e
e
t
pa
t
t
e
r
n
wi
t
h
a me
d
i
a
n
on
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
for pedestrian safety
Ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
sh
o
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
an
ac
t
i
v
e
so
c
i
a
l
scene, with entertainment
an
d
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
an
em
p
h
a
s
i
s
on
al
c
o
h
o
l
Ma
k
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
wa
l
k
a
b
l
e
wi
t
h
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
an
d
sh
o
p
s
and restaurants opening
on
t
o
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
th
e
ar
e
a
to
lo
o
k
li
k
e
Po
l
y
Ca
n
y
o
n
Vi
l
l
a
ge
Li
m
i
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
to
th
r
e
e
st
o
r
i
e
s
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
De
v
e
l
o
p
Cl
a
s
s
1 bi
k
e
tr
a
i
l
fr
o
m
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
to
LO
V
R
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
B‐2
Da
s
h
e
d
ci
r
c
l
e
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a re
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
fi
r
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
which could be on‐site. Exact
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
si
t
e
de
s
i
g
n
Sa
m
e
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s as
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Plan (except fire station site) –
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
B‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define
us
e
s
an
d
mi
x
)
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
at
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
corner of Foothill Blvd. and
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
RH
D
NC
RL
D
CC
RH
D
CR
PF
O
O
MU Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(n
e
e
d
s
n
e
w
p
o
l
i
c
y
t
o
d
o
)
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
CR
PF
PF
PF
NC
NC
4
15
15
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
0
PH1 - 34
3
B.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
@ Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St.(cont’d)
B-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B-
4
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
(
w
/
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
)
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
RH
D
NC
RL
D
CC
RH
D
CR
PF
O
O
MU
Re
a
l
i
g
n
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
MU Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(n
e
e
d
s
n
e
w
p
o
l
i
c
y
t
o
d
o
)
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
B‐4
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define
us
e
s
an
d
mi
x
)
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
si
t
e
wo
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of circulation system (as
sh
o
w
n
)
4
52
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
1
PH1 - 35
Si
t
e
B
Land Use
A po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Id
e
a
l
fo
r
re
z
o
n
i
n
g
.
Go
o
d
ar
e
a
fo
r
a re
s
e
a
r
c
h
pa
r
k
Ar
e
a
pe
r
f
e
c
t
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
Mo
r
e
Me
d
i
u
m
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ne
e
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
Ca
l
Po
l
y
’
s
ne
e
d
s
I li
k
e
th
e
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
B3
– La
n
d
us
e
s
an
d
2‐3 Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
pl
a
c
e
a pl
a
n
t
e
d
me
d
i
a
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
2
PH1 - 36
4
C.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Si
t
e
RL
D
PFSl
a
c
k
S
t
.
C-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C-
2
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
u
s
e
C-
3
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
u
s
e
,
M
i
x
e
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
RL
D
RL
D
RM
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
C‐2
Co
n
v
e
r
t
ol
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with surrounding
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
C‐3
Co
n
v
e
r
t
ol
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with surrounding
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Ar
e
a
at
co
r
n
e
r
of
Sl
a
c
k
St
r
e
e
t
and Grand Avenue designated
fo
r
Me
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
to
al
l
o
w
mu
l
t
i
‐fa
m
i
l
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Sl
a
c
k
S
t
.
Sl
a
c
k
S
t
.
43
12
24
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
3
PH1 - 37
5
C.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Si
t
e
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
RL
D
PFSl
a
c
k
S
t
.
C-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C-
4
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
R
e
u
s
e
RM
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
C‐4
Co
n
v
e
r
t
ol
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with surrounding
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
pa
r
k
ar
e
a
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
m
e
s
as
a buffer
Sl
a
c
k
S
t
.
PA
R
K
43
45
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
4
PH1 - 38
Si
t
e
C
Land Use
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
fo
r
me
d
i
u
m
or
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Al
l
o
w
s
fo
r
so
m
e
mi
x
e
d
us
e
to
co
m
p
l
i
m
e
n
t
a ne
w
residential area.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
Si
t
e
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
fo
r
me
d
i
u
m
to
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
Si
t
e
– Pr
e
f
e
r
RL
D
Ca
l
Po
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
en
o
u
g
h
ho
u
s
i
n
g
on
ca
m
p
u
s
fo
r
it
s
en
t
i
r
e
fr
e
s
h
m
a
n
cl
a
s
s
an
d
th
e
n
re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
fr
e
s
h
m
a
n
to
li
v
e
on campus even if they are
lo
n
g
‐ti
m
e
SL
O
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
or
if
th
e
i
r
pa
r
e
n
t
s
bo
u
g
h
t
an
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ho
m
e
fo
r
th
e
m
to
pa
r
t
y
or
li
v
e
in
Th
e
wh
o
l
e
pl
a
c
e
sh
o
u
l
d
be
a pa
r
k
fo
r
ge
n
e
r
a
l
us
e
.
No
mo
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
– to
o
ma
n
y
pe
o
p
l
e
us
e
th
e
ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
di
a
m
o
n
d
fi
e
l
d
.
There should be a place
to
pl
a
y
fo
r
th
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
th
e
r
e
.
It
is
al
r
e
a
d
y
Pa
r
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
no
ne
e
d
fo
r
mo
r
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ca
l
Po
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
AL
L
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
th
e
y
se
l
l
.
AN
D
gi
v
e
mo
r
e
bu
s
ac
c
e
s
s
so
m
e
w
h
e
r
e
else
I vo
t
e
d
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
bu
t
wo
u
l
d
be
ha
p
p
i
e
s
t
wi
t
h
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/ pa
r
k
pl
a
n
.
It
wa
s
so
cl
o
s
e
to
th
e
fl
o
o
r
that I missed it entirely until
so
m
e
o
n
e
me
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
it
.
Wh
y
no
t
ha
v
e
a me
e
t
i
n
g
on
ea
c
h
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
so
th
a
t
yo
u
ge
t
in
p
u
t
fr
o
m
th
e
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
.
This is a great
fo
r
u
m
bu
t
I am
mo
s
t
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
in
th
e
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
Pl
a
n
th
a
n
ot
h
e
r
s
.
Ca
l
Po
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
be
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
en
r
o
l
l
mo
r
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
un
t
i
l
th
e
y
ca
n
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
on
ca
m
p
u
s
fo
r
it
s
students.
In
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
zo
n
e
s
,
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
is
s
u
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
no
t
ju
s
t
2 to
ea
c
h
ho
m
e
.
In
my neighborhood 1 house
ha
s
6 Ag
r
i
c
.
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
ea
c
h
wi
t
h
a 6‐wh
e
e
l
pi
c
k
‐up
tr
u
c
k
.
Th
e
r
e
is
on
l
y
ro
o
m
fo
r
on
e
tr
u
c
k
in
fr
o
n
t
of
th
e
na
r
r
o
w
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
The students can’t use
th
e
ga
r
a
g
e
be
c
a
u
s
e
it
is
a li
v
i
ng
un
i
t
.
Th
e
dr
i
v
e
is
st
e
e
p
an
d
th
e
y
ca
n
n
o
t
ba
c
k
a tr
u
c
k
ou
t
of
it
so
th
e
y
le
a
v
e
th
e
dr
i
v
e
empty and park a truck in
fr
o
n
t
of
my
ho
u
s
e
ta
k
i
n
g
up
2 ca
r
sp
a
c
e
s
.
Th
i
n
k
lo
n
g
te
r
m
ab
o
u
t
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Ci
t
y
ne
e
d
s
re
a
l
vi
s
i
o
n
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
student rentals
Wh
e
r
e
is
vi
s
i
o
n
fo
r
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a bo
n
‐a‐fi
d
e
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
zo
n
e
fo
r
st
u
d
e
n
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
?
?
?
?
Th
i
n
k
bi
g
ab
o
u
t
fu
t
u
r
e
of
Ha
t
h
w
a
y
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
– ne
e
d
to
t
a
l
us
e
fo
r
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
Ca
l
Po
l
y
st
u
d
e
n
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
se
r
v
e
s
a gr
e
a
t
ne
e
d
fo
r
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
in
ou
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Ou
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ne
e
d
s
more classroom space
no
t
le
s
s
.
On
c
e
it
is
go
n
e
it
is
ne
v
e
r
re
p
l
a
c
e
d
.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Pa
r
k
/
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
.
Fi
e
l
d
s
.
Si
t
t
i
n
g
Ga
r
d
e
n
s
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
sh
o
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
fo
r
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
pa
r
k
s
– no
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ol
d
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
ke
e
p
lo
w
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
Ke
e
p
pl
a
y
i
n
g
fi
e
l
d
s
.
Ke
e
p
k‐12
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ke
e
p
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
sc
h
o
o
l
as
is
.
LO
V
R
‐
wa
y
to
o
mu
c
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
!
Ad
d
2n
d
la
n
e
to
FW
Y
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
an
d
ex
t
e
n
d
LO
V
R
so
u
t
h
to meet Buckley Road.
Ke
e
p
la
n
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
FW
Y
an
d
Lo
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Pa
r
k
no
de
n
s
i
t
y
:
OS
an
d
/
o
r
AG
[ Co
m
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
vi
a
e‐ma
i
l
on
6/
4
/
2
0
1
3
]
.
Hi
Ki
m
,
Ju
s
t
sp
o
k
e
to
yo
u
& I wo
n
'
t
be
ab
l
e
to
ma
k
e
Sa
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
fo
r
land use on Grand & Slack
St
.
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
gi
v
e
my
id
e
a
s
fo
r
go
o
d
la
n
d
us
e
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Af
t
e
r
ow
n
i
n
g
fo
r
7 ye
a
r
s
an
d
en
j
o
y
i
n
g
th
e
pa
r
k
li
k
e
at
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
and noticing
th
e
r
e
ar
e
fe
w
pa
r
k
s
in
th
e
ar
e
a
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e to
sa
y
I am
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
in
fa
v
o
r
of
at
le
as
t
ha
l
f
pa
r
k
an
d
th
e
ot
h
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(low density). Maybe higher
de
n
s
i
t
y
co
u
l
d
fi
t
ne
a
r
Gr
a
n
d
wi
t
h
en
o
u
g
h
pa
r
k
i
n
g
(b
i
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
)
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
5
PH1 - 39
6
D.
Di
o
c
e
s
e
Si
t
e
ne
a
r
Br
e
s
s
i
P
l
.
and
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Se
r
r
a
n
o
D
r
.
Broad St.
RM
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
D‐2
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
de
n
s
i
t
y
on
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
pa
r
c
e
l
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
additional housing
op
t
i
o
n
s
.
RL
D
OS
D-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
D-
2
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
OS
43
35
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
6
PH1 - 40
Si
t
e
D
Land Use
D‐2 In
c
l
u
d
e
ac
c
e
s
s
to
hi
k
i
n
g
tr
a
i
l
s
on
Ce
r
r
o
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
7
PH1 - 41
7
E.
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Ar
e
a
E-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
E-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
CT
CR
RL
D
OS
O
PF
RH
D
RL
D
PF
CC
RM
H
D
NC
OS
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
E
No
ma
j
o
r
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
changes proposed
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
area will be policy driven
(t
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
in
St
e
p
2 of
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
development)
Up
d
a
t
e
po
l
i
c
y
on
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Use Area
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
po
l
i
c
y
on
de
s
i
g
n
guidance and enhancement
Be
t
t
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
to
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Lo
o
k
at
pa
r
k
i
n
g
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
Is
there a good location for a
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
?
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
14
50
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
8
PH1 - 42
Si
t
e
E
Land Use
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
ta
k
e
ou
r
st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
on
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Cl
o
s
i
n
g
Br
o
a
d
/
M
o
n
t
e
r
r
e
y
by
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
:
Wh
a
t
ab
o
u
t
th
e
24
co
n
d
o
s
B+
B
,
an
d
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
go
i
n
g
in
on
wh
a
t
mi
g
h
t
be
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
mall? Will that
wo
r
k
?
E‐2 Sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
be
se
e
n
as
an
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
it
ma
y
b
e
on
e
or
tw
o
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
on
th
e
i
r
ow
n
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
r
e
e
t
al
l
o
w
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
.
4 st
o
r
y
al
l
o
w
fo
r
a pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
an
d
a pa
r
k
i
n
g
in
li
e
u
pr
o
g
r
a
m
to allow small site to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
de
n
s
i
t
y
Jo
i
n
E & F pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ma
p
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
do
e
s
n
’
t
se
e
m
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
un
l
e
s
s
ho
t
e
l
s
co
u
l
d
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
/
u
s
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
mo
r
e
CT
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
9
PH1 - 43
8
F.
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ar
e
a
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
F
No
ma
j
o
r
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
Th
e
r
e
ma
y
be
se
v
e
r
a
l
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
va
c
a
n
t
or
un
d
e
r
‐utilized sites that have
re
‐de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
wi
l
l
be
po
l
i
c
y
dr
i
v
e
n
(t
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
in
St
e
p
2 of
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
F-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
F-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
12
46
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
0
PH1 - 44
Si
t
e
F
Land Use
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
u
p
l
e
t
s
ma
k
e
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
st
r
e
e
t
.
Ma
k
e
Ma
r
s
h
2 wa
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
u
p
l
e
t
s
‐
cl
o
s
e
of
f
al
l
pa
r
k
i
n
g
la
n
e
s
an
d
wi
d
e
n
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
ar
e
a
ai
r
sp
a
c
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
on
c
e
3 st
o
r
i
e
s
.
Mu
s
t
bu
y
ai
r
sp
a
c
e
ri
g
h
t
s
,
fr
o
m
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
lo
w
e
r
than 3 stories.
Co
u
l
d
n
’
t
vo
t
e
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
ev
e
n
th
o
u
g
h
I ag
r
e
e
th
a
t
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
co
u
l
d
be
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
.
I th
i
n
k
th
e
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
must not clog up S.
Ro
s
a
,
an
d
I th
i
n
k
it
ne
e
d
s
to
ta
k
e
bi
k
e
s
an
d
pe
d
s
in
t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t
.
I’
m
al
s
o
wo
r
r
i
e
d
ab
o
u
t
ge
t
t
i
n
g
to
th
e
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
on
Ol
i
v
e
.
I’d like to see something
th
a
t
do
e
s
n
’
t
hu
r
t
th
e
th
r
u
‐tr
a
f
f
i
c
of
th
e
ne
a
r
b
y
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
en
f
o
r
c
e
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
of
f
i
c
e
an
d
re
t
a
i
l
Al
l
o
w
fo
r
mo
r
e
he
i
g
h
t
/
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
;
ex
t
e
n
d
st
u
d
y
ar
e
a
to
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
wi
t
h
G
Br
o
a
d
is
an
ar
t
e
r
y
so
u
t
h
of
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
We
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ab
l
e
to
st
a
y
on
it
th
r
o
u
g
h
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
to
th
e
ot
h
e
r
si
d
e
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
having to evade the plaza.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
mo
r
e
fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
!
Cl
o
s
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
to
ca
r
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
St
r
o
n
g
l
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
wi
d
e
r
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
on
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
(S
R
‐Ni
p
o
m
o
)
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ex
p
l
o
r
e
va
r
i
o
u
s
me
t
h
o
d
s
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
.
Th
a
n
k
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
/
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
in
f
i
l
l
;
e.
g
.
co
n
d
o
or
to
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
(e
v
e
n
sm
a
l
l
si
n
g
l
e
fa
m
i
l
y
)
.
Mo
r
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
to
li
v
e
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
= more people
wa
l
k
i
n
g
,
us
i
n
g
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,
et
c
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
1
PH1 - 45
9
G.
Mi
d
‐Hi
g
u
e
r
a
Ar
e
a
G-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
SM
CR
OS
RH
D
IO
S
CT
RM
H
D
RM
D
RL
D
PF
CR
OS
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
G
No
ma
j
o
r
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
ch
a
n
g
e
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
ar
e
a
wi
l
l
be
po
l
i
c
y
dr
i
v
e
n
(t
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
in Step 2 of the alternatives
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
lo
t
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
enhancements
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
.
Se
e
ne
x
t
pa
g
e
fo
r
de
t
a
i
l
s
on
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
So
u
t
h
S
t
.
Bridge St.
G-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
26
23
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
2
PH1 - 46
Si
t
e
G
Land Use
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St
r
e
e
t
‐
li
k
e
ke
e
p
i
n
g
1 wa
y
,
bu
t
re
d
u
c
e
fr
o
m
32 la
n
e
s
‐
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
la
n
e
wi
d
t
h
an
d
ad
d
bi
k
e
la
n
e
.
No
w
to
o
na
r
r
o
w
for bike riding and not
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
‐
ma
y
b
e
wi
d
e
n
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
to
o
?
G‐2‐
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
ar
e
a
bi
k
e
tr
a
i
l
re
l
i
e
s
on
a fe
w
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
lo
w
us
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
.
Th
i
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
to
be
a cl
a
s
s
1 th
r
o
u
g
h
the entire area. Align
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
to
Br
i
d
g
e
St
du
r
i
n
g
th
i
s
bu
i
l
d
th
e
bi
k
e
/
p
e
d
cl
a
s
s
1 sh
o
u
l
d
be
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
as
a gr
a
d
e
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
NO
at grade‐crossing of
ro
a
d
w
a
y
.
Mi
d
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
‐
cr
e
a
t
e
ar
t
i
s
t
i
c
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ou
t
of
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Gr
e
a
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
on
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
fo
r
re
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ga
t
e
w
a
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
in
t
o
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
area and what that can
lo
o
k
li
k
e
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
a “l
o
f
t
”
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
fr
o
m
S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
to
Ma
r
s
h
St
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
3
PH1 - 47
10
H.
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Si
t
e
H-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
H-
2
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
w
i
t
h
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N
o
d
e
H-
3
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
M
i
d
-
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
P
l
a
n
RH
D
PA
R
K
CR
IO
S
CT
SM
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
H‐2
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/ office uses with some housing
(n
e
e
d
s
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y
to
de
f
i
n
e
)
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
to
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Br
i
d
g
e
St
r
e
e
t
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
pl
a
n
on
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Road
Ar
e
a
s
of
si
t
e
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
ha
v
e
constraints due to adjacent
cr
e
e
k
an
d
fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
H‐3
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
pl
a
n
on
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
of
Ma
d
o
n
na
Road
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
pu
r
s
u
e
to
u
r
i
s
t
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
s
as
described in Mid‐HigueraPlan
Us
e
LU
C
E
Up
d
a
t
e
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
si
t
e
fo
r
to
u
r
i
s
t
use called out in Mid‐Higuera
Pl
a
n
Ar
e
a
s
of
si
t
e
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
ha
v
e
constraints due to adjacent
cr
e
e
k
an
d
fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
)
CT
CR
CR
PA
R
K
CR
PA
R
K
15
36
27
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
4
PH1 - 48
11
H.
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Si
t
e
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
H-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
H-
4
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
w
i
t
h
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N
o
d
e
RH
D
PA
R
K
CR
IO
S
CT
SM
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
H‐4
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/ office uses with some housing
(n
e
e
d
s
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y
to
de
f
i
n
e
)
Us
e
no
r
t
h
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
si
t
e
fo
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Or
i
e
n
t
ac
c
e
s
s
to
si
t
e
of
f
of
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
s
of
si
t
e
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
ha
v
e
constraints due to adjacent
cr
e
e
k
an
d
fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
pl
a
n
on
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a Road
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
)
CR
CR
PA
R
K
15
12
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
5
PH1 - 49
Si
t
e
H
Land Use
Wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
be
e
n
ni
c
e
if
yo
u
ha
d
to
l
d
us
th
i
s
wa
s
al
l
th
e
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
is
s
u
e
s
,
no
t
ju
s
t
my
bl
o
c
k
.
I am
no
t
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
!
I’
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
fo
r
th
e
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
an
d
So
u
t
h
th
a
t
’
s
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
an
d
pe
d
s
.
Ha
r
d
to make the area South
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
a de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ro
a
d
s
‐
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
,
et
c
.
Re
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
e
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
!
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
ne
e
d
e
d
.
On
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
,
if
ro
a
d
cl
o
s
e
d
,
wh
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ro
a
d
be
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
?
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
6
PH1 - 50
12
I.
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
Si
t
e
I-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
I-
2
.
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
I-
3
.
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
(
C
a
r
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
RL
D
RM
D
PF
PF
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Ot
h
e
r
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
:
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
/ in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
li
v
i
n
g
(a
l
l
o
w
e
d
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
designation)
Me
n
t
a
l
il
l
n
e
s
s
re
c
o
v
e
r
y
ce
n
t
e
r
(a
l
l
o
w
e
d
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
designation)
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
(a
l
l
o
w
e
d
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Me
d
i
c
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
s
(r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
PF
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
O de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
De
t
o
x
ce
n
t
e
r
(r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
PF
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
O de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
tr
a
i
l
s
(f
o
l
l
o
w
al
o
n
g
co
n
t
ou
r
,
ad
d
fi
t
n
e
s
s
tr
a
i
l
)
th
a
t
connects into larger regional system
Us
e
gr
a
d
e
to
da
y
‐li
g
h
t
fi
r
s
t
fl
o
o
r
un
i
t
s
bu
i
l
t
in
t
o
hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ne
e
d
s
to
be
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to views
Th
e
up
p
e
r
sl
o
p
e
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
to
be
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
Ke
e
p
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pu
b
l
i
c
ac
c
e
s
s
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
Su
n
n
y
Ac
r
e
s
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
du
e
to
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
tr
af
f
i
c
is
a co
n
c
e
r
n
Si
t
e
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
in
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
a va
r
i
e
t
y
of uses (to discuss in Step 2 of the
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
I‐2
Ex
p
a
n
d
ar
e
a
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
fo
r
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
to the city limit line
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
al
l
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
us
e
s
as
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
(P
F
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
I‐3
Ex
p
a
n
d
ar
e
a
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
fo
r
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
to the city limit line
Ch
a
n
g
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
si
t
e
to Medium Density Residential
(R
M
D
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
al
l
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
us
e
s
as
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(P
F
)
RM
D
RL
D
PF
OS
RL
D
Ci
t
y
Li
m
i
t
s
Ur
b
a
n
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Li
n
e
PF
PF
RL
D
OS
PF
PF
OS
RL
D
47
8
43
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
7
PH1 - 51
Si
t
e
I
Land Use
I‐3.
Al
l
o
w
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
se
n
i
o
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
/ as
s
i
s
t
e
d
li
v
i
n
g
.
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
PF
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
R
Ad
d
a li
n
e
a
r
pa
r
k
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
(c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fl
o
r
a
/ Fi
x
l
i
n
i
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Bl
v
d
.
)
Ma
k
e
th
e
pa
r
k
ha
v
e
facilities that would /
co
u
l
d
be
a de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
po
i
n
t
.
Ol
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
– co
n
s
i
d
e
r
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
el
d
e
r
ca
r
e
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
th
e
ol
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
(p
u
r
p
o
s
e
)
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
/ Li
z
z
i
e
an
d
Bi
s
h
o
p
/ Jo
h
n
s
o
n
th
e
traffic is already intolerable
Do
no
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
.
Th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ca
n
n
o
t
ha
n
d
l
e
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
8
PH1 - 52
13
J.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
Moylan Terrace Development
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
J-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
J
No
lo
n
g
e
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
in
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
Street area
J-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
47
17
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
6
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
9
PH1 - 53
Si
t
e
J
Land Use
Pl
e
a
s
e
,
pl
e
a
s
e
,
PL
E
A
S
E
ad
d
2 pe
d
xi
n
g
li
g
h
t
s
to
Br
o
a
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
Or
c
u
t
t
an
d
So
u
t
h
‐
to
cu
t
it
in
1/
3
’
s
…
wo
u
l
d
be
tr
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
only if button was
pu
s
h
e
d
.
St
i
l
l
al
l
o
w
ca
r
s
to
tu
r
n
le
f
t
on
t
o
an
d
of
f
of
Br
o
a
d
No
me
d
i
a
n
pl
e
a
s
e
,
ar
t
e
r
i
e
s
mu
s
t
st
a
y
un
c
l
o
g
g
e
d
.
Ke
e
p
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
pl
a
n
ex
c
e
p
t
ta
k
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
ou
t
.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
a ne
w
pl
a
n
do
n
’
t
ab
a
n
d
o
n
yo
u
r
fi
v
e
year effort
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
– Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
pl
a
n
th
a
t
wa
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
at
Co
u
n
c
i
l
bu
t
to
al
l
o
w
AL
S
O
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
zo
n
i
n
g
to
be
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
with all existing properties
up
o
n
sa
l
e
so
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
is
no
su
c
h
th
i
n
g
as
a “p
r
e
‐ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
no
n
‐co
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
us
e
”
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
mo
r
e
pe
d
/
b
i
k
e
ov
e
r
or
un
d
e
r
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
tr
a
c
k
s
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
a gr
e
a
t
be
n
e
f
i
t
of
ge
t
t
i
n
g
pe
o
p
l
e
out of cars.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
to
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
st
u
d
y
.
Th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
pl
a
n
wa
s
a lo
n
g
in
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
by
many residents!
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
be
s
t
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Pl
a
n
.
Ex
c
l
u
d
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
fr
o
m
ar
e
a
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
fr
o
m
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
ne
e
d
s
to
be
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
.
Ke
e
p
sh
a
r
e
d
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
.
No
me
d
i
a
n
on
Br
o
a
d
.
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ne
a
r
St
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
/
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
to
cr
o
s
s
Br
o
a
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
Br
i
n
g
ba
c
k
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Pl
a
n
fo
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I li
v
e
in
th
e
ar
e
a
we
s
t
of
Br
o
a
d
.
Tu
r
n
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
on
t
o
So
u
t
h
St
is
so
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
ve
r
y
di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
be
c
a
u
s
e
of
th
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
traffic on South. Please
cr
e
a
t
e
a li
m
i
t
li
n
e
on
So
u
t
h
to
al
l
o
w
em
e
r
g
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
to
en
t
e
r
an
d
tu
r
n
le
f
t
on
t
o
Br
o
a
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
me
d
i
a
n
sh
o
u
l
d
be
pl
a
n
t
e
d
wi
t
h
tr
e
e
s
,
wh
i
c
h
sh
o
u
l
d
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
Pl
a
n
Ke
e
p
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
pl
a
n
,
ex
c
e
p
t
ta
k
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
ou
t
.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
a ne
w
pl
a
n
do
n
’
t
ab
a
n
d
o
n
yo
u
r
fi
v
e
year effort.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
pl
a
n
th
a
t
wa
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
at
Co
u
n
c
i
l
bu
t
to
al
l
o
w
al
s
o
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
zo
n
i
n
g
to
be
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
wi
t
h
al
l
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
properties for sale so that
th
e
r
e
is
no
t
su
c
h
th
i
n
g
as
a “p
r
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
no
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
us
e
”
[ Co
m
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
vi
a
e‐ma
i
l
on
5/
2
9
/
2
0
1
3
]
.
I re
c
e
i
v
e
d
a po
s
t
c
a
r
d
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
th
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
th
i
s
we
e
k
e
n
d
.
I wo
u
l
d
love to attend but I had
ma
d
e
pr
i
o
r
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
I no
t
i
c
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
im
a
g
e
on
th
e
po
s
t
c
a
r
d
de
p
i
c
t
e
d
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
ar
e
a
.
I'
d
li
k
e
to
offer the following
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
my
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
if
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
be
an
app
r
op
r
i
a
t
e
ti
m
e
to
do
so
.
Th
e
ar
e
a
de
f
i
n
e
d
in
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
Pl
a
n
(S
B
S
A
P
)
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a un
i
q
u
e
mi
x
of
wo
r
k
i
n
g
fo
l
k
s
,
be
th
e
y
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
,
commercial‐
se
r
v
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐re
t
a
i
l
,
an
d
fo
l
k
s
th
a
t
ch
o
o
s
e
to
li
v
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
i
s
th
r
i
v
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
my
s
e
l
f
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
is certainly going to change
bu
t
I fe
e
l
th
a
t
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
gr
o
w
t
h
ar
e
no
t
mu
t
u
a
l
l
y
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
.
We
ju
s
t
ne
e
d
to
tw
e
a
k
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
th
a
t
al
r
e
a
d
y
exists to allow for the
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
la
n
d
us
e
s
an
d
to
al
l
o
w
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
d
us
e
s
.
Fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ar
e
my
su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
:
1)
Ke
e
p
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
as
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
in
th
e
SB
S
A
P
2)
Ke
e
p
th
e
"f
o
r
m
ba
s
e
d
co
d
e
s
"
as
pr
o
pos
e
d
in
th
e
SB
S
A
P
3)
Al
l
o
w
an
y
us
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ar
e
a
4)
Cr
e
a
t
e
an
ov
e
r
l
a
y
fo
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐Se
r
v
i
c
e
us
e
s
th
a
t
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
no
i
s
e
and emission standards, and
li
m
i
t
ho
u
r
s
of
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
5)
Re
q
u
i
r
e le
a
s
e
s
an
d
de
e
d
s
to
ac
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
th
e
uni
q
u
e
zo
n
i
n
g
of
th
i
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
0
PH1 - 54
14
K.
Su
n
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
‐In
Si
t
e
K-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
K-
2
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
s
e
K-
3
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
K‐2
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
dr
i
v
e
‐in
th
e
a
t
e
r
as
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
up
p
e
r
ed
g
e
of
si
t
e
as
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
(O
S
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
K‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/ office uses with some housing
(n
e
e
d
s
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y
to
de
f
i
n
e
)
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ma
y
ne
e
d
to
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
services center (or work
wi
t
h
Ci
t
y
on
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Us
e
as
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
to
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
si
t
e
on
c
e
ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
change
Ta
k
e
ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pr
a
d
o
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
/
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
nge
Wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
si
t
e
’
s
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
fl
o
o
d
zo
n
e
as part of site development
IO
S
CR
SM
O
PF
OS
OS
RM
D
RM
H
D
CR
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
)
OS
OS
21
33
83
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
4
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
1
PH1 - 55
Si
t
e
K
Land Use
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
PF
:
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
de
t
o
x
,
et
c
.
It
sh
o
u
l
d
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
mo
b
i
l
e
ho
m
e
pa
r
k
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
as part of the study area
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
(e
x
c
e
p
t
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
ce
n
t
e
r
)
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
s
e
r
v
e
d
fo
r
li
g
h
t
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
We
ne
e
d
a pl
a
c
e
for vehicle repair,
we
l
d
i
n
g
,
li
g
h
t
as
s
e
m
b
l
y
,
dr
y
cl
e
a
n
,
et
c
.
Mo
v
e
mi
d
‐Hi
g
u
e
r
a
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
lu
m
b
e
r
,
ca
r
re
p
a
i
r
to
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Sc
r
e
e
n
we
l
l
fr
o
m
Elks lane and Prado. Free
up
mi
d
‐Hi
g
u
e
r
a
fo
r
lo
f
t
sp
a
c
e
,
mi
xe
d
us
e
,
st
a
r
t
up
of
f
i
c
e
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
40
Pr
a
d
o
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
ce
n
t
e
r
an
d
ot
h
e
r
pu
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
i
s
is
th
e
on
l
y
lo
g
i
c
a
l
pl
a
c
e
fo
r
HS
C
.
Ar
e
a
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
mo
b
i
l
e
ho
m
e
pa
r
k
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
We
fa
v
o
r
40
Pr
a
d
o
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
sh
e
l
t
e
r
Lo
o
k
se
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
to
us
e
40
Pr
a
d
o
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
si
t
e
Su
n
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
‐In
:
Pu
t
lo
t
fo
r
mi
x
e
d
us
e
,
bu
t
on
l
y
if
dr
i
v
e
in
is
al
l
o
w
e
d
to
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
th
e
r
e
an
d
be
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
zo
n
i
n
g
.
Do not want drive in ruled
in
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
fo
r
zo
n
i
n
g
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
2
PH1 - 56
15
L.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
/ Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
L-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
L-
2
.
C
o
u
n
t
y
“
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
J
”
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L-
3
.
F
u
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐2
Th
i
s
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wo
u
l
d
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
to match the project contained
in
Co
u
n
t
y
“M
e
a
s
u
r
e
J”
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐3
Wo
u
l
d
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
sh
o
w
n
as
Op
e
n
Space (OS), Interim Open
Sp
a
c
e
(I
O
S
)
an
d
Me
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
M
D
)
to Agriculture (AG)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐4
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
a po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
’
s
designation of General Retail
(C
R
)
to
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐5
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
al
l
of
th
e
un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
existing General Plan’s
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
to
Me
d
i
u
m
Density Residential (RMD)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐6
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
al
l
of
th
e
un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
existing General Plan’s
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
to
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(AG) or Open Space (OS)PARK
CR
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
O
PF
CT
OS
PA
R
K
CR AG
PA
R
K
BP
BP
PF
CR
AG
OS
Area set aside for proposed Prado Interchange
CR
PF
CR
PF
OS
PF
5
49
18
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
3
PH1 - 57
16
L.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
/ Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
L-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
L-
4
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
M
i
x
L-
5
.
T
a
s
k
F
o
r
c
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
F
o
c
u
s
)
CR
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
O
PF
TC
OS
PA
R
K
RL
D
CR
PF
CR
PF
OS
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
RM
H
D
RM
D
OS
L-
6
.
T
a
s
k
F
o
r
c
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(
A
g
/
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
O
n
l
y
)
CR
PF
RM
H
D
AG
/
O
S
PF
5
6
36
61
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
4
PH1 - 58
17
L.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
/
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
L-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
CR
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
O
PF
TC
OS
PA
R
K
PF
5
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Bu
i
l
d
an
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
at
Pr
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
,
no
t
an
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Th
e
Pr
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
ne
e
d
s
to
be
re
s
o
l
v
e
d
before moving ahead with the
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ot
h
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
id
e
a
s
:
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
a
r
c
e
l
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
t
a
i
n
e
d
in
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Cr
e
a
t
e
an
ur
b
a
n
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
fa
r
m
,
with farms sales and education
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
of
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
Pa
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ce
n
t
e
r
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
pa
r
k
/ ho
t
e
l
/ re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ad
d
ot
h
e
r
us
e
s
(o
f
f
i
ce
,
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
id
e
a
s
:
Ac
t
i
v
e
st
r
e
e
t
ed
g
e
/ pa
r
k
i
n
g
be
h
i
n
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Ex
t
e
n
d
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
to
si
t
e
Be
t
t
e
r
tr
a
i
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
/ be
t
t
e
r
bi
k
e
access
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
tr
e
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
al
o
n
g
Madonna Road
Wa
l
k
a
b
l
e
re
t
a
i
l
/ ic
o
n
i
c
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
In
t
e
n
s
i
f
y
Ma
d
o
n
na Ro
a
d
pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
la
c
k
of
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
fa
c
i
l
i
ti
e
s
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
5
PH1 - 59
Si
t
e
L
Land Use
Pl
e
a
s
e
DO
NO
T
co
n
n
e
c
t
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
.
Th
i
s
is
a fa
m
i
l
y
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
lo
t
s
of
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
We
do
no
t
wa
n
t
th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
traffic in this residential
ar
e
a
.
Ca
r
s
al
r
e
a
d
y
dr
i
v
e
fa
s
t
do
w
n
th
i
s
ro
a
d
.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
:
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
to
be
re
‐pl
a
n
n
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
wi
t
h
so
m
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(f
i
n
i
s
h
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
ar
e
a
)
and hotel (Destination). *4/5
a ra
n
g
e
of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
fr
o
m
SF
D
MF
.
A ge
n
e
r
o
u
s
o/
s
se
t
b
a
c
k
al
o
n
g
10
1
to
ke
e
p
th
e
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
ni
c
e
to
to
w
n
.
My
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
is
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
bu
t
a be
t
t
e
r
us
e
wo
u
l
d
be
mo
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
al
l
o
w
mo
r
e
me
d
i
u
m
density
Ne
e
d
ba
l
a
n
c
e
of
me
d
i
u
m
to
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
is
id
e
a
l
fo
r
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Ha
v
e
mo
r
e
of
a ba
l
a
n
c
e
of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
(m
e
d
i
u
m
‐hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
)
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(o
f
f
i
c
e
s
,
hospitality) along with
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
(p
a
r
k
,
AG
st
r
i
p
,
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
fr
o
m
he
r
e
to
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
)
.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
vi
e
w
fr
o
m
10
1
.
Ne
e
d
to
ad
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
th
a
t
re
f
l
e
c
t
s
Ci
t
y
ba
l
l
o
t
it
e
m
an
d
vo
t
e
.
I’
m
ho
p
i
n
g
wh
o
e
v
e
r
bo
u
g
h
t
(o
r
bu
y
s
)
th
e
Da
l
i
d
i
o
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
wi
l
l
do
as
mu
c
h
as
Da
l
i
d
i
o
wa
n
t
e
d
to
.
I do
n
’
t
th
i
n
k
OS
is
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
‐
al
w
a
y
s
ma
k
e
it
AG
/
O
S
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
.
My
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wa
s
no
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
.
1.
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
gr
e
a
t
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
r
o
u
g
h
AG
/
o
p
e
n
space to the Laguna Lake
ar
e
a
.
No
t
ju
s
t
a st
r
i
p
bu
t
a br
o
a
d
e
r
gr
e
e
n
be
l
t
.
2.
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
th
e
SL
O
Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
.
3.
No
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ranch Rd through SLO
Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
.
4.
Op
e
n
fo
r
ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
us
e
s
of
Da
l
i
d
i
o
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
in
cl
u
d
i
ng
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
of
Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
an
d
a Pr
a
d
o
Rd
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
If an overpass can help
so
l
v
e
ac
r
o
s
s
10
1
co
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
is
s
u
e
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
th
e
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
be
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
6
PH1 - 60
18
M.
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
M-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
M-
2
.
R
e
u
s
e
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
PF
RM
D
CR
CR
RL
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
M‐2
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
is
s
u
e
re
l
a
t
i
v
e
to
fu
t
u
r
e
of
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
may influence the site
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pu
b
l
i
c
Pa
r
k
as
pa
r
t
of
si
t
e
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
to
bu
f
f
e
r
existing residential uses
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
al
o
n
g
LO
V
R
to
Of
f
i
c
e
(O
)
an
d
General Retail l (CR)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
M‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pu
b
l
i
c
Pa
r
k
as
pa
r
t
of
si
t
e
CR
O
PA
R
K
M-
3
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
P
a
r
k
MU
PA
R
K
RLD
10
13
32
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
7
PH1 - 61
19
M.
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
M-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
M-
4
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
o
c
u
s
SM
RM
D
CR
CR
RL
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
M‐4
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
si
t
e
wi
t
h
hi
g
h
e
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
us
i
n
g
Medium High Density
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
M
H
D
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pu
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
as
pa
r
t
of
si
t
e
RM
H
D
PA
R
K
10
27
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
8
PH1 - 62
Si
t
e
M
Land Use
I do
n
’
t
th
i
n
k
th
e
pa
r
k
is
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
it
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
be
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
Af
r
a
i
d
th
a
t
if
th
e
H.
D
.
Re
s
op
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
s
we
wi
l
l
lo
s
e
ou
r
wa
l
k
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
du
e
to
ca
r
s
ac
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
th
a
t
si
t
e
un
l
e
s
s
it
is
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
for industries without
ca
r
s
Pu
t
gr
e
e
t
do
t
on
M‐1 Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
:
Ta
k
e
“O
”
ou
t
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
a
g
e
in
M‐2
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
:
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
c
i
t
y
pa
r
k
‐
ba
l
l
fi
e
l
d
s
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
:
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
us
e
…
Al
l
Pa
r
k
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
9
PH1 - 63
20
N.
Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Au
t
o
Sa
l
e
s
Ar
e
a
N-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
N-
2
.
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
t
o
N
o
n
-
A
u
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N-
3
.
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
F
o
c
u
s
OS
RM
D
CR
SM
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
N‐1
Ke
e
p
th
i
s
si
t
e
as
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Plan (shown on map to left)
Po
l
i
c
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
ne
e
d
e
d
to
av
o
i
d
vi
s
u
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
from repair and other
au
t
o
re
l
a
t
e
d
us
e
s
If
au
t
o
us
e
de
s
i
r
e
d
,
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
auto center area to enhance
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
of
ar
e
a
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
N‐2
Ex
t
e
n
d
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
(C
a
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
)
in
t
o
Da
l
i
d
i
o
property to complete loop.
Al
l
o
w
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
us
e
s
If
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
as
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
or
agricultural, extension of Calle
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
N‐3
Ex
t
e
n
d
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
(C
a
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
)
in
t
o
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
to complete loop
De
v
e
l
o
p
ar
e
a
fo
r
hi
g
h
w
a
y
or
i
e
n
t
e
d
To
u
r
i
s
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(TC)
If
Da
l
i
d
i
o pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
as
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
or
agricultural, extension of Calle
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
CR
CT
NO
T
E
:
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
ar
e
a
s
no
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
in
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
bu
t
se
e
n
as
ne
e
d
e
d
to
ma
k
e
au
t
o
ce
n
t
e
r
co
n
c
e
p
t
vi
a
b
l
e
on
en
t
i
r
e
si
t
e
.
23
17
38
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
0
PH1 - 64
Si
t
e
N
Land Use
I’
m
af
r
a
i
d
if
yo
u
ta
k
e
aw
a
y
la
n
d
se
t
as
i
d
e
no
w
fo
r
au
t
o
de
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
yo
u
ma
y
re
g
r
e
t
in
5‐10
ye
a
r
s
wh
e
n
auto dealerships need to
ex
p
a
n
d
an
d
we
’
v
e
ta
k
e
n
aw
a
y
th
e
i
r
sp
a
c
e
!
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
1
PH1 - 65
21
O.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
on
LO
V
R
O-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
OS
SM
SM
CC
RM
D
RL
D
IO
S
CR
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
O‐2
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
n
g
si
t
e
as
a Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
(S
P
)
site. This would allow for
be
t
t
e
r
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
to
ma
t
c
h
th
e
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
with this site (access,
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
vi
e
w
s
h
e
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
et
c
.
)
Ci
t
y
Li
m
i
t
s
Ur
b
a
n
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Li
n
e
O-
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
CR
SP
40
65
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
2
PH1 - 66
Si
t
e
O
Land Use
In
s
t
e
a
d
of
SP
us
e
PD
ov
e
r
l
a
y
Ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
SP
to
GP
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
3
PH1 - 67
RE
D
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
:
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
/
b
i
k
e
la
n
e
fr
o
m
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
fr
o
m
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
to
we
s
t
of
Mu
s
t
a
n
g
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Hazardous Conditions
Fu
l
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
/
n
e
e
d
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
So
m
e
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
ap
p
e
a
r
to
o
ov
e
r
l
y
fo
c
u
s
e
d
on
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
to
Se
a
bi
c
y
c
l
e
pa
t
h
.
Th
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l
fo
c
u
s
on
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
ar
e
a
.
Ar
e
a
s
se
e
m
li
k
e
a lo
s
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
Pe
r
h
a
p
s
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
co
u
l
d
be expanded slightly to
lo
o
k
at
th
o
s
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
br
o
a
d
e
r
ar
e
a
th
a
t
th
e
y
ar
e
in
.
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
50
ye
a
r
vi
s
i
o
n
?
Wh
a
t
co
u
l
d
be
do
n
e
wi
t
h
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
properties? Could we
do
a pi
l
o
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
to
be
a mo
d
e
l
fo
r
ad
v
a
n
c
i
n
g
po
l
i
c
i
es
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ga
i
n
na
t
i
o
n
a
l
at
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
?
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
4
PH1 - 68
22
OS
OS
P.
LO
V
R
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
Ar
e
a
P-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P-
2
.
M
e
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P-
3
.
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CT
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
P
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
zo
n
e
that is on part of site
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of LOVR with a connection
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ro
a
d
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
a ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
given distance available
an
d
wi
l
l
di
c
t
a
t
e
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐2
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Me
d
i
u
m
Hi
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(R
M
H
D
) on northeastern portion
of
si
t
e
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
se
c
t
i
o
n
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
fo
r
co
n
t
i
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
of Agriculture (AG) and to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
co
n
t
r
o
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
Op
e
n
Space (OS) designated area
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐3
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
on
bo
t
h
sides of realignment
We
s
t
e
r
n
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
fo
r
co
n
t
i
n
u
a
t
i
on
of Agriculture (AG) and Open
Sp
a
c
e
(O
S
)
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
co
n
t
r
o
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
IO
S
OS
RL
D
RL
D
RMHD
AG
AG
OS
OS
4
1
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
5
PH1 - 69
23
OS
OS
OS
OS
P.
LO
V
R
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
Ar
e
a
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
P-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P-
4
.
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
U
s
e
P-
5
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
i
x
CT
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
P
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
zo
n
e
that is on part of site
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of LOVR with a connection
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ro
a
d
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
a ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
given distance available
an
d
wi
l
l
di
c
t
a
t
e
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
us
e
d
fo
r
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
as Agriculture (AG) on the Land
Us
e
Di
a
g
r
a
m
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐5
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Me
d
i
u
m
Hi
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
M
H
D
) on north portion of site
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
se
c
t
i
o
n
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
fo
r
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Residential (RLD) use adjacent
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
IO
S
OS
RL
D
AG
AG
RM
H
D
4
51
34
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
6
PH1 - 70
Si
t
e
P
Land Use
Sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
R&
D
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
of
LO
V
R
Mo
v
e
me
d
i
u
m
de
n
s
i
t
y
fr
o
m
P2
to
P3
[N
O
T
E
:
ca
r
d
st
a
t
e
s
“Q
”
,
bu
t
co
n
t
e
x
t
pl
a
c
e
s
th
i
s
on
“P
”
]
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
7
PH1 - 71
24
Q.
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
Q-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
/
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
IO
S
O
O
RM
D
RL
D
PF
SM
SM
CC
RH
D
RH
D
RM
H
D
RL
D
RL
D
RM
H
D
RM
D
RL
D
RM
D
OS
OS
BP
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Q‐1
Ke
e
p
th
i
s
ar
e
a
as
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Plan (shown on map to
le
f
t
)
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
w
e
d
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Specific Plan
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Q‐2
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
an
up
d
a
t
e
to
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
to
al
l
o
w
hi
g
h
e
r
densities for housing in red
ci
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
mo
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
in
a co
m
p
a
c
t
city footprint
22 39
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
8
PH1 - 72
Si
t
e
Q
Land Use
No
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
9
PH1 - 73
25
R.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
@ Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Rd
.
R-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
CC
BP
SM
O
RM
D
R-
2
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N
o
d
e
R-
3
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
CR
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
R‐2
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
si
t
e
wi
t
h
a co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ce
n
t
e
r
un
d
e
r
the General Commercial (CR)
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
De
s
i
g
n
of
si
t
e
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ga
t
e
w
a
y
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
for entering city
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
R‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define)
De
s
i
g
n
of
si
t
e
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ga
t
e
w
a
y
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
for entering city
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
)
NO
T
E
:
Th
i
s
si
t
e
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ad
o
p
t
e
d
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Ar
e
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
4
24
45
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
0
PH1 - 74
Si
t
e
R
Land Use
No
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
1
PH1 - 75
26
S.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
S-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
S-
2
.
F
u
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
S-
3
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
’
s
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
+
N
o
r
t
h
B
u
f
f
e
r
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Re
t
a
i
n
in
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
a sp
o
r
t
s
co
m
p
l
e
x
Th
e
ar
e
a
is
a go
o
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Th
e
ar
e
a
is
a go
o
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
li
v
e
/
w
o
r
k
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Th
e
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
So
u
t
h
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
s
h
o
u
l
d
be addressed with
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
S‐2
Da
s
h
e
d
ci
r
c
l
e
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(NC) center. Exact
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
si
t
e
de
s
i
g
n
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
S‐3
Ba
s
e
d
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
co
n
c
e
p
t
bu
t
wi
t
h
a buffer added along northern
ed
g
e
pe
r
TF
‐LU
C
E
in
p
u
t
s
BP
AG
OS
SM
RL
D
RLD
NC
OS
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
.
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
.
NO
T
E
:
Th
i
s
si
t
e
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ad
o
p
t
e
d
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Ar
e
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
RL
D
RL
D
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
.
OS
NC
PA
R
K
RL
D
MD
R
RL
D
RD
L
RL
D
RL
D
RM
D
Es
t
a
t
e
AG
AG
PA
R
K
AG
AG
12
12
54
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
4
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
2
PH1 - 76
Si
t
e
S
Land Use
Ho
w
ab
o
u
t
a Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
on
th
e
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
an
d
a di
g
n
i
t
y
vi
l
l
a
g
e
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
?
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
ne
e
d
in
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
tw
o
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ar
e
a
s
of
“R
L
D
”
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Wh
y
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
in
t
o
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
?
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
in
t
o
fu
t
u
r
e
we
sh
o
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ar
e
a
to
so
u
t
h
of
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
Cr
e
e
k
an
d
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
complete south of airport
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Gr
e
a
t
fo
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
in
tu
r
n
su
p
p
o
r
t
so
m
e
lo
c
a
l
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
re
t
a
i
l
.
Ex
t
e
n
d
bu
c
k
l
e
y
to S. Higuera
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Do
no
t
ne
e
d
mo
r
e
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
s
;
Al
s
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
mu
c
h
ne
e
d
e
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to S. Higuera and Bob
Jo
n
e
s
Bi
k
e
Pa
t
h
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Al
l
o
w
fo
r
cr
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
in
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
or
sp
o
r
t
s
co
m
p
l
e
x
ma
y
be
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
Extend the boundaries
of
th
e
ar
e
a
mo
r
e
so
u
t
h
.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
la
r
g
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
a “M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
So
u
t
h
”
co
n
c
e
p
t
– al
l
o
w
s
fo
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
connections;
ex
p
a
n
d
ne
a
r
cr
e
e
k
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Th
e
tr
e
n
d
to
w
a
r
d
s
re
z
o
n
i
n
g
it
ou
t
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
an
d
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
is
go
o
d
.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Mo
r
e
lo
w
in
c
o
m
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ne
e
d
e
d
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Ex
p
a
n
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
– mo
r
e
li
k
e
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
‐
ex
p
a
n
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Go
o
d
si
t
e
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
ci
t
y
.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
an
ad
d
e
d
sp
h
e
r
e
of
in
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
in
th
e
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
ar
e
a
‐th
i
s
ha
s
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ta
k
e
pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
of
f
of
ot
h
e
r
areas and allow for new
un
i
q
u
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Lo
o
k
be
y
o
n
d
th
i
s
ma
p
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
al
l
o
w
fo
r
ot
h
e
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
po
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
is
s
u
e
s
at Buckley and LOVR.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Th
e
st
u
d
y
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
to
th
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
to
th
e
so
u
t
h
an
d
ea
s
t
(c
r
e
e
k
)
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
an
o
t
h
e
r
worth study would be
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
fo
r
la
r
g
e
wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
/
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
3
PH1 - 77
1
1.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ne
a
r
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Blvd
1-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1-
2
.
O
v
e
r
/
U
n
d
e
r
P
a
s
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
St
e
n
n
e
r
G
l
e
n
St
u
d
e
n
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
1-
3
.
B
o
y
s
e
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
–
B
i
k
e
s
&
P
e
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
O
n
l
y
Is
s
u
e
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
ja
y
w
a
l
k
ac
r
o
s
s
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
r
e
e
t
no
r
t
h
of Foothill Blvd
Fu
t
u
r
e
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
& Bi
k
e
Connections
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
1‐2
En
h
a
n
c
e
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
al
l
mo
d
e
s
Fo
l
l
o
w
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
t
h
w
a
y
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
by
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
da
y
l
i
g
h
t
in
tu
n
n
e
l
wi
t
h
op
e
n
i
n
g
along median
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
1‐3
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
ea
s
t
en
d
of
Bo
y
s
e
n
Av
e
.
at
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St. to further enhance or
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
ov
e
r
or
un
d
e
r
pa
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
St
e
n
n
e
r
G
l
e
n
St
u
d
e
n
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
St
e
n
n
e
r
G
l
e
n
St
u
d
e
n
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CH
E
V
R
O
N
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
27
57
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
4
PH1 - 78
Si
t
e
1
Circulation
Su
g
g
e
s
t
pe
d
/
b
i
k
e
si
g
n
a
l
@ Bo
y
s
e
n
in
s
t
e
a
d
of
tu
n
n
e
l
or
br
i
d
g
e
.
Sl
o
w
tr
a
f
f
i
c
/
c
u
t
co
s
t
!
1‐3.
Wh
i
l
e
I re
a
l
l
y
li
k
e
th
e
id
e
a
of
cl
o
s
i
n
g
th
i
s
to
Mo
t
o
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
as
it
wi
l
l
he
l
p
bo
t
h
pe
d
s
an
d
bi
k
e
s
‐
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
some difficulty for
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
/
o
u
t
of
Bo
y
s
e
n
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e
s
e
ar
e
ma
i
n
l
y
st
u
d
e
n
t
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
Si
n
c
e
th
e
no
r
t
h
en
d
of
Ch
o
r
r
o
is
no
t
accessible from a
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
an
y
b
o
d
y
re
t
u
r
n
i
n
g
fr
o
m
Cu
e
s
t
a
or
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
to
us
e
Fe
r
r
i
n
i
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
wh
i
c
h
ha
v
e
th
e
i
r
own traffic issues
al
r
e
a
d
y
.
Cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a tu
n
n
e
l
fo
r
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
ne
a
r
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
An
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
wo
u
l
d
be
ex
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
5
PH1 - 79
2
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2-
2
.
C
h
o
r
r
o
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2-
3
.
B
r
o
a
d
&
B
o
y
s
e
n
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Is
s
u
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
is
skewed; volumes at Foothill Blvd and
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
r
e
e
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ev
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
wi
l
l
exceed capacity of current geometry
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
Be
t
t
e
r
si
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
s
fo
r
dr
i
v
e
r
s
at
ri
g
h
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
than at skewed intersection
Re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
wo
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
crossing time along Foothill
Bl
v
d
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
at
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
an
d
Santa Rosa Street
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
and Santa Rosa Street
Co
s
t
s
fo
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
2‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
(s
o
u
t
h
of
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
)
so
th
a
t
it intersects Foothill Blvd. at a right
an
g
l
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
2‐3
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
(s
o
u
t
h
of
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
)
so
th
a
t
it intersects Foothill Blvd. at a right
an
g
l
e
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
(n
o
r
t
h
of
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
)
so
th
a
t
it intersects at Broad St.
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
.
so
it
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
s
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Broad St
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Broad St
2.
Ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ne
a
r
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Blvd
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Broad St
2-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CHEVRON
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CH
E
V
R
O
N
24
3
51
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
6
PH1 - 80
Si
t
e
2
Circulation
No
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
7
PH1 - 81
YE
L
L
O
W
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
re
l
a
t
e
d
:
So
u
t
h
bo
u
n
d
HW
Y
1 to
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
an
d
bl
o
c
k
ac
c
e
s
s
to
Ch
o
r
r
o
.
Re
m
o
v
e
se
c
t
i
o
n
of
Is
l
a
n
d
to
al
l
o
w
bi
c
y
c
l
e
travel for southbound
HW
Y
1 to
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
.
St
u
d
y
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
go
al
l
th
e
wa
y
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Pl
e
a
s
e
lo
o
k
in
t
o
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a ma
r
k
e
t
in
th
e
ol
d
Co
p
e
l
a
n
d
s
St
o
r
e
un
d
e
r
th
e
Ma
r
s
h
St
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
ga
r
a
g
e
.
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
ve
n
d
o
r
s
wh
o
would provide SLO grown
al
l
we
e
k
.
Pi
k
e
St
.
Ma
r
k
e
t
as
th
e
mo
d
e
l
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
lo
o
k
in
t
o
a ma
r
k
e
t
in
ol
d
Co
p
e
l
a
n
d
s
St
o
r
e
@ Ma
r
s
h
‐fe
a
t
u
r
e
lo
c
a
l
l
y
so
u
r
c
e
s
ve
n
d
o
r
s
Re
:
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
at
Bu
c
h
o
n
/
T
o
r
o
– on
e
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
on
th
i
s
st
r
e
e
t
do
e
s
no
t
h
i
n
g
‐
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ta
k
e
s
it
at
fu
l
l
sp
e
e
d
or
fa
s
t
e
r
as a joke‐ cars gouge the
as
p
h
a
l
t
‐
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
in
pi
c
k
u
p
s
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
tr
a
i
l
e
r
s
bo
u
n
c
e
(n
o
i
s
y
)
‐
no
i
s
y
ev
e
n
at
3a
.
m
.
– Ca
r
s
ho
n
k
as
th
e
y
pa
s
s
ov
e
r
bu
m
p
– bump needs to be build
cu
r
b
to
cu
r
b
li
k
e
on
Pi
s
m
o
‐
no
w
,
ca
r
s
go
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
bu
m
p
an
d
tr
a
v
e
l
in
pa
r
k
i
n
g
la
n
e . Li
s
t
e
n
to
th
e
ta
x
pa
y
e
r
s
in
s
t
e
a
d
of Cal Poly kids who are
go
n
e
in
a fe
w
ye
a
r
s
.
Th
e
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
th
i
s
is
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
a “r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ba
s
e
d
”
pr
o
c
e
s
s
wa
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
at
th
i
s
fu
t
u
r
e
fair‐ as if this was never
an
is
s
u
e
.
Th
e
si
g
n
in
sh
e
e
t
as
k
e
d
fo
r
an
“a
d
d
r
e
s
s
”
an
d
no
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
ga
v
e
ci
t
y
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
ad
d
r
e
s
s
,
et
c
.
Th
e
r
e
wa
s
NO
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
staff asking those
wh
o
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
if
th
e
y
we
r
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Co
u
n
c
i
l
di
r
e
ct
e
d th
a
t
th
i
s
pr
o
c
e
s
s
be
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
ba
s
e
d
at the last “Future Fair” (as
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
th
e
ta
s
k
fo
r
c
e
,
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
et
c
in
p
u
t
)
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
to
pu
t
th
e
i
r
ci
t
y
of
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
.
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
st
a
f
f
asked those submitting
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
if
th
e
y
we
r
e
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
th
e
ci
ty
‐
if
no
t
,
it
wa
s
so
no
t
e
d
.
Th
e
Pr
a
d
o
Rd
po
s
t
e
r
as
k
e
d
if
pe
o
p
l
e
wa
n
t
e
d
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
‐
bu
t
do
e
s
no
t
as
k
wh
o
sh
o
u
l
d
pa
y
fo
r
it
‐
th
a
t
wa
s
vo
t
e
d
upon in a city election &
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
vo
t
e
d
ag
a
i
n
su
b
s
i
d
y
of
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
co
s
t
(o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
)
La
c
k
of
me
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
no
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wh
o
wo
u
l
d
be
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
by
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
at
th
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
.
The city sent out very
ge
n
e
r
a
l
no
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
an
d
th
e
re
a
c
t
i
o
n
wa
s
‐
th
i
s
do
e
s
no
t
ap
p
l
y
to
my
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
or
th
i
s
is
no
t
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
proposal that would affect
my
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
.
If
th
e
ci
t
y
ha
d
se
n
t
ou
t
no
t
i
c
e
s
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wh
o
wo
u
l
d
be
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
by
a sp
e
c
i
f
ic
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
wh
a
t
th
a
t
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
was many residents
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
be
e
n
up
s
e
t
(O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
)
.
Th
e
r
e
we
r
e
ma
n
y
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
wh
o
ha
v
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
/
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
holdings.
Q:
Wh
e
r
e
is
th
e
ci
t
y
go
i
n
g
to
ge
t
fu
n
d
s
to
pa
y
fo
r
al
l
th
e
s
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
?
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
8
PH1 - 82
3
3.
CA
‐1 & US
10
1
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
3-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
3
-
2
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
ra
m
p
s
CR
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
(O
l
i
v
e
S
t
)
NB
o
n
/
o
f
f
r
a
m
p
s
(O
s
o
s
S
t
)
NB
o
n
/
o
f
f
r
a
m
p
s
(T
o
r
o
S
t
)
Is
s
u
e
s
Do
e
s
no
t
me
e
t
mo
d
e
r
n
de
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
on
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
Ra
m
p
sy
s
t
e
m
ro
u
t
e
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
r
o
u
g
h
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
neighborhoods
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
3‐2
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
al
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
streets
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ac
c
e
s
s
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(Olive & Walnut)
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ra
m
p
s
to
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
Os
o
s
St
r
e
e
t
an
d
Ol
i
v
e
St
r
e
e
t
To
r
o
St
r
e
e
t
an
d
Ol
i
v
e
St
r
e
e
t
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
3-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
S
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
PO
L
I
C
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
SH
E
L
L
GA
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
SH
E
L
L
GA
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
PO
L
I
C
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
33
58
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
9
PH1 - 83
Si
t
e
3
Circulation
3‐2.
I li
k
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
i
n
g
ac
c
e
s
s
to
1 bu
t
no
t
to
cl
o
s
e
Br
o
a
d
St
ra
m
p
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
0
PH1 - 84
4
4.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
& US
10
1
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
ra
m
p
s
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
(O
l
i
v
e
S
t
)
NB
o
n
/
o
f
f
r
a
m
p
s
(T
o
r
o
S
t
)
Is
s
u
e
s
Do
e
s
no
t
me
e
t
mo
d
e
r
n
de
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Ra
m
p
sy
s
t
e
m
ro
u
t
e
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
r
o
u
g
h
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
neighborhoods
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
4‐2
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
al
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
streets
Cl
o
s
e
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
on
‐
an
d
of
f
‐ra
m
p
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
in
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
.
4-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
4
-
2
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
R
a
m
p
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
54
43
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
6
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
1
PH1 - 85
Si
t
e
4
Circulation
Wh
a
t
ab
o
u
t
cl
o
s
i
n
g
on
l
y
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
on
‐ra
m
p
(N
W
si
d
e
)
si
d
e
at
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
/
H
w
y
10
1
Br
o
a
d
St
& US
10
1
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
:
Pl
a
c
e
a pl
a
n
t
e
d
me
d
i
a
n
st
r
i
p
do
w
n
Br
o
a
d
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
sl
o
w
do
w
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fo
r
th
e
mi
s
s
i
o
n
school children.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
fo
r
pe
d
’
s
& bi
k
e
s
Br
o
a
d
St
e/
10
1
cl
o
s
e
of
f
1 on
ra
m
p
s
& pu
t
a br
i
d
g
e
ov
e
r
or
un
d
e
r
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
& pe
d
s
Br
o
a
d
St
& US
10
1
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
& mo
r
e
st
o
p
si
g
n
s
on
Br
o
a
d
Cl
o
s
i
n
g
Br
o
a
d
at
10
1
wo
u
l
d
cl
o
s
e
th
e
ve
s
s
e
l
fo
r
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
ac
c
e
s
s
ot
h
e
r
ar
e
a
s
.
Re
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
wo
u
l
d
ju
s
t
ad
d
mo
r
e
traffic to other areas,
an
d
wo
u
l
d
be
ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
to
th
e
pe
o
p
l
e
th
a
t
li
v
e
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
!
Br
o
a
d
St
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
– bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
on
l
y
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Do
no
t
fo
r
g
e
t
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pl
a
n
!
!
!
Do
No
t
fo
r
g
e
t
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pl
a
n
PE
D
PL
A
N
!
!
!
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
2
PH1 - 86
5
5.
Ma
r
s
h
/
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
& Pi
s
m
o
/ Bu
c
h
o
n
T
w
o
‐
wa
y
Ro
a
d
s
an
d
Co
u
p
l
e
t
s
5-
2
.
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
B
u
c
h
o
n
t
o
O
n
e
-
W
a
y
Is
s
u
e
s
Fi
r
s
t
po
i
n
t
of
E/
W
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
is
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
leading to cut‐through traffic
He
a
v
y
sc
h
o
o
l
ti
m
e
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
5‐2
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Bu
c
h
o
n
S
t
.
to
an
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
on
e
‐wa
y
street, forming a couplet with
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Pi
s
m
o
St
.
Re
d
u
c
e
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
by
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
westbound movements
Li
m
i
t
s
ac
c
e
s
s
fo
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
5‐3
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Ma
r
s
h
St
.
an
d
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St
.
to
tw
o
‐wa
y
streets east of Santa Rosa St.
Re
d
u
c
e
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
by
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
sh
o
r
t
e
r
routes.
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
ac
c
e
s
s
an
d
im
p
a
c
t
s
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
for business along these
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
&
Ma
r
s
h
.
5-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
5-
3
.
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
M
a
r
s
h
&
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
t
o
T
w
o
-
W
a
y
(
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
t
o
S
R
)
AL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
S
SL
O
H
S
AL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
S
SL
O
H
S
AL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
S
SLOHS
51
18
68
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
3
PH1 - 87
Si
t
e
5
Circulation
Bu
c
h
o
n
ne
e
d
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ca
l
m
i
n
g
.
on
e
wa
y
wo
n
’
t
so
l
v
e
it
un
l
e
s
s
it
is
do
n
e
li
k
e
Pi
s
m
o
wi
t
h
on
e
la
n
e
.
Cu
t
t
i
n
g
of
f
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
R.
tu
r
n
on
t
o
Bu
c
h
o
n
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
& Ma
r
s
h
be
i
n
g
tw
o
wa
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
& Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
…
Buchon is still two way
in
th
i
s
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
ma
k
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
on
e
wa
y
To
he
l
p
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fl
o
w
in
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
:
1.
En
f
o
r
c
e
do
u
b
l
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
la
w
s
2.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
be
f
o
r
e
9 or
8 am
.
3.
Al
l
wa
y
s
st
o
p
Ch
o
r
r
o
at
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sc
r
a
m
b
l
e
Se
n
d
ou
t
no
t
i
c
e
to
Bu
c
h
o
n
Re
s
.
Re
:
on
e
wa
y
st
(i
s
wa
y
to
o
)
Fi
n
d
it
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
be
l
i
e
v
e
pe
o
p
l
e
ca
n
vo
t
e
on
th
e
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
a
t
do
n
’
t
li
v
e
th
e
r
e
.
Mo
s
t
ha
v
e
no
re
g
a
r
d
for traffic speed or
no
i
s
e
.
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
st
u
d
y
di
d
no
go
o
d
to
co
n
t
r
o
l
sp
e
e
d
or
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
.
We
li
v
e
at
Bu
c
h
o
n
& To
r
o
– ne
e
d
to
sl
o
w
tr
a
f
f
i
c
– cu
r
r
e
n
t
bu
m
p
no
go
o
d
us
e
!
Fo
u
r
wa
y
st
o
p
to
ma
k
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
st
o
p
.
Or
if
one way, a 3 way stop &
mo
r
e
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
in
th
e
11
0
0
bl
o
c
k
of
Bu
c
h
o
n
.
Fo
r
on
e
wa
y
‐
li
k
e
Pi
s
m
o
bi
k
e
la
n
e
,
pa
r
k
i
n
g
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
,
1 la
n
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
still‐use 3 way stop!
Do
n
’
t
ma
k
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
a on
e
‐wa
y
st
r
e
e
t
.
Do
no
t
wa
n
t
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
.
to
be
on
e
wa
y
!
We
li
v
e
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
.
an
d
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
mo
v
e
if
yo
u
ma
k
e
it
on
e
‐wa
y
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
do
th
i
s
.
On
e
la
n
e
fo
r
ca
r
s
,
on
e
la
n
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
of
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
al
l
wa
y
al
o
n
g
Bu
c
h
o
n
,
on
e
wa
y
ea
s
t
bo
u
n
d
fr
o
m
High at Higuera to
Bu
c
h
o
n
al
l
th
e
wa
y
to
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
wi
t
h
sp
e
e
d
hu
m
p
s
.
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
ro
u
t
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
,
hi
l
l
wi
t
h
le
a
s
t
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
ga
i
n
,
& st
o
p
l
i
g
h
t
at Broad street. #5 #8
co
m
b
o
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ma
k
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
on
e
wa
y
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
wi
t
h
on
e
ca
r
la
n
e
,
on
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
,
an
d
sp
e
e
d
hu
m
p
s
(l
i
k
e
th
e
ea
s
t
en
d
of
Pi
s
m
o
St.) It would be a
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
u
n
t
e
r
p
a
r
t
to
we
s
t
‐bo
u
n
d
Pi
s
m
o
.
It
is
to
o
na
r
r
o
w
a st
r
e
e
t
fo
r
2 ca
r
la
n
e
s
/
a
n
d
/
o
r
2 wa
y
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Pe
o
p
l
e
wh
o
must park on Buchon
re
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
lo
s
e
th
e
i
r
si
d
e
mi
r
r
o
r
s
be
c
a
u
s
e
pe
o
p
l
e
mi
s
j
u
d
g
e
th
e
na
r
r
o
w
st
r
e
e
t
.
Th
i
s
is
so
un
s
a
f
e
fo
r
cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
4
PH1 - 88
6
6.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
6-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
6-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
S
i
t
e
L
a
y
o
u
t
o
n
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Is
s
u
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
ce
n
t
e
r
co
u
l
d
be
a “s
e
l
f
‐co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
”
hu
b
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
6‐2
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
as
on
e
‐wa
y
(w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
)
and provide pedestrian safety
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St. and HigueraSt.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
6‐3
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
to
tw
o
‐wa
y
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
safety enhancements
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
.
an
d
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
6
,
SL
O
C
O
G
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
S
t
u
d
y
,
Ma
r
c
h
5
,
2
0
1
2
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
S
i
t
e
L
a
y
o
u
t
W
/
T
w
o
-
W
a
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
6
,
SL
O
C
O
G
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
S
t
u
d
y
,
Ma
r
c
h
5
,
2
0
1
2
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
BA
N
K
OF
AM
E
R
I
C
A
SH
E
L
L
GA
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
5
65
21
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
5
PH1 - 89
Si
t
e
6
Circulation
Ha
v
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
ab
o
u
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
bu
s
e
s
– th
e
y
sh
o
u
l
d
be
on
To
r
o
St
ex
c
e
p
t
to
ac
c
e
s
s
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
& Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
ke
e
p
busses out of the
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
No
t
su
r
e
wh
a
t
op
t
i
o
n
I pr
e
f
e
r
,
bu
t
th
i
n
k
2‐wa
y
on
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
is
a hi
n
d
e
r
a
n
c
e
to
fo
o
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
6
PH1 - 90
7
7.
Br
o
a
d
St
Do
g
Le
g
(M
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
z
a
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
)
7-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
7-
2
.
S
m
a
l
l
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
z
a
7-
3
.
L
a
r
g
e
r
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
z
a
Is
s
u
e
:
Co
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
pa
s
s
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
al
o
n
g
Br
o
a
d
Street
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
on
7‐2
Cl
o
s
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
to
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
be
t
w
e
e
n
Pa
l
m
St. and Monterey St.
Cl
o
s
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
bl
o
c
k
of
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
be
t
w
e
e
n
Mission Plaza and Broad St.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
on
7‐3
Cl
o
s
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
to
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
be
t
w
e
e
n
Pa
l
m
St. and Monterey St.
Ex
t
e
n
d
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
to
Ni
p
o
m
o
St
.
MI
S
S
I
O
N
MI
S
S
I
O
N
MI
S
S
I
O
N
58
26
63
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
7
PH1 - 91
Si
t
e
7
Circulation
Al
l
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
st
r
e
e
t
cl
o
s
u
r
e
s
‐
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
mi
s
s
i
o
n
pl
a
z
a
– sh
o
u
l
d
be
te
s
t
e
d
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
– ma
y
b
e
wi
t
h
mo
v
a
b
l
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
.
I th
i
n
k
th
a
t
pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
do
g
l
e
g
is
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.
I li
v
e
ne
a
r
th
i
s
ar
e
a
an
d
kn
o
w
wh
a
t
ar
e
a
s
li
k
e
th
i
s
attract in late night hours. I
wo
n
d
e
r
wh
e
r
e
fu
n
d
s
to
do
th
i
s
wi
l
l
co
m
e
fr
o
m
.
Ci
t
y
ne
e
d
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
/
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
si
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
be
f
o
r
e
do
i
n
g
th
i
s
.
Monterey St. closure would
be
a mi
s
t
a
k
e
…
my
op
i
n
i
o
n
.
7‐3 I’
m
in
fa
v
o
r
of
th
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
cl
o
s
u
r
e
.
BU
T
:
bi
c
y
c
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ne
e
d
s
to
be
al
l
o
w
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
& sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
pl
a
n
n
e
d
fo
r
.
No
t
e
that part of this area
(c
l
o
s
u
r
e
ar
e
a
)
is
“p
l
a
n
n
e
d
”
to
be
a bi
k
e
bl
v
d
in
th
e
20
0
7
Bi
k
e
Tr
a
n
s
.
Pl
a
n
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
vo
t
e
fo
r
7.
2
[ Co
m
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
vi
a
e‐ma
i
l
on
6/
4
/
2
0
1
3
]
.
I ju
s
t
wa
n
t
e
d
to
co
n
f
i
r
m
ou
r
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
ea
r
l
i
e
r
th
i
s
we
e
k
.
I am
un
a
b
l
e
to attend the meeting
to
d
a
y
bu
t
am
op
p
o
s
e
d
to
th
e
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
/
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
ar
e
a
fo
r
se
v
e
r
a
l
re
a
s
o
n
s
:
o
in
f
r
i
n
g
e
s
on
th
e
ri
g
h
t
s
of
th
e
pr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
in
th
e
su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
ar
e
a
o
ad
d
s
to
co
n
g
es
t
i
o
n
on
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
a
t
in
a 4 bl
o
c
k
st
r
e
t
c
h
on
Pa
l
m St
.
,
th
e
r
e
is
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
Pr
e
p
,
the Mission and two parking
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
Wi
t
h
an
y
gi
v
e
n
ev
e
n
t
,
th
i
s
ar
e
a
is
al
r
e
a
d
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
.
o
an
y
cl
o
s
u
r
e
wo
u
l
d
ju
s
t
en
h
a
n
c
e
tr
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
/
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
we
ha
v
e
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
I wi
l
l
ke
e
p
th
i
s
sh
o
r
t
bu
t
it
se
e
m
s
th
a
t
so
me ar
e
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to
se
e
th
i
s
ha
p
p
e
n
wi
t
h
o
u
t
a fu
l
l
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
of what's going on in our
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
24
/
7
an
d
no
t
ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
la
r
g
e
r
is
s
u
e
s
th
i
s
su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
8
PH1 - 92
8
8.
Hi
g
h
& Pi
s
m
o
/ Hi
g
u
e
r
a
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
8-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
8-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
H
i
g
h
S
t
.
t
o
O
n
e
W
a
y
Is
s
u
e
s
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
in
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Aw
k
w
a
r
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
af
f
e
c
t
s
sa
f
e
t
y
Lo
n
g
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
8‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
Ln
.
wi
t
h
Hi
g
h
St
.
an
d
co
n
v
e
r
t
Hi
g
h
St. to one‐way (eastbound
on
l
y
)
be
t
w
e
e
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Wa
l
k
e
r
St
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
8‐3
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Pi
s
m
o
St
.
wi
t
h
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
Ln
.
an
d
co
n
v
e
r
t
High St. to one‐way (eastbound
on
l
y
)
be
t
w
e
e
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Wa
l
k
e
r
St
.
Higuera St.
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
8-
3
.
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
L
n
Hi
g
h
S
t
.
Hi
g
h
S
t
.
Hi
g
h
S
t
.
GL
A
C
I
E
R
IC
E
GL
A
C
I
E
R
IC
E
GL
A
C
I
E
R
ICE
27
18
45
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
9
PH1 - 93
Si
t
e
8
Circulation
As
a ho
m
e
ow
n
e
r
on
Hi
g
h
St
,
I kn
o
w
fr
o
m
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
th
a
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
go
e
s
to
o
fa
s
t
on
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
.
It
is
al
s
o
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
se
e
oncoming traffic from the
an
g
l
e
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
th
a
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
wi
t
h
Hi
g
h
St
.
Hi
g
h
do
e
s
no
t
fe
e
l
sa
f
e
as
a wa
l
k
e
r
,
bi
k
e
r
,
or
dr
i
v
e
r
.
Ma
k
i
n
g
Hi
g
h
St
on
e
wa
y
with a single lane, stop
si
g
n
s
,
bi
k
e
la
n
e
an
d
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
us
i
n
g
th
e
Pi
s
m
o
St
mo
d
e
l
wo
u
l
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
sa
f
e
t
y
on
Hi
gh
St
.
Th
e
s
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
ma
k
e
no
se
n
s
e
.
I th
i
n
k
ch
a
n
g
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
fo
c
u
s
on
ho
w
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
is
ar
r
a
n
g
e
d
no
t
on
e
wa
y
/
b
o
t
h
wa
y
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
So
m
e
be
t
t
e
r
si
g
n
a
g
e
,
more clear where
ev
e
r
y
t
h
i
n
g
le
a
d
s
.
He
c
k
,
a ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
is
a be
t
t
e
r
op
t
i
o
n
th
a
n
th
e
2 pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
(b
u
t
ho
n
e
s
t
l
y
mo
r
e
cl
e
a
r
si
g
n
a
g
e
w/
st
r
e
e
t
names of where lanes
le
a
d
is
pr
o
b
a
b
l
y
pr
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
0
PH1 - 94
9
9.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/ Hi
g
u
e
r
a
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
9-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
9-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Is
s
u
e
Sh
a
r
p
tu
r
n
s
an
d
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
si
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
s
at
sk
e
w
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
9‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
to
th
e
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Br
i
d
g
e
St. intersection
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
or
ot
h
e
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
improvements
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
9‐3
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
to
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Br
i
d
g
e
St. intersections
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Br
i
d
g
e
St. without additional
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Fu
l
l
‐st
r
e
e
t
Me
d
i
a
n
di
v
e
r
t
e
r
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
R
d
Higuera St.
Bridge St
So
u
t
h
S
t
Beebee St
Higuera St.
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
Beebee St
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
C
u
t
T
h
r
u
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
R
d
Higuera St.
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
Beebee St
In
s
t
a
l
l
cu
t
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Me
d
i
a
n
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
49
43
12
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
1
PH1 - 95
Si
t
e
9
Circulation
Ei
t
h
e
r
si
d
e
of
th
e
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
& S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ha
s
ve
r
y
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
– ga
t
e
w
a
y
vs
.
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
us
a
g
e
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
& Hi
g
u
e
r
a
ne
e
d
mo
r
e
st
u
d
y
fo
r
be
t
t
e
r
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
I do
n
’
t
su
p
p
o
r
t
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
on
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
2
PH1 - 96
BL
U
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
ac
r
o
s
s
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
So
u
t
h
St
.
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
th
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
The existing
fl
a
s
h
i
n
g
ye
l
l
o
w
li
g
h
t
at
Up
h
a
m
St
r
e
e
t
is
NE
V
E
R
re
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
by
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
.
It
sh
o
u
l
d
be
a fu
l
l
st
o
p
li
g
h
t
.
1)
Be
ve
r
y
ca
r
e
f
u
l
of
wh
a
t
yo
u
al
l
o
w
ne
a
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
si
t
e
.
Th
i
s
is
a gr
e
a
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
th
a
t
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
be
cu
r
t
a
i
l
e
d
by
inappropriate new dev. 2)
No
t
h
i
n
g
he
r
e
ab
o
u
t
th
e
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
fr
o
m
SL
C
U
S
D
‐
tr
a
f
f
i
c
st
u
d
y
?
So
o
n
ha
v
e
a ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
/
C
r
e
s
t
v
i
e
w
/
T
a
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
/
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
n
t
a
l
s
an
d
noncompliance issues.
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
gr
e
a
t
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
th
e
Or
c
u
t
t
/
T
a
n
k
Fa
r
m
/
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
ar
e
a
.
It
is
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
it
re
m
a
i
n
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
or
VL
D
housing with access only
on
Bu
l
l
o
c
k
La
n
e
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wh
i
c
h
is
in
th
e
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
.
Or
c
u
t
t
wh
i
c
h
go
e
s
to
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
ha
s
go
o
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
flow at present. It will
de
s
t
r
o
y
th
e
fl
o
w
no
t
to
me
n
t
i
o
n
th
e
Or
c
u
t
t
/
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
in
te
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
If
th
e
an
t
i
ci
p
a
t
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
is
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
as
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
designed. Ditto the
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
tr
a
i
n
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
go
on
af
t
e
r
th
a
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
‐
Di
d
an
y
o
n
e
as
k
us
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
?
NO
!
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
‐Br
o
a
d
Av
e
:
Be
s
t
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
is
1.
Bu
i
l
d
ve
h
i
c
l
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
at
Or
c
u
t
t
RR
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
,
2.
Bu
i
l
d
pe
d
/
b
i
k
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
ov
e
r
RR
at Humbert/Del camp, 3.
De
l
e
t
e
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
ve
h
i
c
l
e
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Th
i
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ve
h
i
c
l
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ov
e
r
RR
an
d
mo
s
t
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
alternative transportation
fo
r
pa
r
k
s
,
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
po
o
l
,
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
.
Al
s
o
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
a tr
a
f
f
i
c
ni
g
h
t
m
a
re
an
d
se
v
e
r
e
l
y
im
p
a
ct
Bi
s
h
o
p
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
ro
w
ne
e
d
s
to
be
ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
or
tu
r
n
e
d
in
t
o
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
.
St
r
o
n
g
l
y
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a bi
k
e
/
p
e
d
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
near Del Campo and
Hu
m
b
e
r
t
to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ge
t
pe
o
p
l
e
ou
t
of
ca
r
s
.
Al
s
o
co
n
n
e
c
t
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
an
d
parks, school, pool, etc.
It
wo
u
l
d
be
ni
c
e
to
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
pl
a
n
s
wi
t
h
bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
I’
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
mo
r
e
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
inclusion of bicycle in
ev
e
r
y
as
p
e
c
t
.
I sa
y
th
i
s
be
c
a
u
s
e
,
wh
i
l
e
my
hu
s
b
a
n
d
ri
d
e
s
hi
s
bi
k
e
ju
s
t
ab
o
u
t
ev
e
r
y
w
h
e
r
e
,
I am
si
m
p
l
y
to
o
la
z
y
to
fi
g
u
r
e
out a bicycle route‐
in
s
t
e
a
d
I ju
m
p
in
t
o
my
ca
r
to
ge
t
ar
o
u
n
d
‐
an
d
we
li
v
e
ne
a
r
Gl
en
n
Bu
r
d
e
t
t
e
.
(s
a
d
bu
t
tr
u
e
)
Th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
pl
a
n
ne
e
d
s
to
go
ba
c
k
to
co
u
n
c
i
l
af
t
e
r
th
e
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
It
CA
N
N
O
T
be
de
a
d
in
th
e
wa
t
e
r
be
c
a
u
s
e
it went to a split 4 person
co
u
n
c
i
l
!
!
If
yo
u
ta
k
e
al
l
ri
g
h
t
ha
n
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
do
w
n
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
St
an
d
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
yo
u
mu
s
t
pu
t
in
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
!
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
is a speedway when you
ch
a
n
g
e
d
th
e
pa
t
t
e
r
n
to
th
e
ga
s
st
a
t
i
o
n
.
1)
Pl
e
a
s
e
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
Cl
a
s
s
2 bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
an
d
mo
r
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
in
t
o
an
y
ro
a
d
w
a
y
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
th
e
va
r
i
o
u
s
pa
r
t
s
of
town. 2) Consider greater
em
p
h
a
s
i
s
on
bi
c
y
c
l
e
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
:
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
,
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
bi
k
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
,
re
m
o
v
a
l
of street parking for greater
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
us
e
(s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
ca
f
é
s
,
et
c
.
)
As
pa
r
t
of
ov
e
r
a
l
l
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
I be
l
i
e
v
e
we
ne
e
d
to
ga
r
n
e
r
mo
r
e
me
d
i
u
m
an
d
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
‐
an
d
ho
p
e
f
u
l
l
y
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
.
Also think we must
re
s
p
e
c
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
‐
e.
g
.
re
c
e
n
t
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
or
make non‐conforming
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
us
e
s
Ad
d
a li
n
e
a
r
pa
r
k
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
(c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fl
o
r
a
/
F
i
x
l
i
n
i
bi
c
y
c
l
e
Bl
v
d
)
Ma
r
k
th
e
pa
t
h
ha
v
e
facilities that would/could
be
a de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
po
i
n
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
3
PH1 - 97
10
10
.
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
10
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Is
s
u
e
s
No
ea
s
t
/
w
e
s
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
and Johnson Avenue
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
al
o
n
g
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
an
d
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
Avenue
Cu
t
‐
th
r
o
u
g
h
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
Pi
s
m
o
/ Bu
c
h
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Li
m
i
t
e
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
ro
u
t
e
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
10
‐2
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
as
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
Mu
s
t
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
wi
t
h
Un
i
o
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Re
d
u
c
e
s
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
ot
h
e
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
ds
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
on
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
10
-
2
.
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
FI
R
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
FR
E
S
H
&
EA
S
Y
FR
E
S
H
&
EA
S
Y
FI
R
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
29
89
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
4
PH1 - 98
Si
t
e
10
Circulation
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
on
RR
to
Ro
u
n
d
Ho
u
s
e
St
:
It
wo
u
l
d
be
lo
v
e
l
y
to
ma
k
e
th
i
s
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
cr
o
s
s
no
t
ca
r
s
.
Fi
n
d
a wa
y
to
li
n
e
up
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
wi
t
h
So
u
t
h
.
Wh
y
di
d
ci
t
y
bu
i
l
d
fi
r
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
in
pa
t
h
?
Al
i
g
n
wi
t
h
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e
.
10
‐1 Sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
k
e
ov
e
r
/
u
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
bu
s
on
l
y
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
.
Ho
w
wi
l
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
th
e
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
to
So
u
t
h
,
Br
o
a
d
,
or
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
SB
?
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
in
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
Te
r
r
a
c
e
Hi
l
l
Pa
r
k
ne
e
d
s
to
ha
v
e
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
to
sl
o
w
do
w
n
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
5
PH1 - 99
11
11
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
Moylan Terrace Development
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
11
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
11
‐2
No
lo
n
g
e
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
in
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
Street area
No
Co
u
n
t
s
–
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Only
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
6
PH1 - 100
Si
t
e
11
Circulation
Av
o
i
d
T‐in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
al
l
co
s
t
s
(B
r
o
a
d
St
.
)
No
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
zo
n
e
s
fo
r
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
S Br
o
a
d
.
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
:
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
/
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
do
u
b
l
e
li
g
h
t
(synchronized). Like up
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
of
S Br
o
a
d
.
If
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
e
n
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
on
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
.
Do
n
’
t
cu
t
th
i
n
g
s
/
z
o
n
i
n
g
mi
d
b
l
o
c
k
.
Up
h
a
m
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
no
t
th
e
sa
m
e
as
fu
r
t
h
e
r
so
u
t
h
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
:
Ma
k
e
it
in
t
o
an
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
le
a
d
i
n
g
dr
i
v
e
r
s
in
t
o
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
(m
e
d
i
a
n
s
,
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
pe
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
)
.
Forget Victoria.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
7
PH1 - 101
12
12
.
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Av
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
12
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
12
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
E
m
i
l
y
S
t
Is
s
u
e
s
He
a
v
y
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Lo
c
a
l
ac
c
e
s
s
li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ac
r
o
s
s
br
o
a
d
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
12
‐2
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Av
e
.
at
it
s
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
en
d
to
Em
i
l
y
St.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
12
‐3
Li
m
i
t
ac
c
e
s
s
to
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Av
e
.
fr
o
m
Br
o
a
d
St
.
an
d
certain cross streets, only
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
ac
c
e
s
s
at
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
St
.
an
d
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Dr.
Mo
y
l
a
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Moylan Terrace Development
In
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
G
r
i
d
12
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
W
/
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
u
r
n
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
Mo
y
l
a
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
1
81
31
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
8
PH1 - 102
Si
t
e
12
Circulation
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
un
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
tr
a
i
n
tr
a
c
k
s
Hu
m
b
e
r
t
St
.
an
d
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
St
.
If
yo
u
on
l
y
al
l
o
w
le
f
t
tu
r
n
s
in
t
o
th
e
Me
a
d
o
w
Pa
r
k
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
th
e
n
yo
u
mu
s
t
ca
l
m
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
an
d
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
‐
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
is a freeway not
as
it
is
.
12
‐2:
Ca
r
e
/
f
o
c
u
s
on
ro
u
t
e
as
a pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
ro
u
t
e
fo
r
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
(o
v
e
r
Br
o
a
d
)
.
Li
m
i
t
sp
e
e
d
s
,
in
s
t
a
l
l
bi
k
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
any “door zone” on‐street
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
12
‐3 I li
k
e
12
‐3 ex
c
e
p
t
I do
n
’
t
se
e
ho
w
it
im
p
r
o
v
e
s
bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
9
PH1 - 103
13
13
.
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
.
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Crossing
13
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
13
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Is
s
u
e
Li
m
i
t
e
d
ea
s
t
‐we
s
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
13
‐2
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
an
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
ov
e
r
ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Mu
s
t
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
wi
t
h
Un
i
o
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Ot
h
e
r
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
ma
y
be
considered
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
sa
f
e
t
y
tr
a
i
l
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
Overpass RailroadCrossing
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CH
E
V
R
O
N
MO
R
R
I
S
&
GA
R
R
I
T
A
N
O
I
N
S
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
54
59
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
0
PH1 - 104
Si
t
e
13
Circulation
Pr
e
f
e
r
un
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
in
s
t
e
a
d
of
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
‐
wh
i
c
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
bl
o
c
k
s
vi
e
w
s
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
co
s
t
s
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
co
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
13
‐2:
wi
t
h
re
g
a
r
d
s
to
RR
S
T
im
p
a
c
t
:
Th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
be
a pe
r
f
e
c
t
ti
m
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
RR
S
T
un
d
e
r
th
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
an
d
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
eliminate bikes/peds from
ha
v
i
n
g
to
cr
o
s
s
Or
c
u
t
t
.
Th
e
en
d
of
th
e
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
ne
e
d
s
to
be
co
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
to
La
u
r
e
l
an
d
Or
c
u
t
t
an
d
ad
d
mo
r
e
bi
k
e
‐on
l
y
li
g
h
t
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
1
PH1 - 105
GR
E
E
N
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
Pl
e
a
s
e
pu
t
th
e
ac
c
e
s
s
ba
c
k
to
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
’
s
fr
o
m
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Ta
k
i
n
g
aw
a
y
th
e
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
‐ac
r
o
s
s
ha
s
ma
d
e
it more dangerous. People
do
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
[t
u
r
n
ri
g
h
t
th
e
n
U tu
r
n
in
me
d
i
a
n
th
e
n
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
to
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
,
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
travel.]
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Ga
r
c
i
a
du
e
to
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
/
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
t
r
o
l
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
at
t
e
m
p
t
s
.
As
Ga
r
c
i
a
Dr
.
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
,
I would rather deal with
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
/
e
g
r
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
th
a
n
hi
g
h
sp
e
e
d
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
&r
e
t
a
i
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Wh
e
n
LO
V
R
/
1
0
1
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
re
w
o
r
k
e
d
,
ma
k
e
su
r
e
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
cr
o
s
s
e
s
LO
V
R
no
t
at
gr
a
d
e
‐
i.
e
.
ha
v
e
it
go
be
l
o
w
th
e
br
i
d
g
e
over LOVR.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/
L
O
V
R
Ar
e
a
:
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
pu
t
t
i
n
g
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
ac
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
Ta
r
g
e
t
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
cu
t
t
i
n
g
th
r
o
u
g
h
this neighborhood
se
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
hi
n
d
e
r
s
th
e
so
c
i
a
l
an
d
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
qu
i
e
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
fi
x
LO
V
R
/ 10
1
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
br
i
d
g
e
an
d
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
an
d
/
i
n
in
Co
s
t
c
o
& LO
V
R
& le
f
t
to
ci
t
y
li
m
i
t
s
Ke
e
p
th
e
4 sm
a
l
l
pa
r
c
e
l
s
th
a
t
ma
k
e
a la
r
g
e
r
pa
r
c
e
l
ne
x
t
to
th
e
Al
f
a
n
o
Ch
e
v
r
o
l
e
t
de
a
l
e
r
OP
E
N
sp
a
c
e
.
Ad
d
it
to
th
e
SL
O
urban farm.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ha
s
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
fo
r
ac
c
e
s
s
an
d
le
a
v
i
n
g
ar
e
a
fr
o
m
pa
s
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
,
et
c
.
wi
t
h
i
n
wa
l
k
i
n
g
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
If
ha
v
e
to
drive go right on LOVR from
Ga
r
c
i
a
Dr
do
a U tu
r
n
at
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
an
d
th
e
le
f
t
on
Fr
o
o
m
Rd
in
t
o
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
.
We
ne
e
d
1 mo
r
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
go
i
n
g
we
s
t
on
LO
V
R
in
t
o
Ne
w
Fr
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
/
H
o
m
e
De
p
o
t
ar
e
a
.
Go
i
n
g
ea
s
t
yo
u
ca
n
tu
r
n
right and go behind the
Ne
w
Fr
o
n
t
i
e
r
an
d
ac
c
e
s
s
Ho
m
e
De
p
o
t
.
Bu
t
go
i
n
g
we
s
t
th
e
me
d
i
a
n
ex
t
e
n
d
s
ju
s
t
to
o
fa
r
an
d
yo
u
ca
n
’
t
ma
k
e
th
e
le
f
t
.
Re
f
e
r
to map on other side
(o
f
co
m
m
e
n
t
ca
r
d
)
fo
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ro
u
t
e
an
d
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ro
ut
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
2
PH1 - 106
14
14
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
14
-
2
.
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
t
o
F
r
o
o
m
Is
s
u
e
s
Li
m
i
t
e
d
ac
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to the east, LOVR, and Madonna
Ro
a
d
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
wi
t
h
Fr
o
o
m
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
& LO
V
R
Volume Increases
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
LO
V
R
& Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Si
t
e
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
ma
k
e
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
or
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of lanes highly challenging. This
li
k
e
l
y
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
an
d
disruption of existing
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Wa
y
an
d
/
o
r
LOVR to provide
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
ex
i
t
fr
o
m
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
bu
t
ma
y
le
a
d
to cut‐through traffic.
Se
e
k
in
p
u
t
fr
o
m
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
as
to
whether they need different
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
14
‐2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
south to FroomRanch
Wa
y
in
or
d
e
r
to
ac
c
e
s
s
LO
V
R
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
14
‐3
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
west to LOVR
14
-
3
.
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
t
o
L
O
V
R
14
.
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
57
23
6
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
3
PH1 - 107
Si
t
e
14
Circulation
Do
no
t
op
e
n
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
.
Ab
o
v
e
al
l
el
s
e
,
we
do
no
t
wa
n
t
Pe
r
e
r
i
a
or
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
be
au
t
o
ar
t
e
r
i
e
s
to
Pr
e
f
u
m
o
Co
m
m
o
n
s
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
.
Th
e
Lakewood subdivision is a
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
!
We
wi
l
l
no
t
to
l
e
r
a
t
e
an
y
mo
r
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Yo
u
ha
v
e
n
’
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
ac
c
e
s
s
to
La
g
u
n
a
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
centers. Why are you
pr
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
it
wh
e
r
e
we
li
v
e
?
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
.
As
a hu
s
b
a
n
d
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
da
d
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
wa
n
t
to
se
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in amount and
sp
e
e
d
fo
r
us
an
d
th
e
ot
h
e
r
fa
m
i
l
i
e
s
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Th
a
n
k
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
SE
R
I
O
U
S
L
Y
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
LO
V
R
/
M
a
d
o
n
n
a
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ap
p
r
o
x
.
2 we
e
k
s
ag
o
on
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
@ 10
:
3
0
a
m
I wa
s
on
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
waiting to turn left
go
i
n
g
on
t
o
LO
V
R
.
Th
e
r
e
we
r
e
4 li
g
h
t
s
re
d
/
g
r
e
e
n
‐
an
d
I we
n
t
th
r
u
on
th
e
5t
h
li
g
h
t
.
Ri
d
i
c
u
l
o
u
s
!
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
sp
e
e
d
s
an
d
qu
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
ha
v
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(a
n
d
no
le
f
t
tu
r
n
on
t
o
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
Ga
r
c
i
a
)
…
pr
e
f
e
r
that it not become an
op
t
i
o
n
fo
r
pe
o
p
l
e
wa
n
t
i
n
g
to
by
p
a
s
s
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(s
u
c
h
as
ho
w
it
wo
r
k
s
on
th
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ac
r
o
s
s
the street).
Do
no
t
ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
th
e
fi
r
e
tr
u
c
k
s
us
i
n
g
Pe
r
e
i
r
a
Dr
i
v
e
as
a th
r
o
u
g
h
ro
a
d
.
Sm
a
l
l
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
in
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
an
d
no
i
s
e
.
Li
v
e
in
Lo
s
Os
o
s
/
M
a
d
o
n
n
a
ne
e
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
on
LO
V
R
be
t
t
e
r
th
a
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
50
fe
e
t
be
f
o
r
e
si
g
n
a
l
.
To
o
mu
c
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
on
l
y
pe
o
p
l
e
wh
o
wi
l
l
be
n
e
f
i
t
fr
o
m
op
e
n
i
n
g
up
Ta
r
g
e
t
(F
r
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
)
to
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
wi
l
l
be
fo
l
k
s
wh
o
li
v
e
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
area. That will become a
gr
e
a
t
fr
e
e
w
a
y
th
r
u
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
wh
i
c
h
we
do
no
t
ne
e
d
.
Th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
sh
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
th
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
in
p
u
t
on
ma
k
i
n
g
these changes, please
re
s
p
e
c
t
ou
r
in
p
u
t
.
Th
is
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
wa
s
in
ex
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
lo
n
g
be
f
o
r
e
al
l
th
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ca
m
e
an
d
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ja
m
s
on
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
and LOVR.
No
ma
i
n
ro
a
d
th
r
u
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
ge
t
to
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
.
14
.
3
We
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
a le
f
t
tu
r
n
op
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
.
Re
a
l
l
y
do
no
t
wa
n
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ranch or from Vicente to
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
.
Th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ca
n
’
t
ta
k
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Wh
e
n
I ta
k
e
LO
V
R
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
fr
o
m
Ga
r
c
i
a
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Ro
a
d
it
is
ve
r
y
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
ge
t
in
t
o
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
to
LO
V
R
.
Ne
e
d
le
f
t
‐ha
n
d
tu
r
n
ac
c
e
s
s
on
t
o
LO
V
R
Re
Ar
e
a
14
(O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
)
:
So
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
sh
o
u
l
d
be
do
n
e
to
1)
sl
o
w
do
w
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
an
d
2)
to
di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
us
e
as
an alternate to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/
L
O
V
R
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
ca
l
m
i
n
g
in
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
is
ne
e
d
e
d
no
w
‐
be
f
o
r
e
an
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
is
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
.
We submitted 62
op
i
n
i
o
n
sh
e
e
t
s
fr
o
m
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
to
d
a
y
.
HE
L
P
US
!
14
‐2 Th
i
s
op
t
i
o
n
se
e
m
s
li
k
e
it
wo
u
l
d
wo
r
k
th
e
be
s
t
wh
i
l
e
no
t
im
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
LO
V
R
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
BU
T
it
wo
u
l
d
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
cut through traffic. I
vo
t
e
d
fo
r
it
wi
t
h
th
i
s
ca
v
e
a
t
:
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
mu
s
t
be
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
to
di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
cu
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
De
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
vi
e
w
of
vi
a
b
l
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
,
at
th
i
s
po
i
n
t
,
I do
no
t
se
e
an
y
,
bu
t
on
e
op
t
i
o
n
I wo
u
l
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
or accept is turning
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Dr
in
t
o
a di
r
e
c
t
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
wa
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
4
PH1 - 108
In
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
a pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
wa
s
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
pr
i
o
r
to
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2 co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
pe
o
p
l
e
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
ha
v
e
addressed. At Future Fair 2,
68
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
as
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
us
e
in
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Up
d
a
t
e
.
Th
e
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
fo
r
m
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
five statements that
pe
o
p
l
e
co
u
l
d
ma
r
k
in
su
p
p
o
r
t
.
Th
e
s
e
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
li
s
t
e
d
be
l
o
w
,
an
d
th
e
nu
mbe
r
of
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
ma
r
k
e
d
in
su
p
p
o
r
t
of
th
e
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
is shown on the left
si
d
e
of
th
e
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
.
Do
No
t
Cr
e
a
t
e
An
y
Au
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
th
i
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
in
t
o
th
e
Ta
r
g
e
t
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
ac
r
o
s
s
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Ro
a
d
on
th
e
20
3
5
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Up
d
a
t
e
An
y
at
t
e
m
p
t
to
op
e
n
ou
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
in
t
o
th
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
wi
l
l
au
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
di
v
e
r
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
from major arteries in
se
a
r
c
h
of
fa
s
t
e
r
ro
u
t
e
s
to
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
an
d
10
1
ac
c
e
s
s
.
Am
o
n
g
th
e
st
a
t
e
d
go
a
l
s
of
th
e
20
3
5
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
is
to
Maintain the integrity and
en
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
fo
r
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
of
th
o
s
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Wh
e
n
lo
o
k
i
n
g
to
th
i
s
ar
e
a
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
changes keep
th
o
s
e
go
a
l
s
in
mi
n
d
.
We
Ne
e
d
Sa
f
e
an
d
Re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Ca
l
m
i
n
g
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
As
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
th
e
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
th
e
Ta
r
g
e
t
/
F
r
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Ro
a
d
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
,
I would like to propose
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
i
t
i
a
l
e
d
st
e
p
s
to
en
a
b
l
e
ou
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
to
re
m
a
i
n
sa
f
e
fo
r
ou
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wh
i
l
e
im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
the safety for the current
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Th
e
s
e
wi
l
l
al
s
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
sa
f
e
t
y
as
we
en
t
e
r
an
d
ex
i
t
ou
r
st
r
e
e
t
s
to
and from major arteries.
62
1.
Po
s
t
25
m
p
h
Sp
e
e
d
Li
m
i
t
si
g
n
s
at
al
l
4 en
t
r
i
e
s
to
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
/
O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Dr
.
,
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Road/ Periera,
Ga
r
c
i
a
/
L
O
V
R
,
an
d
Fr
o
o
m
/
L
O
V
R
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ne
x
t
to
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Th
i
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ha
s
NO
ST
O
P
Si
g
n
s
or
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
53
2.
Pl
a
c
e
St
o
p
Si
g
n
s
an
d
ma
r
k
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
an
d
Ca
y
u
c
o
u
s
,
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
an
d
Pinecove, and at Garcia
an
d
Vi
n
c
e
n
t
e
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
be
t
t
e
r
sp
e
e
d
co
n
t
r
o
l
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
bo
t
h
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
as well as increased
bi
c
y
c
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
an
d
is
of
mi
n
i
m
a
l
ex
p
e
n
s
e
wi
t
h
ma
x
i
m
u
m
be
n
e
f
i
t
to
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Th
i
s
ca
n
al
s
o
co
n
t
r
o
l
and discourage
cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
us
i
n
g
ou
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
as
a sh
o
r
t
c
u
t
to
th
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
s
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
th
e
sa
f
e
t
y
of our residential streets.
45
3.
In
Li
e
u
of
st
o
p
si
g
n
s
an
d
ma
r
k
e
d
cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
,
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
Sp
e
e
d
Bu
m
p
s
.
54
4.
Re
d
Pa
i
n
t
e
d
No
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
on
cu
r
b
s
wi
t
h
i
n
8 fe
e
t
of
al
l
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
al
l
o
w
be
t
t
e
r
vi
s
i
o
n
fo
r
al
l
ca
r
s
,
pedestrians and bicycles
en
t
e
r
i
n
g
fr
o
m
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
On
e
pa
r
k
e
d
tr
u
c
k
,
SU
V
,
or
va
n
ca
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
bl
i
n
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
at
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in this neighborhood.
Le
f
t
Ha
n
d
Tu
r
n
s
on
t
o
LO
V
R
48
5.
A si
m
p
l
e
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
to
sa
f
e
l
y
ex
i
t
i
n
g
th
i
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
on
t
o
LO
V
R
is
to
ch
a
n
g
e
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
so
th
a
t
ca
r
s
existing Froom Ranch
Ro
a
d
on
th
i
s
si
d
e
of
LO
V
R
en
t
e
r
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
o
u
t
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
an
y
co
m
p
e
t
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
th
e
op
p
o
s
i
t
e
(Home Depot) side and
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
a le
f
t
ha
n
d
tu
r
n
fr
o
m
bo
t
h
th
e
ce
n
t
e
r
la
n
e
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
fa
r
le
f
t
.
Di
s
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
s
ag
a
i
n
s
t
a red light from the
op
p
o
s
i
t
e
si
d
e
of
LO
V
R
wo
u
l
d
re
m
o
v
e
an
y
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
5
PH1 - 109
15
15
.
Pr
a
d
o
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
/ In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
15
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
15
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
P
r
a
d
o
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
15
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
P
r
a
d
o
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
O
n
l
y
Is
s
u
e
Li
m
i
t
e
d
ea
s
t
‐we
s
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
ci
t
y
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
:
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
on
co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
ac
c
e
s
s
to
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
development
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
ea
s
t
side of US 101
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
15
‐2
De
v
e
l
o
p
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Re
l
i
e
v
e
s
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
at
LO
V
R
& Madonna interchanges.
Re
l
i
e
v
e
s
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
al
o
n
g
Ma
d
o
n
na Road & Oceanaire
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
El
k
s
La
n
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
or
cu
l
‐de
‐sa
c
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
15
‐3
Ex
t
e
n
d
Pr
a
d
o
Rd
.
ov
e
r
US
10
1
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
El
k
s
La
n
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
or
cu
l
‐de
‐sa
c
Wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
l
i
e
v
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
at
LO
V
R
or
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
interchanges and may drive
fu
r
t
h
e
r
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
th
o
s
e
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
Da
l
i
d
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Da
l
i
d
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Da
l
i
d
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
10 8
107
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
6
PH1 - 110
Si
t
e
15
Circulation
15
‐2,
3
ha
t
e
to
se
e
AG
la
n
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
Pr
a
d
o
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
sh
o
u
l
d
be
a pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
th
a
t
is
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
us
e
.
Ar
e
a
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
40
Pr
a
d
o
re
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
it
fo
r
li
g
h
t
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ce
n
t
e
r
.
No
mi
x
e
d
us
e
.
Bu
i
l
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
u
s
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
7
PH1 - 111
16
16
.
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Wa
y
/ Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
16
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
16
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
w
i
t
h
O
n
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
16
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
w
i
t
h
S
e
v
e
r
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Is
s
u
e
s
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
fo
r
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
Wa
y
an
d
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
on
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
& LO
V
R
Ro
a
d
s
Cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Pr
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
can enhance circulation
an
d
al
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
at
LO
V
R
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
an
d
LO
V
R
& Madonna Road
Re
d
u
c
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
on
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Ac
t
i
v
e
st
r
e
e
t
ed
g
e
/ pa
r
k
i
n
g
be
h
i
n
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Tr
a
i
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
ac
c
e
s
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
areas
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
16
‐2
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
Wa
y
to
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
at
one (1) location
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
16
‐3
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
Wa
y
to
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
at
two (2) or more locationsProposed Prado Road improvementsProposed Prado Road improvements
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
17
4
68
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
8
PH1 - 112
Si
t
e
16
Circulation
Th
e
r
e
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
go
o
d
wa
y
to
ma
k
e
a le
f
t
on
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
th
e
LO
V
R
/
M
a
d
o
n
n
a
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
At
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
,
we
sh
o
u
l
d
have Froom Ranch Rd
w/
ke
e
p
cl
e
a
r
fo
r
BO
T
H
th
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
AN
D
th
e
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
la
n
e
in
t
o
Co
s
t
c
o
to
al
l
o
w
ca
r
s
fr
o
m
th
e
LO
V
R
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
to get out to LOVR.
In
s
t
e
a
d
of
wa
i
t
i
n
g
fo
r
1 or
2 gr
e
e
n
li
g
h
t
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
9
PH1 - 113
17
17
-
2
.
V
a
c
h
e
l
L
n
.
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
17
.
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Ro
a
d
to
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
Ro
a
d
Is
s
u
e
s
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
&
LO
V
R
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Sk
e
w
of
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
an
d
VachellLane
LO
V
R
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
17
‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Va
c
h
e
l
l
L
n
.
so
u
t
h
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Park to connect to S. HigueraSt.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
LO
V
R
in
fr
o
n
t
of
Los Verdes
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
17
‐3
Fo
r
m
a cu
l
‐de
‐sa
c
at
th
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
en
d
of
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Ln. and do not provide
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
lo
t
fo
r
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ac
c
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
17
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
17
-
3
.
V
a
c
h
e
l
L
n
.
C
u
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
VachelLn.VachelLn.
VachelLn.
7
58
9
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
0
PH1 - 114
Si
t
e
17
Circulation
Yo
u
mu
s
t
do
so
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
re
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
of
th
e
vo
t
e
.
Tu
r
n
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
fr
o
m
Va
c
h
e
l
l
La
n
d
ri
g
h
t
on
t
o
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
is
a de
a
t
h
(
s
)
wa
i
t
i
n
g
to happen. It’s fast, under
pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
an
d
of
t
e
n
bl
i
n
d
,
if
so
m
e
o
n
e
is
on
th
e
le
f
t
si
d
e
.
So
u
t
h
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
/
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
Ar
e
a
1.
Se
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
E/
W
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
in
So
.
SL
O
.
2.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
Sa
n
t
a
Fe
/
T
a
n
k
Fa
r
m
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
b)
li
n
k
w/
Ho
o
v
e
r
c)
im
p
r
o
v
e
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Rd
.
& bu
i
l
d
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
to
So
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
*i
n
c
l
u
d
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
3.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
Pr
a
d
o
/
1
0
1
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
w/
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
la
t
e
r
.
b)
wo
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
ph
a
s
i
n
g
in
th
r
u
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
4.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
CL
II
or
CL
I bi
k
e
w
a
y
al
o
n
g
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
be
t
w
e
e
n
Sa
n
t
a
Fe
& Fa
r
m
Su
p
p
l
y
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
b)
Li
n
k
wi
t
h
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
ar
e
a
5.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
ro
u
n
d
‐ab
o
u
t
@ Pr
a
d
o
& Br
o
a
d
St
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
1
PH1 - 115
18
18
.
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Ro
a
d
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
18
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Is
s
u
e
s
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
,
LO
V
R
,
an
d
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Ro
a
d
an
d
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Road
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
co
u
l
d
be
ma
d
e
fa
r
t
h
e
r
ea
s
t
an
d
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
with the Chevron
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
18
‐2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a no
r
t
h
‐so
u
t
h
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
connecting Horizon Road and
Je
s
p
e
r
s
e
n
Ro
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
wi
t
h
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
Ro
a
d
Di
s
t
u
r
b
s
so
m
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
& pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
18
‐3
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a no
r
t
h
‐so
u
t
h
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
so
m
e
w
h
e
r
e
between VachellLane and
Je
s
p
e
r
s
e
n
Ro
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
Ro
a
d
Ma
y
Di
s
t
u
r
b
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
& pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Cr
e
e
k
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Buckley RdVachell RdSuburban RdTank Farm Rd
18
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
Vachell Rd
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
B
a
r
n
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
Vachell Rd
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
18
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
f
o
r
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LESS
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
9
59
1
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
2
PH1 - 116
Si
t
e
18
Circulation
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
on
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
on
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
ne
e
d
e
d
(p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
cr
o
s
s
‐wi
n
d
s
.
)
18
.
3
is
a go
o
d
no
t
i
o
n
bu
t
ex
a
c
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
no
r
t
h
/
s
o
u
t
h
ro
a
d
sh
o
u
l
d
go
fu
r
t
h
e
r
to
Ea
s
t
to
w
a
r
d
s
ai
r
p
o
r
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
3
PH1 - 117
19 Buckley Rd
19
.
LO
V
R
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
19
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
19
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
L
O
V
R
B
y
p
a
s
s
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Is
s
u
e
s
Ea
s
e
of
ac
c
e
s
s
en
t
e
r
i
n
g
& ex
i
t
i
n
g
Lo
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Vo
l
u
m
e
of
tr
a
f
f
i
c
pa
s
s
i
n
g
by
Lo
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
at
LO
V
R
& Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
LO
V
R
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
19
‐2
Mo
v
i
n
g
ro
a
d
an
d
no
i
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
on
e
si
d
e
of Los Verdes to the other
Op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
an
d
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
Ca
r
e
f
u
l
no
t
to
di
s
t
u
r
b
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Sm
a
l
l
we
t
l
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
of
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
19
‐3
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
LO
V
R
By
p
a
s
s
Ca
r
e
f
u
l
no
t
to
di
s
t
u
r
b
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Vachell Rd
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
Vachell Rd
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
B
a
r
n
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
Suburban RdTank Farm Rd
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
19
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
B
u
c
k
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Vachell Rd
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LESS
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
2
14
56
Co
m
b
i
n
e
19
‐2 & 19
‐3
46
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
4
PH1 - 118
Si
t
e
19
Circulation
I li
k
e
it
bu
t
mo
r
e
Bi
k
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
be
do
n
e
wi
t
h
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
be
i
n
g
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
th
e
r
e
ne
e
d
s
to
be
bu
i
l
d
ou
t
of
pl
a
n
n
e
d
bike trails to Broad to
ac
c
e
s
s
Lo
s
Ra
n
c
h
o
s
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Th
e
bi
g
g
e
r
pr
o
b
l
e
m
is
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
is
no
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Cl
a
s
s
I pl
a
n
n
e
d
to
cr
o
s
s
10
1
on
LO
V
R
,
wh
i
c
h
would be the Laguna
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
ro
u
t
e
fo
r
bi
k
es
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ke
e
p
th
e
“n
a
t
u
r
e
”
as
p
e
c
t
of
Bo
b
Jo
n
e
s
Tr
a
i
l
in
mi
n
d
as
yo
u
di
s
c
u
s
s
LO
V
R
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
& ro
a
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
– no more development
al
o
n
g
Bo
b
Jo
n
e
s
Tr
a
i
l
so
u
t
h
of
LO
V
R
,
or
we
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
a wo
r
s
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
Ke
e
p
AG
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
!
Ge
t
LO
V
R
to
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
22
7
– a cr
o
s
s
va
l
l
e
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
is
ne
e
d
e
d
.
Mu
s
t
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Ct
r
.
An
d
bi
k
e
tr
a
i
l
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
19
.
2
& 19
.
3
sh
o
u
l
d
be
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
in
t
o
on
e
op
t
i
o
n
Wh
a
t
ab
o
u
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
10
1
Li
k
e
to
se
e
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
LO
V
Rd
(b
e
h
i
n
d
Pa
r
k
2)
– LO
V
to
o
bu
s
y
no
w
un
l
e
s
s
th
e
r
e
ca
n
be
a si
g
n
a
l
@ Pa
r
k
s
1 & 2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
5
PH1 - 119
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
At
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
sh
o
w
n
ni
n
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
as
k
e
d
to
as
s
i
g
n
a pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
to
ea
c
h
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
mo
d
e
fo
r
th
a
t
street. In other words,
fo
r
ea
c
h
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
,
ra
n
k
th
e
mo
d
e
s
fr
o
m
1 to
4,
wi
t
h
1 be
i
n
g
th
e
mo
d
e
wi
t
h
th
e
hi
g
h
e
s
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
an
d
4 be
i
n
g
th
e
lo
w
e
s
t
priority.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
pa
g
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a su
m
m
a
r
y
of
th
i
s
in
p
u
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
6
PH1 - 120
PU
R
P
L
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Streets / Transit
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
do
no
t
kn
o
w
wh
a
t
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
ar
e
.
An
d
ye
t
yo
u
ar
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
up
ex
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
input.
Fo
r
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
SL
O
:
re
m
o
v
e
al
l
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
ar
e
a
fo
r
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
si
d
e
‐wa
l
k
s
/
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
.
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
a la
n
e
of
travel for separate bike
la
n
e
.
Ad
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
on
pe
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
of
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
r
e
.
LO
V
R
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
or
co
n
n
e
c
t
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
So
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
.
An
y
t
h
i
n
g
to
qu
i
e
t
no
i
s
e
on
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
Au
t
o
s
Fu
n
d
th
e
LO
V
R
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
sy
m
b
o
l
s
in
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
/
n
e
e
d
s
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
as
wh
a
t
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
(a
b
l
e
d
people) may be able to
na
v
i
g
a
t
e
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
pe
o
p
l
e
ma
y
no
t
pl
u
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
in
th
e
s
e
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
wh
e
n
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
th
e
tw
o
cl
a
s
s
e
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ma
k
e
su
r
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of
pe
o
p
l
e
wi
t
h
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
st
r
e
e
t
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
Vi
s
i
t
th
e
we
b
s
i
t
e
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
organization Access for
Al
l
fo
r
mo
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
fr
e
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
me
m
b
e
r
s
:
ww
w
.
s
l
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
.
o
r
g
Th
a
n
k
yo
u
!
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
be
i
n
g
ma
d
e
in
a va
c
u
u
m
.
Sh
i
f
t
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
s
an
d
yo
u
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
an
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
for people. Think auto
pa
r
k
me
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
.
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
as
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
Ju
n
e
1 co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
ig
n
o
r
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
th
e
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
un
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
!
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
7
PH1 - 121
DOWNTOWNAREA
#9
#6
#7
#8
#10 #5#4#3#2#1
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
FOOTHILL
B
R
O
A
D
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
CHORRO CALIFORNIASANTA ROSA MONTEREY
HI
G
U
E
R
A
Legend
Roadways for Input
Streets
City Limits
Input for Complete Streets
Motorist EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for vehicles on an urban street:
• Increasing vehicle throughput on roadways• Reducing vehicle delay at signalized and unsignalized intersections• Reducing interruptions to traffic flow and preserving vehicle speeds
Transit Passenger EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for transit passengers on an urban street:
• Reliable transit service with frequencies of 15 minutes or less• Higher transit travel speeds• High quality walkways leading to the transit stops• Numerous transit stop locations with benches, shelters, and real-time traveler information• On-board crowding less than 80%, meaning passengers can have a choice of seats
Pedestrian EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for pedestrians on an urban street:
• Providing a walkway on both sides of the roadway with ample width that allows side-by-side walking• Distancing the walkway away from vehicular traffic using bike lanes, shoulders, on-street parking, trees, landscaping, and street furniture• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the walkway• Limiting delay for pedestrians at signalized intersections• Providing raised medians that can serve as pedestrian refuges at both signalized and unsignalized locations• Removing permitted left turn movements by vehicles at signalized intersections• Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections
Bicyclist EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for bicyclists on an urban street:
• Providing bikeways on both sides of the roadway with ample width• Excellent pavement condition that is free of potholes, damage, and debris• Distancing the bike lane away from vehicular traffic as much as possible• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the bike lane• Removing or reducing on-street parking• Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections• Providing bike lanes through intersections• Limiting or reducing the number of unsignalized intersections or driveways along the street
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
9
8
PH
1
-
12
2
Q1 Please place these users in terms ofpriority for Foothill Boulevard.Answered: 38 Skipped: 5
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 28.95%
11
26.32%
10
23.68%
9
21.05%
8
38
2.63
Bicyclists 36.84%
14
31.58%
12
26.32%
10
5.26%
2
38
3.00
Transit
Passengers
21.05%
8
28.95%
11
34.21%
13
15.79%
6
38
2.55
Motorists 13.16%
5
13.16%
5
15.79%
6
57.89%
22
38
1.82
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
9
9
PH
1
-
12
3
Q2 Please rank these users by priority forChorro Street.Answered: 38 Skipped: 5
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 44.74%
17
28.95%
11
18.42%
7
7.89%
3
38
3.11
Bicyclists 28.95%
11
55.26%
21
15.79%
6
0%
0
38
3.13
Transit
Passengers
7.89%
3
5.26%
2
55.26%
21
31.58%
12
38
1.89
Motorists 18.42%
7
10.53%
4
10.53%
4
60.53%
23
38
1.87
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
0
PH
1
-
12
4
Q3 Please rank these users by priority forSanta Rosa Street.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 25.71%
9
20%
7
25.71%
9
28.57%
10
35
2.43
Bicyclists 20%
7
40%
14
28.57%
10
11.43%
4
35
2.69
Transit
Passengers
14.29%
5
28.57%
10
40%
14
17.14%
6
35
2.40
Motorists 40%
14
11.43%
4
5.71%
2
42.86%
15
35
2.49
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
1
PH
1
-
12
5
Q4 Please rank these users by priority forCalifornia Boulevard.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 37.14%
13
25.71%
9
17.14%
6
20%
7
35
2.80
Bicyclists 22.86%
8
45.71%
16
25.71%
9
5.71%
2
35
2.86
Transit
Passengers
14.29%
5
20%
7
42.86%
15
22.86%
8
35
2.26
Motorists 25.71%
9
8.57%
3
14.29%
5
51.43%
18
35
2.09
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
2
PH
1
-
12
6
Q5 Please rank these user in terms ofpriority for Monterey Street.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 57.14%
20
25.71%
9
5.71%
2
11.43%
4
35
3.29
Bicyclists 20%
7
45.71%
16
28.57%
10
5.71%
2
35
2.80
Transit
Passengers
11.43%
4
17.14%
6
57.14%
20
14.29%
5
35
2.26
Motorists 11.43%
4
11.43%
4
8.57%
3
68.57%
24
35
1.66
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
3
PH
1
-
12
7
Q6 Please rank these users in terms ofpriority for Higuera Street.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 37.14%
13
28.57%
10
14.29%
5
20%
7
35
2.83
Bicyclists 34.29%
12
31.43%
11
22.86%
8
11.43%
4
35
2.89
Transit
Passengers
14.29%
5
22.86%
8
42.86%
15
20%
7
35
2.31
Motorists 14.29%
5
17.14%
6
20%
7
48.57%
17
35
1.97
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
4
PH
1
-
12
8
Q7 Please rank these users in terms ofpriority for Broad Street.Answered: 37 Skipped: 6
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 27.03%
10
24.32%
9
10.81%
4
37.84%
14
37
2.41
Bicyclists 27.03%
10
32.43%
12
32.43%
12
8.11%
3
37
2.78
Transit
Passengers
10.81%
4
24.32%
9
51.35%
19
13.51%
5
37
2.32
Motorists 35.14%
13
18.92%
7
5.41%
2
40.54%
15
37
2.49
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
5
PH
1
-
12
9
Q8 Please rank these users in terms ofpriority for Johnson Avenue.Answered: 34 Skipped: 9
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 29.41%
10
14.71%
5
26.47%
9
29.41%
10
34
2.44
Bicyclists 23.53%
8
38.24%
13
23.53%
8
14.71%
5
34
2.71
Transit
Passengers
20.59%
7
29.41%
10
38.24%
13
11.76%
4
34
2.59
Motorists 26.47%
9
17.65%
6
11.76%
4
44.12%
15
34
2.26
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
6
PH
1
-
13
0
Q9 Please rank these users by priority forLos Osos Valley Road.Answered: 38 Skipped: 5
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 18.42%
7
26.32%
10
21.05%
8
34.21%
13
38
2.29
Bicyclists 31.58%
12
31.58%
12
28.95%
11
7.89%
3
38
2.87
Transit
Passengers
13.16%
5
31.58%
12
44.74%
17
10.53%
4
38
2.47
Motorists 36.84%
14
10.53%
4
5.26%
2
47.37%
18
38
2.37
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
7
PH
1
-
13
1
Q10 Would you be willing to do the followingto improve the walking and/or bicyclingenvironment in the Downtown Area?Answered: 40 Skipped: 3
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Reduceon-streetparking fo...Remove avehicletravel lan...
Reduce
on-street
parking fo...
Remove a
vehicle
travel lan...
Yes No
Reduce on-street parking for a
better walking environment.
70%
28
30%
12
40
Remove a vehicle travel lane
for a better walking
environment.
64.86%
24
35.14%
13
37
Reduce on-street parking for a
better cycling environment.
83.33%
30
16.67%
6
36
Remove a vehicle travel lane
for a better cycling
environment.
68.57%
24
31.43%
11
35
Yes No Total Respondents
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
8
PH
1
-
13
2
Ot
h
e
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
At
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
al
s
o
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
on
an
y
ot
h
e
r
to
p
i
c
of
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
to
th
e
La
n
d
Use and Circulation Elements
Up
d
a
t
e
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ar
e
th
e
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
0
9
PH1 - 133
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
as
ge
n
e
r
a
l
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
fo
r
th
e
fu
t
u
r
e
bu
i
l
d
ou
t
of
th
e
ci
t
y
so
th
a
t
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ex
t
e
n
d
s
be
y
o
n
d
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
up
d
a
t
e
/
20 year horizon.
It
is
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ke
y
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
ci
t
y
’
s
stated jobs/housing
ba
l
a
n
c
e
go
a
l
s
,
th
e
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
pl
a
n
,
cl
i
m
a
t
e
ac
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
,
an
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
pl
a
n
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
an
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
re
v
i
s
i
t
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
in
ce
r
t
a
i
n
ar
e
a
s
.
Li
k
e
to
ke
e
p
fr
e
e
w
a
y
an
d
ot
h
e
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
no
i
s
e
to
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
.
No
i
s
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
on
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ar
e
a
.
Br
i
g
h
t
Li
f
e
Pl
a
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
Ki
m
Lo
v
e
.
I am
tr
y
i
n
g
to
op
e
n
a ch
i
l
d
ca
r
e
ce
n
t
e
r
an
d
ha
v
e
fo
u
n
d
th
e
pe
r
f
e
c
t
sp
a
c
e
to
re
n
t
.
It
is on Broad Street, across
fr
o
m
th
e
ai
r
p
o
r
t
bu
t
is
zo
n
e
d
as
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
I wa
s
to
l
d
th
a
t
I wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to
ap
p
l
y
fo
r
a di
r
e
c
t
o
r
’
s
us
e
pe
r
m
i
t
which is what I am about to
do
.
I ha
v
e
be
e
n
lo
o
k
i
n
g
fo
r
si
x
mo
n
th
s
fo
r
a su
i
t
a
b
l
e
re
n
t
a
l
wi
t
h
en
o
u
g
h
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
ou
r
ne
e
d
s
an
d
ha
v
e
fo
u
n
d
li
t
t
l
e
to
nothing on that aide of 101
th
a
t
is
zo
n
e
d
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
.
I am
aw
a
r
e
th
a
t
th
e
Ma
r
i
g
o
l
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
is
zo
n
e
d
fo
r
a ce
n
t
e
r
bu
t
th
e
r
e
is
no
en
c
l
o
s
e
d
ou
t
d
o
o
r
sp
a
c
e
.
The community child
ca
r
e
li
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
bo
a
r
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
75
s
q
.
fe
e
t
of
ou
t
s
i
d
e
sp
a
c
e
pe
r
ch
i
l
d
th
a
t
is
fe
n
c
e
d
an
d
35
sq
.
fe
e
t
of
in
s
i
d
e
sp
a
c
e
pe
r
ch
i
l
d
.
This facility would allow
50
+
sq
.
fe
e
t
pe
r
ch
i
l
d
wh
i
c
h
is
id
e
a
l
.
I un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
th
a
t
th
i
s
co
u
l
d
ta
k
e
4‐6 we
e
k
s
af
t
e
r
ap
p
l
i
ca
t
i
o
n
is
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
ge
t
an answer as to whether I
wo
u
l
d
be
al
l
o
w
e
d
to
re
n
t
th
e
sp
a
c
e
.
I wa
s
ho
p
i
n
g
to
ta
l
k
to
so
m
e
o
n
e
wh
o
ma
y
be
ab
l
e
to
gi
v
e
me
an
in
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
be
f
o
r
e
4‐6 weeks so that I do not
ha
v
e
to
pa
y
al
m
o
s
t
2 mo
n
t
h
s
of
re
n
t
wi
t
h
no
in
c
o
m
e
.
Yo
u
r
si
g
n
‐in
is
a sl
a
p
in
th
e
fa
c
e
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
as
I st
o
o
d
be
h
i
n
d
so
m
e
o
n
e
I kn
e
w
di
d
n
’
t
li
v
e
he
r
e
bu
t
he
ga
v
e
a bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
address to make it look like
he
di
d
.
Th
e
de
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
e
ma
n
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
a di
s
g
r
a
c
e
.
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
se
n
t
ou
t
fo
r
th
i
s
“i
n
p
u
t
”
wa
s
no
t
ti
m
e
l
y
.
Th
e
s
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
wi
t
h
o
u
t
an
y
co
n
t
e
x
t
.
Th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
,
pr
o
s
an
d
co
n
s
,
an
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ci
t
y
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
ar
e
no
t
presented in order for
pe
o
p
l
e
to
ma
k
e
an
in
f
o
r
m
e
d
ch
o
i
c
e
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
ur
b
a
n
re
s
e
r
v
e
li
n
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
ra
t
e
fo
r
m
u
l
a
is
wr
o
n
g
.
Wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
is
pe
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
Ad
d
“R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
”
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
(o
n
th
e
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
si
g
n
in
sh
e
e
t
.
No
wh
e
r
e
wa
s
I as
k
e
d
my
ad
d
r
e
s
s
an
d
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
to
ma
k
e
th
e
s
e
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Ar
e
ou
r
na
m
e
s
go
i
n
g
to
be
cr
o
s
s
‐ch
e
c
k
e
d
on
voter roster? Wish
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
to
ma
k
e
th
e
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
NO
T
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
.
Mo
r
e
bi
k
i
n
g
/
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
op
t
i
o
n
s
!
I ho
p
e
al
l
th
e
s
e
ne
w
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
he
a
l
t
h
pr
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
ai
r
p
o
r
t
la
n
d
us
e
pl
a
n
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
in
re
g
a
r
d
s
to
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
as
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
Ju
n
e
1 co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
ig
n
o
r
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
th
e
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
un
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
!
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
do
no
t
kn
o
w
wh
a
t
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
ar
e
.
An
d
ye
t
yo
u
ar
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
up
ex
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
input.
Fo
r
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
SL
O
:
re
m
o
v
e
al
l
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
ar
e
a
fo
r
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
si
d
e
‐wa
l
k
s
/
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
.
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
a la
n
e
of
travel for separate bike
la
n
e
.
Ad
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
on
pe
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
of
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
r
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
1
0
PH1 - 134
LO
V
R
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
or
co
n
n
e
c
t
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
So
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
.
An
y
t
h
i
n
g
to
qu
i
e
t
no
i
s
e
on
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
Au
t
o
s
Fu
n
d
th
e
LO
V
R
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
sy
m
b
o
l
s
in
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
/
n
e
e
d
s
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
as
wh
a
t
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
(a
b
l
e
d
people) may be able to
na
v
i
g
a
t
e
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
pe
o
p
l
e
ma
y
no
t
pl
u
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
in
th
e
s
e
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
wh
e
n
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
th
e
tw
o
cl
a
s
s
e
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ma
k
e
su
r
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of
pe
o
p
l
e
wi
t
h
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
st
r
e
e
t
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
Vi
s
i
t
th
e
we
b
s
i
t
e
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
organization Access for
Al
l
fo
r
mo
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
fr
e
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
me
m
b
e
r
s
:
ww
w
.
s
l
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
.
o
r
g
Th
a
n
k
yo
u
!
Ho
w
ab
o
u
t
a Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
on
th
e
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
an
d
a di
g
n
i
t
y
vi
l
l
a
g
e
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
?
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
be
i
n
g
ma
d
e
in
a va
c
u
u
m
.
Sh
i
f
t
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
s
an
d
yo
u
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
an
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
for people. Think auto
pa
r
k
me
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
1
1
PH1 - 135
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TF-LUCE MINUTES
June 27, 2013
ROLL CALL
Present: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Hema Dandekar, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Chris Richardson, Rob Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla
Saunders, Sharon Whitney, Chuck Crotser (arrived at 6:55 pm), Vice-
Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Task Force Member Matt Quaglino
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director of
Community Development Kim Murry, Associate Planner James David,
Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, and Recording
Secretary Dawn Rudder
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended.
MINUTES:
Minutes of May 14, 2013, were approved as presented.
Minutes of June 19, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jeffrey Specht, San Luis Obispo, voiced that the illegal lodging tickets he has been
receiving constitute harassment and unnecessary ticketing on the City’s part. He asked
the Committee’s help in talking to anyone they can regarding this issue.
Dave Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, indicated that the LUCE workshops were excellent.
He expressed that traffic calming in neighborhood is desirable but is concerned with the
circulation concerning Johnson, Marsh, and Higuera Streets. He urged the Committee
to discourage cut-through traffic in residential areas and direct traffic to the arterial
streets.
Chris Hoover, San Luis Obispo, opposes Buchon as a one-way street and is also
concerned that traffic should be routed to the arterial streets.
Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, offered that speed bumps are not effective and urged the
Committee to come up with a better circulation plan utilizing Marsh and Higuera Streets
so traffic will be routed off of Buchon Street.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PH1 - 136
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 2
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development, presented the question of
whether the Task Force wishes to request the Council appoint additional members to
replace the three members who have resigned.
Task Force members discussed the TF-LUCE guidelines which call for an odd number
of members and also expressed concerns that it would be difficult for a new member to
understand the input and discussions that have occurred over the last year.
Chairperson Meyer voiced support of adding a young voice to the group.
The Task Force consensus was to support the existing size of the Task Force and not
to request Council appoint additional members at this time.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE
Chairperson Meyer requests the Task Force consider a request to consider circulation
item #5 ahead of other items in response to an attendee’s request.
5. Higuera and Marsh Street
Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Planner, pointed out that residents have voiced
concerns that Buchon not be converted to a one-way street. Being able to evaluate
option of two way traffic will be important to understand how this affects overall
circulation in this area.
Task Force Members discussed intent of two-way access on Marsh and Higuera
between Santa Rosa and Johnson and whether this would address traffic on residential
streets.
Task Force member Saunders expressed concern that Buchon residents were not
individually notified of potential circulation changes. Peggy Mandeville offered that the
neighborhood traffic efforts have involved the neighborhood prior to this effort.
On motion by Task Force Member Pierre Rademaker, seconded by Walt Bremer, to
forward an alternative of circulation option 5-3 of the Higuera/Marsh St. proposal.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Task Force Member Rossi
ABSENT: Task Force Members Quaglino and Crotser
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
Public Comments:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, urged the committee to review student proposals that
locate the transit center at the Shell Station property located on Higuera/Monterey and
PH1 - 137
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 3
Santa Rosa. This site can bring everything together in a better vision for the future that
focuses more on pedestrians and bicycles.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Workshop Feedback:
Kim Murry described insights from the workshop offered to staff and asked for
observations from the Task Force not noted in the agenda packet.
Task Force member Saunders expressed concerns regarding workshop attendees and
their lack of information given to them about proposed alternatives due to poster size
limitations.. In addition, committee member Saunders offered that the number of Future
Fair 2 workshop attendees did not reflect the same degree of participation as the 2012
LUCE Community Survey’s 2,200 household and business owner responses.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
Kim Murry presented a summary of the information provided to the Task Force and their
role in evaluating the input and alternatives. The desired outcome will be to identify
which alternatives should proceed for further evaluation.
Committee Comments:
Task Force member Carla Saunders was very uncomfortable with the Alternatives
Newsletter and its failure to note the 2,200 responses to the LUCE Community Survey
or the existing LUCE goals as screening criteria that will be used by City Staff and the
Consultant Team in their comprehensive evaluation of the existing LUE and Circulation
element goals, policies, and implementation programs. She noted that the policy
evaluation considerations listed in the newsletter include extraordinarily broad items
such as “consistency with SLOCOG efforts” and “Sustainable Communities grant-
related items.”
Chairperson Meyer indicated that alternatives being discussed will eventually fit
together but that there are other policies that will need to be folded in such as the
Climate Action Plan and other plans. Identify the overarching goal for the future vision.
Derek Johnson indicated that the goals and vision were identified earlier in the process
and this is what is being used to direct the effort. However, if other bigger visions are
missing, this is the time to identify them.
Sandra Rowley is not comfortable with the update being consistent with a regional
vision such as SLOCOG versus what the residents of the city want to see occur.
Task force Member Chuck Crotser arrived at 6:55 p.m.
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director, indicated that staff and the
consultant team will follow the direction of the Task Force that was confirmed by both
the Planning Commission and Council; namely that the existing LUCE goals will be
used to evaluate amendments to the general plan. He further noted that the newsletter
PH1 - 138
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 4
is not a policy document and it will not be adopted. Mr. Johnson urged the Task Force
to use all of the input received, including the survey and workshop input when
evaluating alternatives.
Task Force Member Saunders continued to express concerns with the alternatives
newsletter.
Task Force Member Rowley asked if Task Force could be provided with the list of what
would be used to evaluate the amendments.
Community Development Director Johnson indicated that the Task Force, Planning
Commission and Council directed staff to use the existing Land Use and Circulation
Element goals as screening criteria and those have been provided to the Task Force.
Task Force members requested information for how student projects are incorporated
into the review process and whether staff those ideas were reviewed when considering
alternatives.
Peggy Mandeville indicated that many of the student and community efforts have been
provided to the consultant team.
Chair Meyer indicated an interest in seeing some of the student projects that might
propose more visionary ideas.
A – Diocese Site on Daly
Kim Murry indicated that this site has a deed provision that restricts use of the site to
Church and church-related uses, and recommends that the Task Force remove this site
from further evaluation of alternatives.
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Bremer, to remove
this site from further consideration of land use alternatives.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke,
Richardson, Crotser, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rossi, Rademaker and
Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Member Quaglino
The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.
Task Force Member Russ Brown left the meeting at 7:10 pm.
B - Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa
PH1 - 139
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 5
Task Force members discussed the concept of mixed uses on the site in question and
also on the properties on the south side of Foothill Blvd. Members discussed the
concept of being able to evaluate a larger alternative to understand the economics and
impacts over a longer period of time.
On motion by Task Force Member Richardson, seconded by Task Force Member
Crotser, to forward alternatives B3 and B4 and also to include Mixed Uses on the south
side of Foothill Blvd. from the triangular property at Chorro east to Santa Rosa.
.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke,
Richardson, Whitney, Rossi, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Saunders and Rowley
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Member Quaglino
The motion passed on an 10:2 vote.
C - Pacheco elementary site
Sharon Whitney made a motion to remove this site from consideration. She provided a
handout with information stating that the neighborhood is broken, and
1) rezoning will not fix this site, 2) workshop results were bifurcated, 3) no clear
consensus emerged from future fair, and 4) hotel would not be welcome in the area.
On motion by Task Force Member Whitney, seconded by Task Force Member, to
remove this site from further consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Whitney, Rowley and Saunders
NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Richardson,
Crotser, Rossi, Rademaker and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion failed on a 3:9 vote.
Task Force Member Saunders stated the community survey information supports
additional small parks in residential areas.
On motion by Task Force Member Richardson, seconded by Task Force Member
Juhnke, to forward alternative C4 for consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Richardson,
Crotser, Rossi, Rowley, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Whitney and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
PH1 - 140
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 6
The motion passed on a 10:2 vote.
D - Diocese site near Bressi Place and Broad Street
Task Force member Saunders indicates that portions of this property are within a
wildlife corridor noted in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Vice-Chair
Rademaker, to remove this site from further consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Rowley, Whitney, Saunders, Goetz,
Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Richardson, Dandekar and Crotser
RECUSED: Task Force Member Rossi
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on an 8:3 vote.
E - Upper Monterey area:
Staff presented that while there are no physical alternatives being discussed for this
area, the Task Force is able to offer policy considerations for direction.
Task Force member Rowley observed that if a conference center was to be located
near the college campus, the student demographic would need to be understood when
designing the facilities.
Task Force Member Saunders pointed out that this property backs up to low density
residential.
Direction: Task Force members provided comments including the desirability for this
area to host a conference center. Other ideas included use of parking district, street
façade improvements, lot assembly to facilitate more dense development, making the
area more pedestrian-friendly, addressing the appearance of properties in public
ownership, and addressing the transit center location.
F - Downtown Area:
Derek Johnson commented that the downtown pedestrian plan is a product that will be
coming to the Task Force at a future date.
Task Force members discussed the desirability of plazas and public views.
PH1 - 141
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 7
G - Mid-Higuera Area
Task Force Member Rowley commented that the consultants should understand the
purpose of the streets in the area. If future planning includes reduced on-site parking it
will impact residential neighborhoods.
H - Caltrans site
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Member
Dandekar, to forward consideration of Mixed Use on this site that would include Tourist
Commercial, Office and some residential as shown in H-2 and H-4.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Rowley, Whitney, Saunders, Richardson,
Dandekar, Crotser, Rossi, Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
Some Task Force members commented that this site may be appropriate to look at
height limit changes to accommodate the desired development.
I - General Hospital Site
Task Force member Rowley shared her concerns about unstable soils on this site and
does not support using any of the open space portion for housing.
Task Force Member Saunders commented that according to the survey, acquiring &
maintaining open space is what the community wants.
On motion by Task Force Member Rowley, seconded by Task Force Member
Saunders, to remove this site from further consideration and retain the existing
designations.
AYES: Task Force Members Rowley, Whitney and Saunders
NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar, Crotser, Rossi,
Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion failed on a 3:9 vote.
Task Force members discussed options of allowing some additional density on the site
in the area not designated as open space.
PH1 - 142
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 8
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Vice-Chair
Rademaker, to forward alternative I-3 but delete the residential low density area shown
between the URL and the City Limit line (current shown as OS).
AYES: Task Force Members Whitney, Saunders, Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar,
Crotser, Rossi, Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Member Rowley
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on an 11:1 vote.
J - Broad Street Area
Some Task Force members voiced their desire to understand more about the concepts
in the Broad Street Area Plan.
Derek Johnson stated the link to this plan will be forwarded to the TF-LUCE members.
He suggested revisiting this area at the next meeting and the Task Force concurred.
K - Sunset Drive-In Site
Task Force members discussed the status of the discussions regarding locating a
homeless center on this property, and how a potential overpass or interchange would
impact uses on the property.
Task Force members also voiced that there is very little to do for middle or high school
age children.
On motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Task Force Member
Rademaker, to forward alternative K-3 for consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Whitney, Saunders, Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar,
Crotser, Rossi, Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker, Rowley and Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
L - Madonna/LOVR area
The Task Force postponed discussion of this site until the next meeting.
PH1 - 143
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 9
M - Pacific Beach site
Task Force members discussed the potential mix of uses on the property and how
changes in uses will impact the neighborhood.
On motion by Task Force Member Richardson, seconded by Task Force Member
Crotser, to forward consideration of alternatives M-3 and M-4.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar, Crotser, Rossi,
Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Rowley, Whitney and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on a 9:3 vote.
N - Calle Joaquin Auto Sales
Task Force Member Bremer made a motion to endorse alternative N-3 which was
seconded by Task Force Member Juhnke.
Task Force members discussed whether residential mixed use was appropriate at this
site and observed that alternatives for this property should be discussed in concert with
the Dalidio alternatives.
Task Force Member Bremer withdrew his motion.
SET TIME FOR NEXT TF-LUCE MEETING:
The next meeting TF-LUCE meeting will be held July 1 at 6:00 pm and July 9th at 6 pm
in the Council Hearing Room.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Dawn Rudder
Recording Secretary
PH1 - 144
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TF-LUCE MINUTES
July 1, 2013
ROLL CALL
Present: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema
Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Rob
Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre
Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Task Force Member Sharon Whitney
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director of
Community Development Kim Murry, Principal Transportation Planner
Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner James David, and Recording
Secretary William Kavadas
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud presented the Task Force with a handout showing a student-designed
future Transit Center located on the Shell Station property at Santa Rosa and Monterey.
The proposal includes bus staging areas on-street and reserves the block of Santa
Rosa Street between Higuera and Monterey for bus, pedestrian and bicycle traffic only.
The design provides an opportunity to make a plaza with amenities for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Task Force Member Carla Saunders was not comfortable with the Alternatives
Newsletter characterization of policy screening criteria since it fails to include the 2012
LUCE Community Survey responses.
Community Development Director, Derek Johnson ensures the Task Force that the
direction from the Task Force that was endorsed by both the Planning Commission and
City Council to use the Land Use and Circulation Element Goals will be followed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Schedule:
Staff presented a schedule to the Task Force showing upcoming meetings for
September 2013 through May 2014. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure the
Task Force members would be available for the more frequent meetings that will begin
in September when the draft elements will be presented in legislative draft format.
Alternatives:
PH1 - 145
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 2
The Task Force continued their discussion of Land Use Alternatives for identified sites.
Staff member Murry summarized the comments and general support for each
alternative expressed at the workshop held on June 1st and requested Task Force
direction.
O. Madonna Property on Los Osos Valley Road
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
The Task Force discussed environmental constraints and gateway views on the
property and the types of uses that might be appropriate. The Task Force offered that
neighborhood commercial might be more appropriate at this location rather than
destination commercial uses.
Task Force member Dandekar offered that a student-designed project for this location
won a “Bank of America Affordable Housing Challenge” competition and the site can
accommodate development while protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
Task Force member Saunders cited the community survey as important input since over
50% of respondents favor preserving creeks, marshes and open space.
Public Comment:
John Madonna, property owner, offered that the area may accommodate a future off-
ramp to Hwy 101 at Calle Joaquin. He favored connections to the open space and park
land and biking/walk ways connections from parts of Calle Joaquin to the town as a
whole.
On motion by Rob Rossi, seconded by Pierre Rademaker, to forward the alternative of a
Planned Development Overlay on the property to address future development potential.
Items to be addressed with an application include viewshed, hillside and open space
protection, potential height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections,
historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and
neighborhood commercial type uses.
AYES: Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema Dandekar, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Rob Rossi,
Sandra Rowley, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson
Eric Meyer
NOES: Carla Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.
PH1 - 146
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 3
P. Higuera/Airport Area
Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Planner, presented different options for the property
located between Hwy 101 and the Los Verdes development along Los Osos Valley
Road.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members questioned the viability of continuing the agricultural uses and
discussed constraints on the site including circulation concerns and floodplain
considerations.
Task Force member Rowley indicated this does nothing to solve the problems of
crossing LOVR between Los Verdes I and II, previously identified by residents of those
developments. Entrance onto LOVR from Los Verdes I and II was also identified as a
problem.
Public Comment:
No public comment
On motion by Chris Richardson, seconded by Chuck Crotser, to forward modified
alternative P-5 reflecting infill housing with open space on the property.
AYES: Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema Dandekar, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Rob Rossi, Carla
Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric
Meyer
NOES: Sandra Rowley
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.
Q. Margarita Area Specific Plan
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range Planning, presented the potential for
increased residential density within the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members asked for clarification of issues related to airport safety zones and
expressed concern regarding appropriate density for the area and that any proposal not
impact open space currently designated in Specific Plan.
Community Development Director Johnson explained that the City is working with the
County Airport Land Use Commission as they update the Airport Land Use Plan. He
PH1 - 147
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 4
further noted that the City has engaged an airport land use consultant to advise the City
in the endeavor so that safety and noise considerations are appropriately addressed in
accordance with Caltrans State Aeronautics Handbook standards.
Community Development Director Johnson also explained that higher densities would
impact park requirements.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment.
On motion by Chuck Crotser, seconded by Dave Juhnke to forward the alternative Q-2
that considers the potential for increased density with supporting Neighborhood
Commercial development for the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Rob Rossi,
Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker,
and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Chris Richardson
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
R. Tank Farm at Broad
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presents alternatives for the site.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members discussed uses for the site and indicated that uses that serve the
existing and proposed businesses in the area would be most appropriate. The Task
Force discussed the lack of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in this area and
expressed a desire to include amenities for these types of modes.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment
On motion by Rob Rossi, seconded by Matt Quaglino, to forward an alternative for
mixed commercial uses with limited residential on upper floors. Commercial uses
should serve the surrounding businesses and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity must
be addressed.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris
PH1 - 148
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 5
Richardson, Rob Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-
Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.
S. Avila Ranch
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presented alternative land use options for the
Avila Ranch property.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force member Richardson announced a conflict of interest.
Task Force members discussed creek protection and wildlife corridors; and bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity to other parts of the community, especially to shopping areas
north of the property. Other comments included concerns about the need to connect
Buckley Road to S. Higuera.
Staff explained that the Specific Plan option would address performance criteria and
utilities infrastructure needs as well as issues discussed by Task Force.
Public Comment:
No public comment
On motion by Rob Rossi, seconded by Russ Brown, to forward an alternative that
supports a mix of residential densities, connection to shops to the north, connection to
S. Higuera and a mix of uses similar to alternative S-3.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Rob Rossi,
Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker,
and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Chris Richardson
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
J. Broad Street Area
PH1 - 149
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 6
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning, presented information related to
workshop input for the South Broad Street area.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Chairperson Meyer recused himself due to a recent property purchase in the area.
Task Force members discussed the issue of zoning changes and potential effects to
existing land uses. The members discussed uses located on both the Victoria and
McMillan areas and how uses might interact as changes occur over time. Task Force
members expressed desire to protect existing business uses in the area.
Chuck Crotser motions to explore land-use proposals from Draft Broad Street Plan that
protect existing businesses, Matt Quaglino seconds.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment
On motion by Chuck Crotser, seconded by Matt Quaglino, to forward an alternative that
supports the land uses and form-based codes as expressed in the Draft South Broad
Street Area Plan with provisions to protect existing businesses and excluding the
McMillan area from the plan.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris
Richardson, Rob Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, and Vice-
Chairperson Pierre Rademaker
NOES: None
RECUSED: Eric Meyer
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote (Meyer recused).
L. Dalidio / Madonna Area
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presented a brief history of the development
proposals for the Dalidio property.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members discussed the development entitled under County jurisdiction and
whether the development is feasible given the need to provide on-site utilities. Several
members expressed a desire to see the property annexed and developed within the City
so that the City could have some influence over what gets developed on the property.
PH1 - 150
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 7
The Task Force discussed the types of uses that might be viable given the development
that has occurred on Los Osos Valley Road. Members also discussed the current Land
Use Element policies that direct 50% of the site to be retained in open space, and the
possibility that some flexibility regarding the 50% requirement might be appropriate if
open space could be obtained in other locations in addition to the Dalidio property.
Task Force members expressed that the property is a key visual gateway to the City
with a valued agricultural character. Some members provided input that some
development needed to be included in the alternative because a developer would not
seek annexation of a property to be designated solely for agricultural uses.
Rob Rossi left the meeting at 8:10 pm.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment
On motion by Chuck Crotser, seconded by Russ Brown, to forward an alternative with a
mix of uses with a significant open space/agricultural (at least 50%) component
(alternative L-5 without the specific direction of particular sizes/shapes of uses).
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris
Richardson, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre
Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Rob Rossi and Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
N. Calle Joaquin
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presented options for property on Calle
Joaquin along Highway 101.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members discussed ideas related to reconfiguration of development areas
to bring agricultural uses closer to freeway. This would involve re-alignment of Calle
Joaquin potentially to connect to other circulation links. Members discussed whether
uses were more appropriate as Commercial Tourism or General Retail but did note that
auto sales bring in tax revenue
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director, comments that the City has
engaged a consultant to conduct an economic analysis to in order to understand
whether the lots are needed for future auto sales.
PH1 - 151
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 8
Walter Bremer motions for mixed-use with swap of open space and agriculture land
closer to the freeway, Chuck Crotser seconds.
Public Comment:
No public comment
On motion by Walt Bremer, seconded by Chuck Crotser, to forward an alternative to
consider mixed use (in context with the Dalidio property and the City’s agricultural
parcel) and focusing on connectivity to the neighborhoods to the north.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema
Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson,
Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and
Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Rob Rossi and Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
SET TIME FOR NEXT TF-LUCE MEETING:
July 9, 2013 at 5:30 pm in the Council Hearing Room.
Task Force requested staff also seek an additional meeting date/time in the event they
do not complete the alternatives discussion on July 9th.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm.
Respectfully submitted by,
William Kavadas
Recording Secretary
PH1 - 152
Attachment 9
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TF-LUCE MINUTES
July 9, 2013
ROLL CALL
Present: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Sandra Rowley,
Carla Saunders, Sharon Whitney, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Hema Dandekar, Rob Rossi, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director of
Community Development Kim Murry, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, and Recording Secretary William Kavadas
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of June 27th and July 1st were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
Chair Meyer requests the Task Force consider item #14 out of order so that a member
of the public can provide testimony.
14. Oceanaire Neighborhood connection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the options presented at the Future
Fair 2 and results for Task Force discussion.
Committee Comments:
Task Force members discussed the input received from area residents that supports
leaving the neighborhood connections as they exist today.
Public Comments:
Theo Jones, Oceanaire neighborhood, indicated that the neighbors in the area do not
want a connection to Froom Ranch. Any connection to the neighborhood creates
concerns about cut-through traffic. She acknowledged that Froom Ranch will go
through to the northeast and expressed concerns about crossing the creek.
PH1 - 153
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 2
On motion to by Goetz, seconded by Saunders, to withdraw alternative #14 from further
consideration and leaving the Oceanaire neighborhood with the connections that
currently exist.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
1. Pedestrian Access near Foothill/Boysen/Santa Rosa
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, described the options presented at the Future
Fair 2 and results for Task Force discussion. He described how closure of Boysen
would allow more right-of-way to accommodate the bike and pedestrian crossing of
Highway 1 and provide a better trailhead.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed the potential circulation impacts if Boysen is closed.
Dave Juhnke observed that if Boysen is closed, traffic from development on Boysen will
be pushed to the Chorro/Highland intersection which is already impacted. He indicated
consideration of a Boysen closure in alternative #1 needs to be linked to realignment
alternatives listed in #2.
Jon Goetz questioned whether re-aligning Boysen to connect to Foothill would have an
acceptable distance from the Foothill/Santa Rosa intersection.
Chuck Crotser expressed the desire to keep some flexibility in the location of the
over/underpass across Santa Rosa.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Brown to
forward for consideration alternative 1-3 with flexibility in location of over/underpass and
with consideration of all alternatives for Boysen including full closure, access
restrictions, and retaining its current configuration.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
PH1 - 154
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 3
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
2. Chorro and Broad Streets Realignment
Committee Comments:
Matt Quaglino questions the feasibility of realigning Chorro and Broad.
Russ Brown wants to make sure the alternative is evaluated with consideration of
protecting residential streets from further traffic as the primary criteria.
Sandra Rowley expressed concerns about pulling traffic from higher-density housing in
the area from Santa Rosa Street to neighborhood streets of Broad and Chorro. She
also expressed concerns about late night bar traffic coming back through those
neighborhoods to the Boysen developments.
Carla Saunders expressed concerns about a tourist gateway at Santa Rosa and Foothill
that will funnel traffic down Chorro and Broad Streets. She supports an overpass to
connect across Santa Rosa but has concerns about re-aligning or closing Boysen.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Bremer, to
forward alternative 2-3 (Chorro and Broad re-alignment) for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 9:2 vote.
3. CA 1 and US 101 intersection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, presented a description of the current
alignment of hook ramps to Highway 101 in existing neighborhoods and the option of
redesigning a Hwy 1/101 interchange and closing the smaller ramps. He also clarified
Caltrans role in the process and indicated that the state agency would not be able to
force the City to close the smaller ramps.
Committee Comments:
Committee members questioned the impact of the larger interchange on Olive Street
businesses and the changes to circulation patterns created by closing and consolidating
on/off ramps.
PH1 - 155
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 4
Committee Member Juhnke commented on the importance of the Route 1/Hwy 101
intersection from a tourism standpoint.
Committee Member Crotser indicated that there may be unanticipated impacts to
tourism due to closure of smaller ramps in that the current configuration brings travelers
directly to the Mission and the downtown area. He observed that a way-finding signage
program would be a key component of a new interchange.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Quaglino
to forward alternative 3-2 for further evaluation, including impacts to residential streets
and the need for a signage program.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
4. Broad Street and 101 ramps
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the option to close the ramps to Hwy
101 from both sides of Broad Street. This option is only available if the interchange
discussed in alternative #3 occurs.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Juhnke indicated a desire to see a connection across Hwy 101 at
Broad for pedestrians and bikes.
Hudson says bike plan shows a connection further to the south.
Member Rowley questions whether a bike connection is needed at Broad when Chorro
connection is available one block to the east.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson to forward alternative 4-2 for evaluation with the addition of a bike and
pedestrian overpass at this location.
PH1 - 156
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 5
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
6. Transit Center Location
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson presented the transit center alternative as a
question of whether this is the appropriate location for this facility and indicated that the
graphics showed that the center works regardless of whether the traffic is one way or
two way on Higuera Street.
Public Comment:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, reminded the Task Force of the students’ design for the
transit center which he presented on July 1st. Mr. Jud expressed a preference to locate
the transit center on the Shell Station property and to close the surrounding streets to
vehicular traffic other than buses. He prefers to retain valuable land development and
use the public right-of-way for buses, bicycles and pedestrians.
Committee Comments:
Chair Meyer expressed a preference for two-way traffic on Higuera Street to create
different circulation downtown.
Committee Member Juhnke questioned whether the slide showing the existing condition
should also include the current location of the transit center adjacent to City Hall and the
County building.
Staff Member Hudson acknowledged that the existing condition should include both
sites – the current development on Higuera as well as the existing transit center
location.
Chair Meyer expressed a strong desire to study location of the transit center within the
public right of way.
Committee Member Crotser indicated the Downtown Concept Plan shows strong
pedestrian connections across Santa Rosa.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Brown to
forward an alternative that looks at this site/block of Higuera/Santa Rosa/Monterey for
the location for the transit center and consider use of both public and private property.
PH1 - 157
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 6
The evaluation is to consider ideas from student projects and the Downtown Concept
Plan.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
7. Broad Street “Dogleg”
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson discussed the options for the area.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed circulation impacts of full street closures and whether
temporary closures associated with events was more appropriate. The Committee
discussed with staff the description of a “woonerf” and noticing and comments from
those potentially impacted by street changes.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comment:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, indicated that street closures should occur where people
are. He recommends closing a two-block area of Higuera Street for a trial period.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Bremer to
forward alternatives 7-2 and 7-3 using a woonerf concept and not full closure of the
streets for further evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
8. High/Pismo and Higuera Intersection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the circulation challenges associated
with the current configuration of the streets
PH1 - 158
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 7
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Rowley suggested elongating the signal cones and new or longer
crosswalk signals where needed to address circulation issues.
Staff Member Hudson indicated that the signal housings were being modified but that it
didn’t address the issue of awkward intersections and impacts to pedestrians and
bicycles.
Committee members clarified that option 8-3 would retain Pismo as a one-way street
and not convert a portion to two-way traffic. They also confirmed that Walker Street
would remain a two-way street.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson to forward alternative 8-3 for further evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Saunders, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Whitney
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 9:2 vote.
9. Madonna and Higuera Intersection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the option of aligning Madonna to
Bridge Street.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Juhnke expressed support for evaluating the alternative connection
but without using roundabouts.
Committee Member Rowley described support for the current configuration because it
facilitates traffic movement turning from Higuera to Madonna without the need to stop at
a signal.
Committee Member Bremer indicated the more square intersection alignment assists
bicycle and pedestrian movement across Higuera and Madonna.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
PH1 - 159
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 8
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Quaglino,
to forward alternative 9-2 for further evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Saunders, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Whitney
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 9:2 vote.
10. Bishop Street Extension
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, explained that the current Circulation Element
contains a bridge across the train tracks at Bishop Street to accommodate all modes of
traffic. The alternative to the current condition is to evaluate the impact of eliminating
the connection.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Rowley expressed concern about impacts of a vehicular connection
to the existing neighborhoods and supports a connection for pedestrians and bikes only.
Committee Member Crotser expressed an interest in seeing reconstruction of the
roundhouse incorporated into the design of the structure that is built.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comment:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, introduced the idea of induced demand where building
the vehicular bridge will bring traffic into the neighborhoods.
On motion by Committee Member Quaglino, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson, to evaluate three options: 1. A bridge for all modes of traffic; 2. A bridge for
bicycles and pedestrians only; and 3. Elimination of any connection at Bishop Street.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
11. 11 & 12 Victoria Avenue Connection and Broad Street circulation
PH1 - 160
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 9
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson discussed the potential circulation connections
and changes in the area. Staff Member Murry clarified that options 11-2 and 11-3 are
not mutually exclusive and that input from the workshop should be considered in light of
how the options were presented.
Committee Comments:
Committee members questioned connectivity across Broad Street and potential access
restrictions.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Goetz, seconded by Committee Member Whitney, to
forward alternatives 12-2 and 12-3 for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney
NOES: None
RECUSED: Chairperson Meyer
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 10:0 vote (Meyer recused).
13. Orcutt Road Overpass
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, described the alternative to evaluate removal
of the grade separated crossing currently included in the Circulation Element. He noted
that train traffic is currently about seven trains/day which represents a decrease since
the Circulation Element was adopted. Staff is still seeking information from the
Railroads regarding anticipated future train traffic.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed how grade separation would affect local streets and
bicycle connectivity.
Committee Member Richardson reminded the Task Force that future traffic will grow in
this area due to planned development in the Orcutt Area, additional development at
Laurel Creek, and build-out of community.
Public Comments:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, indicated that another east-west connection exists at
Tank Farm Road.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
PH1 - 161
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 10
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Whitney to
forward alternative 13-1 eliminating the overpass on Orcutt Road for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
15. Prado Overpass/Interchange
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson presented circulation information regarding
current need for an east-west connection and impacts to existing interchanges at Los
Osos Valley and Madonna Roads.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Quaglino indicated that if an interchange is needed now, there is no
doubt that it will be required in the future as more development occurs over time and
recommends keeping the full interchange as the preferred alternative.
Chair Meyer questioned whether the upcoming upgrade to the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange affects the need for a full interchange at Prado.
Task Force Member Juhnke wants to keep the focus on the alternative of a full
interchange.
Community Development Director Johnson indicates a desire to see modeling of traffic
impacts with both an overpass and full interchange options.
Committee Member Bremer indicated that connectivity options associated with
alternative 16 may impact whether the Task Force supports an overpass versus an
interchange.
Chair Meyer would like to see an overpass reserved for non-vehicular traffic to see how
it will affect the transit model.
Committee Member Juhnke will not support an overpass alternative that doesn’t
accommodate cars.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, expressed a desire for an overpass that serves
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes only. He offered that this facility would serve as
PH1 - 162
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 11
a gateway to city and would represent a forward-thinking community. Mr. Jud shared
that traffic activity is staying level because the younger generation is not as car-centric.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Rowley to
forward alternatives 15-2 (current plan) and 15-3 (overpass only) for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, and Whitney
NOES: Chairperson Meyer and Committee Members Brown and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 8:3 vote.
16. Froom Ranch/Calle Joaquin
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson discussed the connections from Froom Ranch
Way extension and Calle Joaquin. Since development on the Dalidio property is
unknown at this moment, it isn’t possible to describe specific locations of potential
facilities. Input from Task Force can be general as to needed circulation connections.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed difficulty of making recommendations on circulation
without knowing what development proposal may be coming forward.
Chair Meyer prefers to move Calle Joaquin away from Hwy 101 frontage to preserve
visual open space/agriculture corridor to be more consistent with character of
community.
Committee Member Saunders expressed concern about moving open space and
agriculture.
Committee Member Crotser favors limiting the amount of roads taking up space on
property.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson to forward alternatives that evaluate whether one or more connections are
needed to provide an additional north-south connection between Los Osos Valley Road
and Prado/Dalidio; and whether an internal east-west or loop road is needed to connect
those roads on the Dalidio property.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
PH1 - 163
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 12
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
17. Vachell Road to Higuera
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the challenges and options for
Vachell Road.
Committee Comments:
Committee members clarified interaction between this alternative and the Buckley Road
connection to Higuera. Staff indicated that closing Vachell is not a viable option if
Buckley does not connect to S. Higuera.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Rowley, seconded by Committee Member Juhnke, to
evaluate 17-2 as a “back up” alternative in the event Buckley Road does not connect to
S. Higuera.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Richardson
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 10:0 vote (Richardson recused).
18. Tank farm Road to Buckley
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson presented the concept of an additional north-
south connection between Tank Farm Road and Buckley which may be beneficial in the
future to address connectivity for future development.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Saunders favors alternative 18-2 over 18-3 due to creek crossing
issues and wildlife corridors.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Goetz, seconded by Committee Member Juhnke, to
forward alternative 18-2 for evaluation.
PH1 - 164
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 13
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Richardson
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 10:0 vote (Richardson recused).
19. LOVR to Buckley Road and Bypass connection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the alternatives and clarified that
alternatives 19-2 and 19-3 were not mutually exclusive. The workshop input reflected
this by identifying a third alternative to combine both alternatives as the preferred one.
Committee Comments:
Committee members had a brief discussion regarding benefits of both alternatives.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to
forward alternative 19-2 and 19-3 for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Richardson
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 10:0 vote (Richardson recused).
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Eugene Jud presented a two-page handout to the Task Force showing an alternative
alignment and design width for Prado Road. He questioned the need of a four-lane
Prado Road because of the anticipated size and capacity of Tank Farm and Buckley
Roads.
Committee Member Juhnke requested information regarding future Task Force
composition given Chairperson Meyer’s impending resignation from the City Planning
Commission and his role as the Planning Commission member participating on the TF-
LUCE.
Community Development Director Johnson explained that the item was not advertised
as part of the Task Force agenda for the evening and hence the Task Force could not
take any formal action. He explained that the Council would be providing policy
PH1 - 165
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 14
direction on August 20th regarding the future composition of the task force. Committee
members expressed their strong desire to not have new members added to the Task
Force and asked Director Johnson to communicate that desire to the Council.
SET TIME FOR NEXT TF-LUCE MEETING:
September 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
William Kavadas
Recording Secretary
PH1 - 166
Attachment 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 24, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Charles
Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, and Vice-Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Chairperson Michael Draze
Staff: Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director Kim Murry, Senior Planner
Phil Dunsmore, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Natural
Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Andrea
Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of June 26, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Eugene Judd, SLO, presented a gift to Vice-Chair Meyer for his work with the City and
for all he has done for Cal Poly.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 276 Tank Farm Road. ER 92-08: Introduction and review of the Draft EIR for the
Chevron Tank Farm remediation and development project: Chevron Corporation,
applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission receive a presentation and public testimony and provide feedback on the
Chevron project Draft EIR. He noted that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce had
been received and was distributed to the Commission just prior to the meeting.
Commr. Multari clarified with staff that the development agreement is a part of the
project.
Commr. Multari asked if all open areas will be restored and whether non-native species
in areas not proposed for remediation will be removed.
Mr. Dunsmore noted that the project description does not include addressing areas of
the site that are not proposed for remediation or development.
Commr. Fowler asked why no homes are planned in the project area.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the project area is in an airport safety zone. PH1 - 167
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Sutton, San Luis Obispo, stated the project provides an opportunity for inclusion of
recreation for youth.
John Spatafore, San Luis Obispo, noted the opportunity for recreation, biking, and
development of a commercial area that would attract light manufacturing. He stated
that completion of Prado Road will improve emergency response times and provide
better transportation flow.
Doug Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, owner of a business at Tank Farm and Santa Fe,
reconsidered his opposition to the roundabout, viewing it as one of several workable
possibilities. He stated that the traffic flow all along Tank Farm Road should be
considered as a whole.
Dan Rivoire, Executive Director of the San Luis Bike Coalition, supports bike path
development but stated that he does not think a class 1 and class 2 bike lane need to
be parallel to each other on Tank Farm and that a protected class 2 would be preferred.
Connectivity issues within the project and throughout the city need to be examined,
especially the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and the roundabout. He said
the Bike Coalition is concerned but supports going forward.
Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about the beneficial economic impact
for the community and found nothing in the environmental impact report on that subject.
He noted the opportunity to generate more head-of-household jobs.
Ken Kienow, San Luis Obispo, supported bike lanes protected from traffic. He supports
development of the project under City jurisdiction.
Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, commended Chevron for taking on the project but
expressed concern that the draft EIR is deficient. She noted the need to emphasize
alternative modes of transportation and connectivity between Los Osos Valley Road
and Broad Street for bicycles. She pointed out that there was no mention of how
bicyclists will be affected by intersections and additional lanes on Tank Farm Road.
She stated that the plan has a motor vehicle bias.
Myron “Skip” Amerine, San Luis Obispo, supports bike lanes totally separated from
traffic and addressing complete streets. He stated that adding lanes to Tank Farm will
only cause higher speeds. He also expressed concern about concrete oil reservoir
floors and soil that will be brought in.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, was concerned about bike safety with the roundabout,
and about the potential for creating a “little Los Angeles.” He stated that Broad Street to
the airport is a totally car-oriented route with no public transportation to the airport. He
asked if bicycle parking is addressed in the draft EIR.
Ty Safreno, owner of a property next to the project; was concerned about infrastructure
needs vs wants. He requested the source of data presented in support of roundabouts.
He stated that San Luis Obispo has an aging population that may not deal well with PH1 - 168
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 3
roundabouts which he described as being contradictory for traffic flow in an industrial
area. He supports the development of a business park to cluster industrial businesses.
Tim Walters, principal with RRM Design Group, stated that AASP identifies a signal as
the ultimate solution with a roundabout only an interim solution. He noted that the
AASP breakdown of costs indicated that signalization was less expensive by about one
million dollars. He noted that bicyclists and pedestrians would be negatively impacted
by a roundabout in this particular location.
Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the Chamber’s
support for annexation because it is critical for this corridor to be a part of the City. She
urged the City to enter into a suitable agreement with Chevron.
Deborah Hoffman, co-owner of a business at Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe with her
husband expressed concern with the roundabout the handling of traffic from Broad
Street to South Higuera. She stated that calming traffic to 15 mph will result in gridlock.
She noted a need for careful traffic study. She supported the proposed bike lanes but
saw a need to address bicycle traffic moving north and south.
Dawn Legg, San Luis Obispo, encouraged quick action for economic feasibility.
Neal Havlik, former city employee who worked on open space, supported the project,
and the deletion of the Unocal collector road. He stated that the open spaces make up
a majority of the project but are not clearly dealt with in terms of dedication. He
supported a conservation easement to preserve these open spaces.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about the appropriateness of the roundabout
and how it would work in this location.
Commr. Multari was concerned about accurate project description (including the
development agreement), in order to have a complete evaluation of potential
environmental impacts, and noted that an addendum or supplement may be required
later. He commended the draft EIR as a very good basis for the project. He stated
there is a need to analyze different forms of transportation. He asked Senior Planner
Dunsmore to elaborate on the presence of asbestos.
Mr. Dunsmore stated there is a potential for naturally-occurring asbestos in serpentine
rock on a hill in the project area, and mitigation is designed to minimize health risks.
Commr. Fowler commended the project as part of the city. He expressed concern
about well contamination if the project were to be developed in the county. He was also
concerned about cultural impacts and the open space issue.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the goal is to have it become public open space.
He noted that some areas need no remediation, but it would be appropriate to address
the non-native invasive plant species. PH1 - 169
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 4
Director Derek Johnson stated that the final project EIR will be clear on this issue.
Diane Kukol, Regional Water Quality Control Board, stated that it is highly unlikely that
there would be any drawing down of oily material into the water supply. She stated that
connection to the sewer line along Tank Farm Road for waste water disposal is
dependent on annexation.
Commr. Fowler stated that while there is no housing proposed, there is a nexus
between job creation and housing. He agreed with the need for a buffer for bicyclists.
He commended the draft EIR.
Commr. Stevenson gave compliments to staff on an excellent draft EIR. He
appreciated public comments about bike trails.
Commr. Larson stated a need to revisit the wetlands issue about whether environmental
impacts are Class 1 or 2.
Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, stated that many state agencies will be involved
in the future but the draft EIR comes first.
Vice-Chair Meyer, in general, expressed support for the future positive outcomes. He
pointed out that the draft EIR is inconsistent with the city bicycle plan and treats
bicycling only as recreation. He noted that Class 1 bike paths are dealt with by Parks &
Recreation while Public Works deals with Class 2 paths although, in San Luis Obispo,
bicycle journeys often combine business and recreation. He stated protected bike lanes
along Tank Farm should be a hybrid of Class 1 and 2. He stated there is a need to
address how to get across Tank Farm Road at points between Broad and Higuera. He
expressed concern about excess traffic capacity and excessive maintenance costs
when the Buckley Road and Prado Road extensions are added to lane expansion on
Tank Farm Road. He noted the need to consider all modes of transportation and ways
for pedestrians and bicycles to cross Tank Farm Road. He supports the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan and indicated that Chevron’s project will need some adjustment.
Commr. Multari noted that the EIR process allows changes if the City makes findings
that there are community values that outweigh impacts. He gave the example of the
community deciding to not add lanes to Tank Farm Road and accepting the impact of
heavier traffic.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
2. City-Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Study session
to review and discuss Task Force recommended Land Use and Circulation
alternatives for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; City of San Luis
Obispo - Community Development Dept., applicant (Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further evaluation by the
Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and provide input and
revisions as appropriate.
PH1 - 170
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 5
Commissioners discussed how to handle Vice-Chair Meyer’s need to be recused on
one item concerning the Johnson/Broad area.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Larson, that the item of
Johnson/Broad area be taken as the last discussion item of the meeting.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Meyer
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Multari clarified the nature of alternatives.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendations will
receive high-level review and be presented to Council in October. The City Council will
select a “preferred alternative” to the current general plan that will subsequently proceed
through full environmental review.
Slide 1 Foothill area: TF-LUCE recommendations include University Square transition
from general retail to mixed use. Properties on the southeast side of Foothill are also
included for mixed uses. Two sites owned by the Diocese of Monterey were not
recommended for changes to their current land-use designations. The Old Pacheco
School site was recommended by the TF-LUCE to consider for residential and park use.
Circulation recommendations include consideration of realignment of Chorro, Broad,
and Boysen as well as a separated bike and pedestrian connection across Santa Rosa
Street.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Sharon Whitney, resident of Pacheco School neighborhood, requested removing the old
Pacheco School site from consideration and was opposed to medium to high-density
residential development for that site. She would have supported an alternative for use
of the site as a park.
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, supported increasing building heights in the
Santa Rosa/Foothill area and thought the area might be appropriate for a research park.
She stated that the Santa Rosa corridor is a gateway to the City and is an appropriate
location for tourism-supporting commercial uses. She spoke in favor of designating
Chorro as the alternative bike route to downtown and new, medium-density apartments
with a transition to low-density residential for the Old Pacheco School site.
Geoff Straw, Director of San Luis Obispo RTA, cyclist, spoke in support of a
pedestrian/bicycle over/underpass for Santa Rosa Street. He advocated considering all
forms of transportation.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, commended the work done by staff with some
reservations.
PH1 - 171
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 6
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Multari thought that B-4 was the most sensible and wanted the whole area
considered for mixed use. He supports policy discussions about parking and height
requirements. He was not in favor of a research park in this area. He noted that
planning for the Pacheco School site may be impacted by Cal Poly’s master plan. He
stated that the shape and size of the park at this site should be flexible and that a policy
discussion was needed. He supported TF-LUCE recommendations for potential land
use and circulation changes in the area.
Commr. Stevenson spoke about B-4 and expressed a desire to see flexibility in mixed
use that could accommodate horizontal or other types of mixed use. He supported
serving student needs in this area. He emphasized the importance of understanding
the parks needs of the neighborhood around the Old Pacheco site. He expressed
opposition to the Chamber position for this site.
Commr. Multari stated that Cal Poly is considering building more housing with
commercial businesses included across the street. He suggested that perhaps a policy
decision, not a land use decision, is needed for the Old Pacheco site.
Commr. Fowler commended the work done by the Land Use Committee. He supported
the pedestrian/bicycle alternative and residential development for the Pacheco School
site.
Commr. Meyer expressed concern about losing school sites. He agreed that the shape
of the park is only an approximation at this point.
Deputy Director Murry stated that Cal Poly is planning a 1400-bed housing expansion
on a campus parking lot across the street from the Old Pacheco site. She stated that
the City is looking forward 20-35 years to anticipate future community needs, however,
the school district may have more immediate needs even though they have yet to
formulate plans for the property.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations with consideration of the policy direction noted in the Commission’s
discussion.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Slide 2: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives shown
on slide 2. These involve exploring full or event-related closure of Broad and Monterey PH1 - 172
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 7
streets near Mission Plaza; potential freeway ramp closures in neighborhoods and
expansion on interchange at US 101 and SR 1; location of the Transit Center on
Higuera near Santa Rosa; conversion of Marsh and Higuera to two-way streets between
Santa Rosa and Johnson; and re-alignment of Bianchi Lane to Pismo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION:
David Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, indicated that on Pismo and Buchon Streets, much
of the traffic is cut-through and not local. He supports shifting traffic from residential
area to arterial streets. He expressed concern about the Johnson Avenue Housing
Project’s traffic impacts to Johnson, Pismo, and Buchon and supports better utilization
of Marsh Street.
Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, asked if there would be a right-hand turn lane on Higuera
Street onto High Street. He supported two-way traffic on Higuera Street and Marsh
Street.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, stated he had mixed feelings about the process. He
indicated the June workshop had a carnival atmosphere and that people didn’t
understand what they were voting on. Problems aren’t defined and there hasn’t been
criteria listed for how to evaluate alternatives. He opposes one-way streets in
residential areas, a large interchange, and feels that Higuera Street should be
pedestrian only.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Larson stated that it is convenient to have local ramps to get on and off
freeways.
Commr. Stevenson supported the alternatives with the caveat that he is not entirely in
support of 7-3 – the larger closing of Monterey and Broad Streets.
.
Commr. Multari noted advantages of reducing traffic on Broad Street near Mission
Plaza. He stated that neighborhood on/off freeway ramps are inadequate but that he
has concerns about creating one large freeway interchange. He noted that 7-3 has
issues concerning access to businesses and to the parking structure. He supported a
policy discussion of what type of closure may be appropriate for this area.
Commr. Fowler stated that closing the off-ramp at Broad Street, is troubling as it is a
direct route to the airport, the Mission, and Downtown.
Commr. Meyer supported one-way traffic on Broad Street, diagonal parking, and closing
the street for events, options that did not get into the TF-LUCE recommendation and
were recommended by Ken Schwartz.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to forward the
LUCE recommendations to the City Council but with a policy discussion about the
nature and phasing of closure in 7-3
PH1 - 173
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 8
AYES: Commrs. Multari and Stevenson
NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion failed on a 2-3 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Fowler, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternatives 3-2, 4-2, 5-3, 6-2, and 8-3 (without alternatives 7-2
and 7-3).
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternative 7-3 with inclusion of policy discussion regarding
desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment of the streets.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Slide 3: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area (continued)
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives for
potential re-alignment of Madonna to form an intersection at Bridge Street across
Higuera. Deputy Director Murry described the Task Force recommendations for policy
discussions to address Upper Monterey, Downtown, and Mid-Higuera areas but that the
Task Force did not recommend land use designation changes for these areas. She
also explained the TF-LUCE recommendation to explore both Tourist Commercial and
some form of Mixed use for the Caltrans site at Higuera and Madonna.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Stevenson supports a large-scale conference center at the Cal Trans site. He
indicated that the re-alignment of Madonna may be OK but that Mixed Use is probably
not appropriate for this location.
PH1 - 174
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 9
Commr. Meyer expressed a need to study the options of a conference center or
commercial use.
Commr. Fowler agreed with Commr. Stevenson and asked if the Chamber had any
comments.
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber has been an advocate
for a conference center for a long time and agreed with the Task Force findings
regarding mixed use.
Commr. Larson stated that the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street is
awkward but does work. He added that this is a great location for a conference center
but asked if realignment of Madonna Road would reduce the size of the Cal Trans
property. He stated that use and circulation are linked closely. He thought the City
could do without the realignment.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the alignment concept was offered by a participant at
the December workshop. She further noted that the Cal Trans site is 13 acres in size
and that conference centers usually require approximately 4-6 acres.
Commr. Multari agreed with Commr. Larson about the intersection and was inclined
more to support H-3 but would like a policy discussion.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternatives E, F and G; and H-3 with a policy discussion that
would address circulation options and the possibility of incorporating more public open
space. Land uses to serve as gateway uses on the Caltrans site should include a
conference center and other uses compatible with a conference center.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, and seconded by Commr. Multari, to continue to
August 14.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
PH1 - 175
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 10
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast – Deputy Director Murry highlighted the August 14th and 28th
meetings to include the continued review of TF-LUCE recommended
alternatives, an update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and a Tentative
Parcel Map proposed for 323-353 Grand Ave.
b. Deputy Director Murry stated that the City Council will consider vacancies on
the Task Force on August 20th and asked the Planning Commission to appoint
a member in the event the Council opts to replace Commissioner Meyer as the
Planning Commissioner on the Task Force.
4. Commission
a. Commr. Multari agreed to serve on the TF-LUCE in the event the Council
wishes to appoint a Commissioner to fill a Task Force vacancy.
b. Commr. Meyer noted his resignation from the Planning Commission and his
desire to continue serving on the TF-LUCE as a resident.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, 2013.
Ted Green
Interim Supervising Administrative Assistant
PH1 - 176
Attachment 11
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson, 1 Position
Vacant, Vice-Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael
Draze
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Community
Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, Assistant
Planner Marcus Carloni, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson,
Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum, Assistant City Attorney
Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Approval/amendment of the minutes of July 24, 2013, was continued due to a lack of
four members in attendance that were present on July 24, 2013.
ELECTION: Commr. Larson was unanimously elected as Vice-Chairperson.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 323 Grand Avenue. MS/ER 25-13: Review of minor subdivision of 323 and 353
Grand Avenue to create four parcels with exceptions to the minimum lot depth and
area requirement and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;
R-1 zone; Ryan Petetit/John Belsher, applicants. (Marcus Carloni)
Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara recused herself based on a conflict of
interest. She stated that she has not had any communication with the Commission on
this item.
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of the Draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, based on findings and
subject to conditions which he outlined.
PH1 - 177
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Belsher, applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Steve Delmartini, SLO, supported the project and infill development in general, praised
the parking provided, and stated it would upgrade the neighborhood.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chair Draze was concerned about setbacks and the amount of parking.
Commr. Stevenson noted that lots 2 and 3 adjoin a shallow drainage basin and
wondered if this would be usable outdoor space.
Commr. Larson discussed the project’s density.
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, stated that, when a lot is substandard, the main
issue is compatibility with the neighborhood. He noted there are many substandard R-1
lots in the area.
Commr. Stevenson supported the project as a well-designed, efficient use of land. He
expressed concern about the cost to the subdivider language in finding #6.
Commr. Multari discussed the neighborhood density and lot sizes in terms of
compatibility. He supported prohibiting secondary dwelling units.
Commr. Larson supported this project over individual development of the lots due to
better access and parking and the elimination of secondary dwelling units.
Commr. Multari discussed the project’s density and questioned the number of bedrooms
that would be allowed if the lot sizes were proposed in the R-2 zone.
Commr. Draze supported the project as a better option than three residences with five
bedrooms and secondary dwelling units that might result in higher density. He stated
that the project is consistent with a single-family neighborhood.
Commr. Multari stated that this property is 1.5 blocks from Cal Poly and thus it is likely
to be rented to students. He noted that the General Plan encourages student housing
close to Cal Poly.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern with the unit size.
Mr. Carloni, in response to a question about R-2 density, stated three-bedroom
residences would be allowed per lot if the proposed lot sizes were in the R-2 zone.
PH1 - 178
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 3
Commr. Larson commended the design of the project and stated that this development
will be compatible with residences in this area.
Commr. Multari expressed concern about vehicles backing out onto Grand Avenue and
wanted the applicant to consider one driveway for the project.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Vice-Chair Larson to approve the
project per staff recommendation with the following modifications:
1. Modify finding #5 to read as follows “…standards codified in the Subdivision
Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land, and
the property…”
2. Add condition #5 which reads “Secondary Dwelling Units shall not be allowed.”
3. Add condition #6 which reads “The Architectural Review Commission shall
consider one driveway accessing all parcels on the project site resulting in
elimination of backing out onto Grand Avenue.”
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
2. City-Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Continued
review of Task Force-recommended alternatives to the Land Use Element update;
City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
continue to review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further
evaluation by the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and
provide input and revisions as appropriate.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 4 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR
AREA):
Steve Devencenzi, SLOCOG, stated that the Prado Road interchange does impact
SLOCOG. He can see justification for some regional funds for access to the airport via
Prado Road to Broad. He noted that SLOCOG is currently conducting a mobility study
in the county. He stated that closure of ramps and going to one access point for 101
will be very expensive and, rather than stating that ramps are to be closed, it may be
preferable to plan a complete analysis of all the ramps, with the possibility that ramps in
existence may be redesigned. He noted that going to one access point may require
widening Santa Rosa.
PH1 - 179
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 4
Jenna Smith, SLO, Executive Director of Central Coast Grown, noted that the general
plan calls for preserving agricultural properties. Central Coast Grown supported
retaining fifty percent of the Dalidio property as agricultural land.
Brian Engleton, City Farm, supported option L-5 as it preserves fifty percent of the land
as agricultural. He stated that the planned medium and high-density housing will serve
the purpose of connecting people to their local food supply. He supported considering
the impact on agricultural lands when planning new roads.
Amy Sinsheimer, SLO, member of Central Coast Grown, supports L-5 over options that
might preserve even more open space because the adjacent housing would connect
residents to agriculture. She noted the need to optimally use the agricultural land.
Rosemary Wilvert SLO, member of the City Farm group, emphasized the need for
sustainable farmland in light of climate change. She noted that the land use plan and
the master plan for the Calle Joaquin Preserve require that fifty percent be reserved for
agriculture. She stated that the City Farm working group advocates extending Calle
Joaquin to Dalidio Road but understands that either 15-3 or 15-2 will be passed and
therefore prefers 15-3.
Karen Newman, representative for the City Farm working group, opposed the extension
of Froom Ranch Way because it would cut off access to City Farm. She stated that the
extension of the Bob Jones Bike Trail would preserve access. She supported
contiguous open spaces that would bring people to, not through, them. She stated that
the extension of Calle Joaquin should be parallel to 101.
Eugene Jud, SLO, suggested the Prado overpass be just a bicycle/pedestrian bridge.
He noted the need for planning for people who will be 45 in 2035. He maintained that
vehicular traffic is not growing in many locations and that fewer young people have
driver licenses today.
Peter Schwartz, SLO, Cal Poly physics professor, supported high-density housing and
safety for bicycles and pedestrians. He supported a bicycle and pedestrian-only
overpass for Prado Road.
Grace Morgan, SLO, supported a bicycle/pedestrian-only overpass and making the city
safe for bicycles and pedestrians. She stated that people will adjust to what is built.
Shahram Shariati, SLO, former student, noted the need for more housing, especially
affordable housing. He maintained that increases in traffic volume come from people
being forced to live outside the city due to high prices. He stated that people are turning
against transportation by car.
Marshall Ochylski, representative of the developer who has the Dalidio property in
escrow, supported mixed use with primary emphasis on residential, especially entry and
workforce housing. He clarified the definition of preserving fifty percent of the land as
meaning open space and/or agricultural. He supported the mitigation of that fifty
PH1 - 180
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 5
percent with offsite property exchanges if there is an opportunity. He supported
continued consideration of circulation options.
Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated he does not know what entry and workforce housing
actually means. He expressed concern about airport flight paths in relation to housing
planned.
Linda Sealy, SLO, noted that there will never be more class 1 soil on earth and thus
there is a need to preserve this land for agriculture over building shopping malls or
housing. She opposed the concept of off-site mitigation to meet the fifty percent
requirement.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported the Prado Road interchange
for current needs and future development. She stated the area is ideal for mixed use,
medium and high-density housing, hospitality space, bicycle access, and parks.
.
Erik Justesen, business owner, supported mixed use and a move away from large
commercial. He noted that with a limited amount of space within the city limits, trying to
set aside a sizeable amount of open space would be problematic. He stated that cross
circulation, such as the extension of Calle Joaquin, etc., is needed to get to shopping.
Eric Meyer, SLO, left his bicycle at the front of the Council Chamber as an exhibit.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 4 OF THE PRESENTATION
(MADONNA/LOVR AREA):
Commr. Larson stated that the Prado interchange would serve an important east/west
traffic flow function and facilitate moving traffic on and off 101. He noted that if this
interchange is eliminated, there must be a demonstration of where that traffic will go and
what impacts it will have.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about how CalTrans would view a Prado Road
overpass vs. an interchange and whether the city would be required to design a full
interchange even if the City opted to pursue the overpass instead of the interchange.
Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum indicated that design of the facility is also
impacted by underlying issues of access and space. He noted that grading for an
overpass might result in flood waters on Hwy 101.
Commr. Multari thanked Eugene Jud for his report. He noted that medium/high-density
residential on the Dalidio property may not fit with the current Airport Land Use Plan.
He stated the City should not be constrained by existing land use categories, but
consider designations such as mixed-use plan 1 or 2, etc., with a focus on policy. He
supported consideration of offsite mitigation of open space as part of the policy
discussions.
PH1 - 181
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 6
Commr. Draze agreed that the Commission should not get too detailed at the general
plan level and that new designations may be helpful. He stated that he is hesitant to
remove circulation options for the future whether car, bicycle, or pedestrian.
Commr. Stevenson agreed that discussion of details needs to be at the policy level.
Community Development Director Derek Johnson stated that the alternatives will be
modeled and can be in the general plan for many years without immediate action.
Commr. Draze noted that if an alternative is not in the plan, then it is precluded from
being implemented.
Commr. Larson stated that modeling and understanding what deletion of the Prado
interchange would mean is important and that east/west circulation is a regional issue.
Commr. Draze supported the Task Force and Commission on residential development.
He noted that in one or two generations, transportation preferences will change.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that the L5 area (Dalidio) be designated
as a mixed-use planning area with policies to evaluate the appropriate mix of uses,
including agricultural open space at fifty percent and a residential component that is
consistent with applicable airport policies. The Commission further recommended that
circulation connections between Los Osos Valley Road and Dalidio be evaluated.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Commission
recommended to the City Council that both 15-2 and 15-3 (Prado overpass and
interchange) alternatives be evaluated.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 5 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR 2):
Shahram Shariati, SLO, suggested that areas already developed but empty, such as the
old New Frontiers site, be developed instead of open areas.
PH1 - 182
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 7
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 5 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Draze stated that some portion of the Madonna property would be designated
mixed use, to be decided at the policy level, but not the entire property. He noted that
the hillsides are not being considered for active uses. He noted the need for a bicycle
connection to Target and onto Froom Ranch. He questioned the inclusion of office
space on K-3/the Sunset Drive-in to Prado area.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that Site 14 (Oceanaire connection to
Froom Ranch) be enhanced for bike and pedestrian connections but that no vehicular
connections be made; that K-3 (Sunset Drive-in to Prado Site) be designated for a mix
of uses with policy direction to guide appropriate mix; that M-3 and M-4 (Froom Ranch
and LOVR) be considered through policy discussion to support a non-residential buffer
along roads but to consider Medium-High Density residential development and park at
this location; that Task Force directional items for O-3 (Madonna) be included in the
policy discussion but not require a Planned Development overlay; and that N-4 (Calle
Joaquin) be addressed through policies that will call out the appropriate mix of uses.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 6 OF THE PRESENTATION (SOUTH HIGUERA/
AIRPORT AREA):
Stephen Peck, SLO, project manager for the Avila Ranch property, discussed their
efforts to review the Buckley Road connection to Higuera. He indicated they are
working with the County, the City, and Caltrans to determine connections for pedestrian
and bike connections to the Octagon Barn and alignment of Buckley Road.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber is in
agreement with LUCE Task Force recommendations.
Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated that the Tank Farm/Broad area needs residential
development and that Avila Ranch is a circulation nightmare that needs evaluating.
Erik Justesen, business owner, indicated that Avila Ranch is isolated and connections
to the retail sites to the north is important. He supports the Buckley connection to
Higuera and stated that longer term, the City should look at options to expand outside of
the current city limits – perhaps south of Buckley Road.
PH1 - 183
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 8
Eugene Jud, SLO, supported the Buckley Road connection to LOVR. He stated that the
Marigold Center/Broad/Tank Farm area could be much denser. He suggested a
roundabout at Tank Farm and Broad and developing pedestrian connections above
streets.
Eric Meyer, SLO, indicated that the Avila Ranch concepts require Chevron’s
participation to connect the bike network to that area. He emphasized the need to
improve pedestrian and bike circulation in the Tank Farm/Broad area.
There were no further comments made from the public.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr Stevenson, the Planning
Commission recommends the TF-LUCE recommendations for 17-2 (Vachel), 18-2
(north-south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley), 19-4 (Bypass and Buckley
connection to Higuera), P-5 (Residential/open-space mix near Los Verdes condos), Q-2
(policy to review MASP density), R-3 (mixed use at Broad/Tank Farm), and S-3 (Avila
Ranch concept) as a planning area with policy direction that will guide future
development.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 7 (JOHNSON/BROAD AREA) OF THE
PRESENTATION:
Steve Delmartini, SLO, supported upzoning the area between Lawrence and Mitchell on
the west side, previously changed from R-2 to R-1, R-2 again. He stated this area could
accommodate secondary dwellings behind existing dwellings.
Erik Justesen, business owner, supported the inclusion of the Broad Street plan. He
noted a need to connect the east and west sides of the city. He stated that more
railroad overcrossings were needed all the way to Orcutt Road but do not need to be
vehicular. He supported slowing Broad Street traffic.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported including the Broad Street
Area plan as part of the update. She stated that the Chamber is supportive of senior
housing and facilities in the area behind General Hospital.
Eugene Jud, SLO, commended the Broad Street plan and noted the need for more
pedestrian bridges over the railroad tracks. He stated that Bishop Street is very steep,
which makes it difficult to integrate with Santa Barbara Road with the Fire Department
facility there. He stated that the neighborhood would probably not support it.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PH1 - 184
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 9
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 7 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Stevenson supported keeping the railroad overpass at Orcutt due to concerns
of rail activity. He agreed that Bishop Street connection is steep and getting over the
railroad tracks and down would be difficult. He supported consideration of bikes and
pedestrian crossings, but not vehicles.
Commr. Draze supported keeping the Bishop Street connection in for consideration
along with the railroad overpass. He stated that the Commission needs to recommend
strongly that the City Council consider inclusion of the Broad Street plan.
Commr. Larson agreed with Commr. Stevenson in supporting the Orcutt road overpass
and predicted that more oil will be transported by train in the future. He agreed that the
Broad Street plan should be looked at again.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Larson, the Planning
Commission recommended the Council include evaluation of the consequences of
eliminating the Bishop Street bridge, withdraw the alternative of eliminating the Orcutt
Road overpass, provide policy direction for I-3 (area behind General Hospital), and
strongly endorsed the inclusion of the Broad Street Area plan with changes to address
removal of the McMillan/Duncan area and provisions for non-conforming uses as part of
the update.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
SLIDE 8 (PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS RECEIVED):
There were no comments made from the public.
There were no comments made from the Commission.
Planning Commission direction agreed with staff recommendation to develop policies to
guide evaluation of individual up-zoning requests.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Murry provided a forecast of items
scheduled for the August 28th and September 11th meetings.
PH1 - 185
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 10
4. Commission
a. Commr. Draze will miss the August 28, 2013, meeting.
b. The City Council will be appointing new Commissioners on September 3, 2013.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, 2013.
Ted Green
Interim Supervising Administrative Assistant
PH1 - 186
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
01 October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“LUCE”) UPDATE –
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm proudly represents the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (“School District”). As you
know, on their behalf, we have provided input to the Planning Commission as they reviewed the Task
Force recommendations for the School District’s properties – Site C. “Old” Pacheco Elementary and
Site M. Pacific Beach High School. We are in receipt of the Mayor’s recent correspondence and
appreciate her acknowledgement that the School District is a key partner in the community and accept
her request to provide additional feedback with regards to whether the proposed land use alternatives
further or hinder the District’s goals.
Pursuant to our recent meeting with you and Business Superintendent Pinkerton, and in light of the
upcoming Council hearing to determine the scope of the environmental document for the LUCE
process, please be advised of the following comments. While we clearly appreciate that the LUCE is a
long-range planning effort, we hope that this information will provide you and the Council with the
clear direction as to the disposition of the School District properties.
Site C – “Old” Pacheco Elementary
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended four different land use
scenarios for this property: 1) existing General Plan designation – Public Facilities; 2) Low-density
residential; 3) a combination of low-density and medium-density residential; and 4) Medium-density
residential with a fair portion of the property designated as park.
While the School District will soon embark upon a new student demographic statistical forecast, they
know that enrollment has increased by three percent over the past three years following a ten-year
steady decline in enrollment. Given this trend, it would be prudent to retain Pacheco Elementary at its
current General Plan designation, until such a determination has been made to convert it to another
use. While an even higher density residential land use than currently proposed in the LUCE
alternatives would seem appropriate, at this time it is the School District’s desire to eliminate
consideration of Site C from the LUCE and related environmental process.
PH1 - 187
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
01 October 2013
SLCUSD PROPERTIES – LUCE PROCESS
Page 2 of 2
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
Site M – Pacific Beach High School
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended four different land use
scenarios for this property: 1) existing General Plan designation – Public Facilities; 2) a combination
of low-density residential, commercial retail, office and a park; 3) Mixed-use (housing and
commercial) and a park; and 4) Medium high density residential and a park.
Based upon the age and condition of the existing structures, and the substantial increase in
incompatible commercial development along the Los Osos Valley Road corridor, the School District is
interested in placing this property in its Master Plan for Surplus Property and Revenue Enhancement
Program. Guidance to accomplish this is provided by the Education Code1 that codifies the procedures
for the disposition of real property.
Our analysis of the “best and highest use” for the property revealed that the Commercial Retail (CR)
land use category, that also allows for a maximum residential density of 36 units/acre (note that this
property is in the Airport Land Use Plan/Airport Safety Area S-2 that limits residential density to 12
units/acre), may be an appropriate land use designation given the context of the mix of uses in the
neighborhood. The School District would agree to changing the zoning to CR as part of the LUCE
process, as long as there is an acknowledgement that there is absolutely no interest on the School
District’s part to include a public park2 on the subject property.
We hope that this clarifies the School District’s position on the above-mentioned properties and will
allow you to complete your recommendation to the City Council. We will continue to monitor the
LUCE planning process. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to
contact us should you need any additional information.
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
c: Dr. Eric Prater, Superintendent SLCUSD
R. Pinkerton/Superintendent Business SLCUSD
T. Green, Esq.
12-0006/13-0031
1 See Education Code §17387‐17391 and §17455 – 17484.
2Through the negotiated agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo, all of the School District’s currently used
and unused school sites, as well as Sinsheimer Park, are operated as publicly accessible parks and recreational
facilities.
PH1 - 188
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
02 October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“LUCE”) UPDATE –
UNIVERSITY SQUARE, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD @ SANTA ROSA STREET
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm proudly represents Mr. Nicholas Tompkins/NKT Real Properties, LLC (“NKT”). NKT owns
the property known as University Square. While we have not provided public input to the Planning
Commission as they reviewed the Task Force recommendations for the subject properties – LUCE
Update Site B. Foothill Boulevard @ Santa Rosa Street or the Complete Streets 1. Pedestrian Access
Near Foothill Boulevard and 2. Vehicular Access Near Foothill Boulevard, we have conducted an
extensive search for a residential mixed-use development partner1 and with that search, completed a
fairly exhaustive and comprehensive economic feasibility analysis to design, permit and construct a
mixed-use (residential/commercial) project. The results were certainly enlightening, but at the same
time, extremely disappointing. Many factors contributed to the conclusion of infeasibility: land cost,
entitlement and permit fees; construction costs; and lastly, the ability to generate revenues to
compensate for the initial capital outlay.
At this juncture, NKT is poised to pursue a project reflective of the current zoning (Commercial
Retail/“CR”) and the zone’s allowable uses, that are very similar to the LUCE Update alternative B-2.
Redevelopment of the Commercial Center. We are currently in the planning phase of that effort and
anticipate lodging an application in a matter of months. Based upon our client’s intentions, it would
seem unnecessary to include the subject property and the various LUCE Update iterations in the
Council’s deliberation about the scope of work for the environmental document. With regards to the
traffic and circulation alternatives, we would of course continue to have an interest in how the City
intends to move forward with the noted improvements.
As planners, we appreciate that the LUCE Update is a long-range planning effort, one that the City
must revisit now and again to refresh the community vision and hopefully, be responsive to the
financial realities of the marketplace. We hope that this information will provide you and the Council
with the clear direction as to the University Square properties. Thank you in advance for your
consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any additional information.
1 We interviewed/reviewed a total of six (6) proposals, two from the nation’s top multi‐family residential
development companies.
PH1 - 189
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
2 October 2013
UNIVERSITY SQUARE – LUCE UPDATE PROCESS
Page 2 of 2
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
NKT REAL PROPERTIES, LLC
c: N. Tompkins/NKT
12-0059
PH1 - 190
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
02 October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“LUCE”) UPDATE –
APNs 053-141-013 & 053-161-014, LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD, SLO, CA
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm represents Mr. Wayne Longcrier, the Trustee of the Karl Jr. Trust, the Karen Trust and the
Kathryn Trust, collectively known as the KFK Family Trusts (Trust). The Trust owns property on the
north and south sides of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), adjacent to and west of Los Verdes Park.
These properties are collectively known as Site P. LOVR Creekside Area in the City’s LUCE process.
The intent of this letter is to provide you with the Trust’s opinion with regards to the alternative land
use scenarios recommended by the Task Force and Planning Commission.
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended five different land use
alternatives for these properties: 1) existing General Plan designation – Interim Open Space and Open
Space; 2) Medium high residential, agriculture and open space; 3) Low density residential, agriculture
and open space; 4) Agriculture and open space; and 5) Medium high density, low density residential
and open space. In addition, the property located south of LOVR, is noted on Circulation 19. LOVR
Buckley Road Connection – 19.2 LOVR Bypass Alignment.
While the properties are constrained by a number of factors, we believe that the “best and highest use”
for both parcels would be medium high density residential (“RMHD”). This greater density would
help to mitigate for the City’s desire to take a portion of the southerly parcel to accommodate the
LOVR bypass to Buckley Road and the additional open space, which effectively reduces the
developable area.
We hope that this clarifies the Trust’s position on the above-mentioned properties and, in turn, will
allow you to complete your recommendation to the City Council. We will continue to monitor the
LUCE planning process. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please contact us should you
have any questions or require any additional information.
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
KFK FAMILY TRUST
c: W. Longcrier, Trustee
K. Kundert/KFK Family Trusts
13-0017
PH1 - 191
Planning Commission
Recommendations
Preliminary
Land Use &
Circulation
Alternatives
October 15, 2013 PH1 - 192
Foothill
Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 1 – 2
Land Use
Alternatives: A – D
Page 2
Ped/bike connection
across Santa Rosa.
Consider all access options
for Boysen/Santa Rosa (i.e.
full access, no access,
right-turn only, etc.)
Site A: PC recommends no change
Site D: PC recommends no change
Boysen Access – evaluate options
Be flexible about site
layout (i.e. park
shouldn’t look like an
“L”)
PH1 - 193
Monterey /
Downtown
Mid-Higuera
Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 3 – 9
Land Use
Alternatives: E – H
Page 3 PH1 - 194
Monterey /
Downtown
Mid-Higuera
Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 3 – 9
Land Use
Alternatives: E – H
Page 4
Site E: PC recommends no LU change Site PC recommends no LU change Site G: PC recommends no LU change
PH1 - 195
Johnson /
Broad Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 10 – 13
Land Use
Alternatives: I – J
Woodbridge
Mitchell
Caudill
J. Modified Broad St. Plan
Page 5
Site 13: PC did not support evaluating option to remove
overpass from General Plan for Orcutt Rd.
Evaluate bridge for vehicles, bikes and
pedestrians
Evaluate bridge for bikes and pedestrians only
Eliminate Bishop Street connection from GP
Council Resolution on
September 17th included South
Broad Street Plan in physical
alternatives to be evaluated
through EIR
PH1 - 196
Madonna /
LOVR Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 14-16
Land Use
Alternatives: K-O
Page 6
Evaluate whether one or more
connections are needed to provide an
additional North/South connection
between LOVR & Prado / Dalidio and
whether an interior east / west
connector is needed.
PC supported policy direction to identify appropriate range of uses. Area to be designated as special planning area.
No LU designations assigned.
PH1 - 197
Madonna /
LOVR Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 14 – 16
Land Use
Alternatives: K-O
Page 7
Site 14: PC recommends no vehicle connections from
Froom to Oceanaire neighborhood
Special Planning overlay proposed to
identify mix of neighborhood
commercial and residential uses.
Address sensitive resources, utilities,
and open space.
PH1 - 198
South
Higuera /
Airport Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 17-19
Land Use
Alternatives: P-S
Only supported if changes
to Site 19 do not happen.
PC supports policy/program to review for potential to
accommodate additional density on eastern part of MASP.
PH1 - 199
Attachment 16
RESOLUTION NO. (2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENDORSING THE PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES SET FOR THE LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR
PROCESS (GPI 15-12)
WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of
$880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City’s Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011-2013 Financial
Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and
WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City
of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and
Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, four
community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 18 Task Force meetings, five Planning
Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey
returned by over 2,000 respondents; and
WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and
Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones,
provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant’s circle
of influence; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended physical
alternatives based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, endorsing a set of physical alternatives to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City’s
Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and
WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the physical
set of alternatives as part of the project description for the environmental review process of the
Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning
Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will review policy alternatives recommended by the TF-
LUCE and Planning Commission prior to beginning the Environmental Impact Report.
PH1 - 200
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series) Attachment 16
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the set of physical alternatives presented at the hearing on October 15, 2013 and
shown attached to this resolution shall be considered through the environmental review process
as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update.
SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVES. The physical alternatives to be considered as part of
the EIR process include the land use and circulation options shown as Exhibit A to this
resolution.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2013.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1 - 201
Attachment 16
EXHIBIT A
LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
A
Nativity
Church Site
Remove from consideration
Deed restriction
prohibits anything
but church-related
uses.
B
Santa Rosa
and Foothill
Area
Consider mixed use for the area on both sides
of Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa.
Consider both horizontal and vertical mixed
use. Emphasis on retail and housing near
campus. Policies to support parking and
height changes to facilitate mixed use.
C
Old Pacheco
School Site
Cluster medium high density housing adjacent
to streets with park buffer near existing
residential uses. Be flexible about site
development / layout (i.e. park shouldn’t look
like an “L”).
D
Diocese
property
along Bressi
Remove from consideration
Steeper hillsides
and wildlife corridor
in COSE. Keep
RSF and OS
designations.
E
Upper
Monterey
Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
Consider policies to support more pedestrian -
friendly development. Consider policies for
area that include conference center, parking
options, lot assembly, addressing appearance
of properties in public ownership, and
addressing the transit center location.
Added potential to explore Form-based codes
for the area.
F
Downtown
Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
Consider policies and desirability of plazas
and public views.
PH1 - 202
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 4
LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
G
Mid-Higuera
Area
No changes proposed.
H
Cal Trans Site
Mixed use to include tourist commercial, office
and some residential as shown in H-2 and H-
4. Site may be appropriate to review height
limit changes to accommodate desired
development.
Consider more public open space uses to
serve as gateway and supporting uses
compatible with conference center.
I
General
Hospital Site
Support additional residential development on
the site behind existing structure but delete
the residential development proposed
between the URL and the City limit line
currently designated OS.
Policies should support flexibility so that a
range of residential uses can be considered
(i.e. residential care, adjunct to transitional
care use, other residential uses consistent
with area).
J
Broad Street
Area Plan
Incorporate physical alternative described in
South Broad Street Area Plan endorsed by
September 17, 2013 by City Council.
K
Sunset Drive
in Area
Support mixed use. Develop policies to
address appropriate mix of uses.
L
Dalidio
Support a mix of uses through LUE policies
with significant open space/agricultural (at
least 50%) component. Alt. L5 without specific
direction of particular sizes or shapes.
Residential component to be consistent with
applicable airport policies.
M
PH1 - 203
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 5
LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
Pacific Beach
School Site
Policy development to support a non-
residential buffer along LOVR and Froom
Ranch. Consider medium high density
residential development and park.
N
Calle Joaquin
Auto Sales
Support mixed use in the context with the
Dalidio property and the City’s agricultural
parcel and focus on connectivity to the
neighborhoods to the north. Develop policies
to address appropriate mix of uses.
O
Madonna
Property
Support policies to address future
development. These should include
viewshed, hillside and open space protection,
potential height limits, wetland protection,
access to other connections, historic farm
buildings, mixed use to accommodate
workforce housing, and neighborhood
commercial type uses. Develop policies to
address appropriate mix of uses.
P
LOVR near
overpass
Area
Support a modified Alternative P-5 reflecting
infill housing with open space.
Q
MASP
Policy will support consideration of changes to
MASP.
R
Tank Farm @
Broad
Support a mix of commercial uses with limited
residential on upper floors. Commercial uses
should serve the surrounding businesses and
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity must be
addressed.
S
Avila Ranch
Area
Support a mix of residential densities,
connection to shops to the north, connection
to S. Higuera and a mix of uses similar to
what is shown in owners’ concept.
Respect creek/wildlife corridor. Develop
policies to direct future development.
PH1 - 204
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 6
CIRCULATION
ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES
1
Boysen &
Santa Rosa
Support separated crossing for bikes/peds of
Santa Rosa at Boysen. Consider all vehicular
alternatives for Boysen intersection at SR 1
including full closure, access restrictions, and
retaining its current configuration.
2
Realign
Chorro,
Boysen, and
Broad
Support alternative 2-3 realignment of Chorro
and Broad and Boysen.
3
Potential
Ramp
closures at
HWY 101 and
SR 1
Support alternative 3-2 ramp closures and
consolidated SR1/HWY 101 interchange for
further evaluation including impacts to
residential streets and the need for a
signage/way-finding program.
4
Broad & HWY
101 Ramp
closure
Support alternative 4-2 ramp closures at
Broad with the addition of bike and pedestrian
overpass.
Bike and pedestrian
overpass at this
location is currently
in the BTP.
5
Convert
Marsh &
Higuera to 2
Way
(Santa Rosa
to California)
Support two way vehicular circulation of
Marsh and Higuera between Santa Rosa and
California.
6
Transit Center
location on
Santa Rosa
and Higuera
Support site/block of Higuera/Santa
Rosa/Monterey for the transit center location
and consider use of both public and private
property. Include ideas from student projects
and the Downtown Concept Plan.
7
Mission Plaza
“dog leg”
Support alternatives 7-2 and 7-3 (varying
degrees of streets affected) using a woonerf
concept instead of full closure of the streets.
Develop policy direction regarding desired
outcomes and nature and phasing of
treatment for the area.
PH1 - 205
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 7
8
Realign
Bianchi and
Pismo
Support alternative 8-3 realignment of street
intersection (Pismo to Bianchi).
9
Realign
Madonna to
Bridge St
instead of
Higuera
Consider appropriate connection from
Madonna to S. Higuera in concert with
redevelopment of Caltrans site. Potential to
realign Madonna to connect with Bridge Street
may better address some pedestrian and bike
connections.
10
Bishop St.
Extension
Support evaluation of three options: a bridge
over the Railroad tracks for all modes of
traffic; one for bicycles and peds only; and
complete elimination of bridge facility.
Current Circulation
Element has Bishop
Street extending
over railroad tracks
via bridge.
11
Victoria
connection to
Emily
Support Victoria connection to Emily.
12
Broad Street-
consolidate
access
Support Broad Street consolidation of access
points.
13
Orcutt Road
Overpass
Keep facility as part of Circulation Element.
Do not consider removing facility due to
concerns about increasing rail traffic.
Overpass is
currently part of
Circulation Element
14
Froom
connect to
Oceanaire
neighborhood
Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
only.
Neighborhood input
opposed to
vehicular
connections and is
concerned about
cut-through traffic
15
Prado Road
interchange
vs overpass
Evaluate both interchange and overpass
Interchange is part
of existing
Circulation Element.
PH1 - 206
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 8
16
Connections
to Dalidio
from Froom
and/or Calle
Joaquin
Evaluate whether one or more connections
are needed to provide an additional
connection between LOVR and Prado/Dalidio;
and whether an internal east-west or loop
road is needed to connect these roads on the
Dalidio property.
17
Realign
Vachel Lane
Support alternative 17-2 Vachel to Higuera
connection as a “back up” alternative in the
event Buckley Road does not connect to S.
Higuera.
18
N-S
connection
between Tank
Farm and
Buckley
Support alternative 18-2 creating a north-
south connection between Tank Farm and
Buckley for future connectivity.
19
Buckley to
LOVR
connections
Support alternatives 19-2 (Buckley to Higuera)
and 19-3 (Higuera to LOVR behind Los
Verdes – 101 bypass)
PH1 - 207
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH1 - 208
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marx, Jan
Sunday, October L3,2013 3:48 PM
Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather
FW: LUCE update
R,ËCETVËD
OcT 14 2013
CL K
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Please post this message as agenda correspondence for October 15.
Thanks,
Jan
oate loltsls ttem#&J-
Jan Howell Max
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(BOs) 781-7120 or (80s) s41-2716
From : Allan Cooper [allancoope@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:56 AM
To: Murry, Kim; Johnson, Derek; Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn
Subject: Re: LUCE update
Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Members, Derek Johnson and Kim Muny -
I read through the draft LUCE physical alternative report for the E.I.R, and wish to mention a few concems
expressed by our group:
Regarding s "pg!g!!fiq!M: There wøs mentíon only of possìble street closures,
elimínatíon of vehícle lanes and on-street pørkìng in the Downtown Core
No mentíon of proposed alternøtives for locatíon of:
l. Mid-Block Crosswalks
2. Scramble Crosswalks
3, Street Cølming Devices Such As Road Tøbles And Pavement Changes
4. Pedestríøn And Løndscape Bulb-Outs
5, Pedestríøn Street Furníture
6, Pedestrian Líghtíng
7. Pedestriun Islands
8, Pocket Pørks
9. Galeways & Psrkins Garase Locøtions
1 0. Pedestríøn/Vehiculør Oríented Plønting
11. Publìc Fucílities
12. Art In Publíc Pløces
13, Søntø Rosø Under/Over Pass For Pedestriøns/Bicycles
14. Sidewølk Dining
15. Plønters
16, Chícanes
17, Buffers For últínd, Noíse, Excess Heat, Unsightly Views And Noxious Odors
18. Preservatíon Of Views And Solør Access
19, Etc,, etc.
I realize thaf a proposed pedestrian plan will be discussed on October 30th by the LUCE Committee. However,
are the proposals above too "fine-grained" to be included in your EIR in the form of physical alternatives?
Obviously, there will be environmental impacts (we think positive ones) if these ideas are implemented. I will
be back from Port Townsend to attend your October 15th Council meeting (and, of course the October 30th
LUCE meeting) and will probably be bringing this issue before you, Thanks for all that you do.
Sincerely, Allan Cooper, Chair Save Our Downtown
1
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Murry, Kim <kmuny@slocity.org> wrote:
Allan:
I just wanted to provide information regarding the Land Use and Circulation Elements update that I
think is particularly pertinent to the SOD group. The discussion of new policies for the Downtown
(including alcohol outlets and potential hospitality zone) as well as the Pedestrian Plan is tentatively
scheduled for considered by the TF-LUCE on October 30'n. We did not have everything ready for the
Task Force discussion this week but you will see the drafts of these items in the next couple of
weeks.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Kir* l\ilurqy
üepu{y üire*Tnr, l-*ng Range P{anning
tiïy of S,tn Lr¡ìs Oi:ìspo, ücnr¡ttunity ü*vel*pment
S"tr9 Fcl¡n Stre*t
$nn {-"uis ühi"rpn tA $34ü1
Ph: 805-781"72T4 Ë,{X; SSS-7&'l-71?3
Weh:: www.slocity.org
ilmnil: kmurry@slocity.org
2
OASIS ASSOCIATES
L¡1NùSCÄ'rÊ ÂlìliHr IË(:1 L¡l¿ti + PLAI.¡NlN6
CEIVËD
OcT 0 22013
K
0l October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (6.LUCE'') UPDATE _
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm proudly represents the San Luis Coastal Unified School District ("School District"). As you
know, on their behalf, we have provided input to the Planning Commission as they reviewed the Task
Force recommendations for the School District's properties - Site C. "Old" Pacheco Elementary and
Site M. Pacific Beach High School. We are in receipt of the Mayor's recent conespondence and
appreciate her acknowledgement that the School District is a key partner in the community and accept
her request to provide additional feedback with regards to whether the proposed land use alternatives
further or hinder the District's goals.
Pursuant to our recent meeting with you and Business Superintendent Pinkerton, and in light of the
upcoming Council hearing to determine the scope of the environmental document for the LUCE
process, please be advised of the following comments. While we clearly appreciate that the LUCE is a
long-range planning effoft, we hope that this information will provide you and the Council with the
clear direction as to the disposition of the School District properties,
Site C - 66Old" Pacheco Elementary
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended four different land use
scenarios for this property: l) existing General Plan designation - Public Facilities; 2) Low-density
residential; 3) a combination of low-density and medium-density residential; and 4) Medium-density
residential with a fair porlion of the properly designated as park.
While the School District will soon embark upon a new student demographic statistical forecast, they
know that enrollment has increased by three percent over the past three years following a ten-year
steady decline in enrollment. Given this trend, it would be prudent to retain Pacheco Elementary at its
current General Plan designation, until such a determination has been made to convert it to another
use. While an even higher density residential land use than curently proposed in the LUCE
alternatives would seem appropriate, at this time it is the School District's desire to eliminate
consideration of Site C from the LUCE and related environmental process.
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805,541.4509 p 805,546,0525 f www,oasisassoc,com
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
DaJp toll6l Þttem# PtlJ
CP 018415 . RLA 2248. cIARB 907
OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC.
0l October 2013
SLCUSD PROPERTIES - LUCE PROCESS
Page2 of2
Site M - Pacific Beach Hieh School
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended four different land use
scenarios for this property: l) existing General Plan designation - Public Facilities; 2) a combination
of low-density residential, commercial retail, office and a park; 3) Mixed-use (housing and
commercial) and a park; and 4) Medium high density residential and a park.
Based upon the age and condition of the existing structures, and the substantial increase in
incompatible commercial development along the Los Osos Valley Road corridor, the School District is
interested in placing this properfy in its Master Plan for Surplus Properly and Revenue Enhancement
Program. Guidance to accomplish this is provided by the Education Coder that codifìes the procedures
for the disposition of real property.
Our analysis of the "best and highest use" for the properly revealed that the Commercial Retail (CR)
land use category, that also allows for a maximum residential density of 36 units/acre (note that this
properfy is in the Airporl Land Use Plan/Airport Safety Area S-2 that limits residential density to l2
units/acre), may be an appropriate land use designation given the context of the mix of uses in the
neighborhood. The School District would agree to changing the zoning to CR as part of the LUCE
process, as long as there is an acknowledgement that there is absolutely no interest on the School
District's paft to include a public park2 on the subject property,
We hope that this clarifies the School District's position on the above-mentioned properties and will
allow you to complete your recommendation to the City Council. We will continue to monitor the
LUCE planning process. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Please do not hesitate to
contact us should you need any additional information.
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC,
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
SAN LUIS COASTAL LINIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dr. Eric Prater, Superintendent SLCUSD
R. Pinkerton/Superintendent Business SLCUSD
T. Green, Esq,
t2-0006113-003 I
1 See Education Code 917387-t73gt and 517455 - 17484.
2Through the negotiated agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo, allof the School District's currently used
and unused school sites, as well as Sinsheimer Park, are operated as publicly accessible parks and recreational
facilities.
3427 i/iguelito Courl San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p
c
CP 018415 . RLA 2240. CLARB 907
80s.s46.0525 f www.0asrsass0c.c0m
OcT I 4 2013
F(ÏVËÐ
i ¿''\íY R.
Goo Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kim Murry
Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Ph: 805-781-7274 FAX: 805-781-7173
Web: www.slocity.org
Email: kmurrv@slocitv.orq
Murry, Kim
Monday, October L4,20t3 12:57 PM
Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather
Johnson, Derek; Mandeville, Peggy; Hudson, Jake
FW: Council Meeting Tuesday evening about land use and circulation element
Changes to Beginning of Circulation Element.pdf
Please include the following as agenda correspondence for 10-15 LUCE hearing. Thank you
AGENDA
CORRESPONÞENCE
From: Eugene H, Jud fmailto:ejud@calpoly,edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Murry, Kim
Cc: Blayne Morgan
Subject: Council Meeting Tuesday evening about land use and circulation element
Dear Kim,
Please forward my below comments with the attachment to council ASAP. Changes are from pages 2-8 to 2-ll
of the circulation element and are as follows:
"Generally speaking, some formulations are very weak and sound more like an innocent wish list.
The word "should" must be replaced in practically all cases with the \ ¡ord "must", The ne\ /er development of
actually declining traffic volumes is not reflected in the proposal. Times and traffic projections have changed
dramatically as most traffic forecasters know by now. Also the old time frame must be adapted and the correct
word for RTA must be used under section 1.6.
For the traffic model the council must quickly state whether they believe in:
a) zero traffic growth by 2035
b) moderate traffic growth
c) high traffrc growth
d) negative traflic growth.
Thank you for considering this input."
Thank you very much,
Eugene Jud
p.s. Blayne: feel free to send this out to the SLO 2050 group. Thanks.
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE
At:
Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering
Califomia Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0353
Phone : (805 ) 7 5 6 -1 7 29 ; E-mail : ej ud@calpoly. edu
http : //ceenve 3 . calpo I y. e_dr¡/j ud
Or:
Jud Consultants
POB I145
San Luis Obispo, CA93406-1145
Phone and Fax: (805) 5a9-8185;
E-mail : j ud4eugene@aol.com
www,iudcons.com
2
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Daryl, Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE – PHYSICAL
ALTERNATIVES (GPI/ER 15-12).
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements update (TF-LUCE) endorse the physical alternatives presented for further evaluation
through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
DISCUSSION
Background
The Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update process is being funded through an
$880,000 Strategic Growth Council Grant. When the City Council approved the application for the
grant and the subsequent consultant contract, the Council augmented the defined scope of work with
direction to staff to approach the LUCE update as a focused one. Council’s direction was to address
community issues but to not significantly alter the policy direction that is based on values that were
reaffirmed in the Council’s continuation of the current goals as the filter for proposing any changes.
The Council’s statements reflected that many of the factors making our city the happiest in North
America are incorporated in our present Land Use Element which serves our city well by protecting
our quality of life and fiscal sustainability.1
To date, the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) process has been focused on
garnering input from the community regarding issues, opportunities and vision for the future of the
City. Information provided through the community survey, workshops, open houses, advisory
bodies and ideas offered on-line were used by the consultant team, staff, the Task Force for the
Land Use and Circulation Element update (TF-LUCE), and the Planning Commission to identify
areas of potential physical change in the upcoming 20 years. This information will also inform the
policy review and development phase of the update. Tonight’s discussion with the Council focuses
on identifying the potential physical changes to further evaluate through the environmental review
process.
The sites for both land use changes and circulation connections were plotted and considered at a
workshop held on June 1st (Attachment 6: Workshop summary). Subsequent to the workshop, the
TF-LUCE considered input on the physical alternatives to be further evaluated as part of the LUCE
update from the workshop, information from the community survey, testimony from attendees, and
1 Mayor Marx memo to Council, item B-1, and minutes January 17, 2012 (Attachments 1 and 2)
Meeting Date
Item Number 10-15-2013
PH 1
PH1 - 1
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 2
input from residents and other stakeholders garnered through MindMixer (an online public input
tool) and other sources on June 27th, July 1st and July 9th (Attachments 7-9: TF-LUCE minutes. The
Planning Commission further reviewed the Task Force recommendations on July 24th and August
14th (Attachments 10-11: Planning Commission minutes) and confirmed or slightly amended the
options to be forwarded for further evaluation.
The Planning Commission’s recommended alternatives will be presented to the Council along with
basic information regarding the fiscal balance of land uses for consideration and identification of a
“preferred alternative” set. Attachments 1 and 2 provide a summary of the recommendations of
physical alternatives from the Planning Commission along with notations of how those
recommendations correspond to the TF-LUCE recommendations. The final package of alternatives
identified by Council will be fully evaluated along with proposed policy changes currently under
development through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Council is scheduled to review
proposed policy changes in early 2014.
The current discussion is focused on alternatives for physical change. The TF-LUCE recently began
their evaluation of existing policies with review of a legislative draft of the Circulation Element.
This review is expected to occur through late fall. The Council is being asked to review the TF-
LUCE and Planning Commission recommendations for physical alternatives and to confirm or
amend those alternatives as the “preferred alternative” set to be evaluated through the EIR process.
Alternatives
The Planning Commission reviewed Task Force recommendations and confirmed potential land use
changes and areas where circulation changes might be appropriate. Attachments 3 and 4 provide a
summary of Task Force and Planning Commission determinations on the alternatives.
The community was presented with 19 land use alternatives and 19 circulation alternatives at a
workshop held on June 1st. Of the 19 land use alternatives, the Council took separate action on the
South Broad Street Corridor Plan area on September 17, 2013 to include the draft plan as part of the
alternatives to consider through the EIR process.
Attachment #6 provides a summary of the workshop input considered by both the TF-LUCE and the
Planning Commission. In addition to the June 1st workshop input, both the Task Force and
Planning Commission evaluated the alternatives in light of input from previous workshops, the
community wide survey, the Land Use and Circulation elements goals, and input from open houses
and on-line survey tools. Staff will be describing the alternatives in greater detail as part of the staff
presentation and will also present high-level fiscal and circulation information.
Property owners of four of the properties under consideration have submitted letters for the Council
to consider as part of identifying physical alternatives (Attachments 12-14). The following
summarizes the input from these four property owners:
• The San Luis Coastal Unified School District has asked that the Old Pacheco School
site be eliminated from consideration until the District has determined it should be
converted to another use.
PH1 - 2
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 3
• The San Luis Coastal Unified School District has also requested that the Council
consider Commercial Retail uses for the Pacific Beach site rather than the Mixed Use
and park uses suggested by the Planning Commission.
• KFK Family Trust, the owner of property along both sides of Los Osos Valley Road
near Hwy 101, has indicated support for the property being designated to support
Medium High Density Residential.
• The owner of the property at Foothill and Santa Rosa, University Square LLC,
provided a letter that indicates a desire to develop according to the current zoning
and anticipates submitting an application within the upcoming months.
Staff will be prepared to respond to each in the context of the presentation of alternatives at the
hearing.
Update Process
The physical alternatives comprise one part of the update and reflect areas where changes in land
use designations or intensity or type of development may occur over the upcoming 20 years. The
physical alternatives also reflect where circulation connections should change or where the nature of
the type of connection is changing. Once the Council has determined the set of physical alternatives
that should be forwarded for consideration as part of the process, this set becomes the “preferred
alternative” and is used as part of the project description for purposes of environmental review. The
Council’s approval of the resolution does not approve the alternatives, the action provides that more
analysis (i.e. fiscal and environmental, etc) is needed in order to make any final determinations.
Since Council identified the update to the General Plan as a focused one – intended to address infill
opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need to refresh existing policy direction to reflect
current values – many of the areas of physical change will not result in dramatic differences in the
City’s form. However there are several areas where more significant changes are anticipated,
primarily Dalidio, Avila Ranch, and the Madonna properties. These areas have been identified by
the Planning Commission (supported by recommendations from the TF-LUCE) as ones that are
appropriate for more detailed policy development to guide the future development of the areas
based on their location and constraints.
The Land Use and Circulation elements will include proposed physical alternatives and proposed
policy changes to form the project description that will be reviewed through an Environmental
Impact Report. The graphic below shows the milestones completed to date and the process moving
forward. Endorsing a set of physical alternatives for further review is a key objective to complete in
the update process.
PH1 - 3
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 4
Staff recommends the Council consider public input and the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update (TF-LUCE) and
endorse the physical alternatives proposed as the preferred alternative set to be further evaluated
through an Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review will occur once a project description has been developed. The project
description will include a combination of proposed physical changes and proposed policy changes
associated with the LUCE update.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Land Use and Circulation Elements update have been funded in part by a grant from the
Strategic Growth Council ($880,000) and in part through General Funds ($430,000) as part of the
2011-13 Financial Plan. Activities to date have been fully covered by these encumbered funds and
progress on the update is within budget and on-time. Fiscal impacts of any changes proposed to
land use or infrastructure will be evaluated as part of the update process so that the City’s General
Plan is one that is fiscally balanced.
PH1 - 4
LUCE Update - Physical Alternatives Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could identify additional alternatives for consideration or could modify or alter
alternatives recommended by the Planning Commission. Specific direction to staff would be
required.
2. The Council could continue the item so that additional information could be provided. If
this option is chosen, specific direction to staff would be needed and Council may need to
identify a special meeting in order to maintain timely progress on the update project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mayor Marx Letter to Council
2. January 17, 2012 Council Meeting minutes
3. Table 1: Land Use Alternatives summary
4. Table 2: Circulation Alternatives summary
5. Land Use and Circulation Element Goals
6. Workshop Summary from 6-1-13
7. TF-LUCE meeting minutes from 6-27-13
8. TF-LUCE meeting minutes from 7-1-13
9. TF-LUCE meeting minutes from 7-9-13
10. Planning Commission meeting minutes from 7-24-13
11. Planning Commission meeting minutes from 8-14-13
12. San Luis Coastal Unified School District Letter
13. University Square Letter
14. KFK Family letter
15. Land Use and Circulation Alternatives Graphics
16. Resolution
Community wide survey previously provided to the Council is available at:
http://www.slo2035.com/images/meetings/tf/00_slogpu_survey_2012.09.16-rrr.pdf
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
TF-LUCE Binders with agenda materials
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-10-15\LUCE UPdate - PHysical Alternatives (Johnson-Murry)\LUCE-CAR_10-15-13.docx
PH1 - 5
To :
San Luis Obispo City Counci l
From : Jan Marx, Mayo r
Re : Item B-1 (LUCE Update )
Date : January 17, 201 2
The following are my thoughts regarding the LUCE Task Force and process . Council ha s
repeatedly stated that the process is to be resident-centered . Making it so, startin g
tonight, will allow the LUCE Update to be truly owned and affirmed by residents . It also
will allow the process to proceed in an orderly, timely manner .
A . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateTask Force
1.
It should be called the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Task Force .
(Using a different title is confusing).
2.
The Task Force should consist of residents of the City of San Luis Obispo in al l
categories . If a given stakeholder group does not have any city residents willing to serve ,
then it can just submit comments and testify .
3.
Members should also be volunteers, not paid advocates . Selection should reflec t
geographical distribution of residents, living throughout the city .
4.
All residents should receive information about how to participate at the ver y
beginning of the process, possibly as a hand out in the utility bills .
5.
Selection of members should not be delegated to organizations, but should b e
done by council . Council should take open applications, like the advisory bod y
applications, including resumes .
6.
It should have equal representation from the environment, neighborhood an d
business communities . It should be chaired by a Planning Commissioner .
7.
There is no reason to limit membership to 13 . The City Manager's Economi c
Sustainability group had nearly 30 people on it and worked well . Other cities hav e
varying numbers of participants .
8.
In any category, overlapping experience--such as in land use and planning, th e
law, advisory groups, local history, real estate, social services, education, the economy ,
technology, natural resources, conservation, healthy communities, agriculture ,
transportation, recreation, the arts or non-profit organizations and other relevant
expertise—should be considered a "plus" in selection of members . It is not needed t o
have a person representing Cal Poly (a state agency), or any other state agency on th e
Task Force, but a resident who works at a state agency could have special insight whic h
could be useful .
PH1 - 6
9.
Subcommittees of like expertise could caucus and do outreach at their discretion ,
and then present comments to whole task force .
10.
The task force should proceed by vote (recorded) not by forced consensus, with
minority reports possible, if need be . Conflicting points of view from various interes t
groups need to be surfaced, not buried, so that Council has comprehensive information
before it when making the final decisions .
B . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateProcess .
1.
This is a focused update . We do not need to fix what is not broken . The updat e
needs to address actual problems . Many of the factors making our city the happiest i n
North America are incorporated in our present LUE . It serves our city well by protectin g
our quality of life and fiscal sustainability .
2.
The process should begin with workshops in the neighborhoods, occurring during
the same time that the new questionnaire is in the hands of residents . It should be i n
writing and should be based on the 1988 questionnaire, with additional updated question s
if need be . Workshops and questionnaires input should take place before the LUC E
Taskforce is formed or meets .
3.
Council members should read the elements and give input to staff regarding wha t
does and does not need changing. Staff should identify what language it thinks needs t o
be updated, with documentation of said need .
4.
Review of the Elements should be recognizably based on the present document ,
keeping the same numbering whenever possible . It should proceed in an orderly, sectio n
by section, line by line, basis, so that everyone is given adequate notice of exactly wha t
language will be considered and when . Everyone needs to know at every stage exactly
what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by
whom .
5.
Once the decisions about any proposed language changes in a given section ar e
made by Council, there should be no going back and reconsidering said changes .
6.
Definitions of terms should be consistent with the present LUCE and an y
proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in publi c
hearings .
PH1 - 7
PH1 - 8
PH1 - 9
Attachment 3
Table 1: Land Use Alternatives
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
A
Nativity
Church
Site
Agree with TF-LUCE
Remove from
consideration
Deed restriction
prohibits anything
but church-related
uses.
Remove from
consideration N/A
B
Santa Rosa
and
Foothill
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Consider both horizontal
and vertical mixed use.
Emphasis on retail and
housing near campus.
Policies to support
parking and height
changes to facilitate
mixed use.
Currently only
corner of property
at Santa Rosa and
Foothill is General
Retail – the
remainder is
neighborhood
commercial.
Property owner
requests
development
according to
current zoning of
Commercial
Retail.
Support Alternative
B-3/B-4 - Consider
mixed use in the area
on both sides of
Foothill between
Chorro and Santa
Rosa.
C
Old
Pacheco
School Site Agree with TF-LUCE
Be flexible about site
development/layout (i.e.
park shouldn’t look like
an “L”).
School District has
requested
removal from
consideration.
Option C-4. Cluster
medium high density
housing adjacent to
streets with park
buffer near existing
residential uses.
PRC - Loss of
park/turf area is
concerning and
challenge of
smaller,
fragmented
facilities to meet
community/
neighborhood
needs. Consider
no-net loss policy
for parks.
D
Diocese
property
along
Bressi
Agree with TF-LUCE
Remove from
consideration
Steeper hillsides
and wildlife
corridor in COSE.
Keep RSF and OS
designations.
Remove from
consideration N/A
PH1 - 10
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
E
Upper
Monterey
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Added potential to
explore Form-based
codes for the area.
No physical land use
changes proposed.
Consider policies to
support more
pedestrian -friendly
development.
Consider policies for
area that include
conference center,
parking options, lot
assembly, addressing
appearance of
properties in public
ownership, and
addressing the
transit center
location.
N/A
F
Downtown
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
No physical land use
changes proposed.
Consider policies and
desirability of plazas
and public views.
G
Mid-
Higuera
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
No changes
proposed.
H
Cal Trans
Site
Agree with TF-LUCE
Consider more public
open space uses to serve
as gateway and
supporting uses
compatible with
conference center.
Mixed use to include
tourist commercial,
office and some
residential as shown
in H-2 and H-4. Site
may be appropriate
to review height limit
changes to
accommodate
desired
development.
I
General
Agree with TF-LUCE
Policies should support
Support additional
residential
development on the
PH1 - 11
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
Hospital
Site
flexibility so that a range
of residential uses can be
considered (i.e.
residential care, adjunct
to transitional care use,
other residential uses
consistent with area).
site behind existing
structure (I-3) but
delete the residential
development
proposed between
the URL and the City
limit line currently
designated OS.
J
Broad
Street
Area Plan Agree with TF-LUCE
Strongly supports draft
plan as amended.
Council identified
this area to be
evaluated as part
of the physical
alternatives on
September 17,
2013.
Supports the land
uses and form-based
codes as expressed
in the Draft South
Broad Street Area
Plan with provisions
to protect existing
businesses and
excluding the
McMillan area from
the plan.
K
Sunset
Drive in
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to
address appropriate mix
of uses.
Support alternative
K3 which shows
mixed use.
L
Dalidio
Agree with TF-LUCE
Alt. L5 without specific
direction of particular
sizes or shapes.
Residential component
to be consistent with
applicable airport
policies.
Support a mix of uses
through LUE policies
with significant open
space/agricultural (at
least 50%)
component.
M
Pacific
Beach
School Site
Agree with TF-LUCE
Policy development to
support a non-residential
buffer along LOVR and
Froom Ranch. Consider
medium high density
School District has
requested
Commercial Retail
designation and
no park
requirement.
Support M3/M4 that
shows mix of uses
with residential and
park.
PRC - Loss of
park/turf area is
concerning and
challenge of
smaller,
fragmented
facilities to meet
community/
PH1 - 12
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
residential development
and park.
neighborhood
needs. Consider
no-net loss policy
for parks.
N
Calle
Joaquin
Auto Sales
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to
address appropriate mix
of uses.
Support mixed use in
the context with the
Dalidio property and
the City’s agricultural
parcel and focus on
connectivity to the
neighborhoods to
the north.
O
Madonna
Property
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to
address appropriate mix
of uses.
Support policies to
address future
development. These
should include
viewshed, hillside
and open space
protection, potential
height limits,
wetland protection,
access to other
connections, historic
farm buildings,
mixed use to
accommodate
workforce housing,
and neighborhood
commercial type
uses.
P
LOVR near
overpass
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Property Owner
requests medium
high residential
density for this
site.
Support a modified
Alternative P-5
reflecting infill
housing with open
space.
Q
MASP
Agree with TF-LUCE
Policy/program to
evaluate/consider
changes to MASP.
Support Q2 - changes
to MASP to allow
increased density if
appropriate along
with supporting
neighborhood
commercial.
PH1 - 13
Attachment 3
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY BODY
INPUT
R
Tank Farm
@ Broad
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support a mix of
commercial uses
with limited
residential on upper
floors. Commercial
uses should serve
the surrounding
businesses and
bicycle and
pedestrian
connectivity must be
addressed.
S
Avila
Ranch
Area
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policies to direct
future development.
Support a mix of
residential densities,
connection to shops
to the north,
connection to S.
Higuera and a mix of
uses similar to what
is shown in owners’
concept.
Respect
creek/wildlife
corridor.
PH1 - 14
Attachment 4
Table 2: Circulation Alternatives
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
1
Boysen &
Santa Rosa
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support separated
crossing for
bikes/peds of Santa
Rosa at Boysen.
Consider all vehicular
alternatives for
Boysen intersection
at SR 1 including full
closure, access
restrictions, and
retaining its current
configuration.
2
Realign
Chorro,
Boysen, and
Broad
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
2-3 realignment of
Chorro and Broad
and Boysen.
3
Potential
Ramp
closures at
HWY 101 and
SR 1 Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
3-2 ramp closures
and consolidated
SR1/HWY 101
interchange for
further evaluation
including impacts to
residential streets
and the need for a
signage/way-finding
program.
4
Broad & HWY
101 Ramp
closure Agree with TF-LUCE
Bike and
pedestrian
overpass at this
location is
currently in the
BTP.
Support alternative
4-2 ramp closures at
Broad with the
addition of bike and
pedestrian overpass.
5
Convert
Marsh &
Higuera to 2
Way
(Santa Rosa
to California)
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support two way
vehicular circulation
of Marsh and
Higuera between
Santa Rosa and
California.
PH1 - 15
Attachment 4
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
6
Transit Center
location on
Santa Rosa
and Higuera Agree with TF-LUCE
Support site/block of
Higuera/Santa
Rosa/Monterey for
the transit center
location and
consider use of both
public and private
property. Include
ideas from student
projects and the
Downtown Concept
Plan.
7
Mission Plaza
“dog leg”
Agree with TF-LUCE
Develop policy direction
regarding desired
outcomes and nature
and phasing of
treatment for the area.
Support alternatives
7-2 and 7-3 (varying
degrees of streets
affected) using a
woonerf concept
instead of full
closure of the
streets.
8
Realign
Bianchi and
Pismo
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
8-3 realignment of
street intersection
(Pismo to Bianchi).
9
Realign
Madonna to
Bridge St
instead of
Higuera
Did not oppose TF-LUCE
but felt that
development of Caltrans
site would determine
best location for
intersection.
Support alternative
9-2 showing
realigned Madonna
to Bridge instead of
Higuera.
10
Bishop St.
Extension
Agree with TF-LUCE
Current
Circulation
Element has
Bishop Street
extending over
railroad tracks via
bridge.
Support evaluation
of three options: a
bridge over the
Railroad tracks for all
modes of traffic; one
for bicycles and peds
only; and complete
elimination of bridge
facility.
PH1 - 16
Attachment 4
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
11
Victoria
connection to
Emily
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support Victoria
connection to Emily.
12
Broad Street-
consolidate
access
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support Broad Street
consolidation of
access points.
13
Orcutt Road
Overpass
Disagree with TF-LUCE.
Keep facility as part of
Circulation Element. Do
not consider removing
facility due to concerns
about increasing rail
traffic.
Overpass is
currently part of
Circulation
Element
Support evaluating
removal of overpass
at Orcutt Road.
14
Froom
connect to
Oceanaire
neighborhood
Agree with TF-LUCE
Provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity
only.
Neighborhood
input opposed to
vehicular
connections and
is concerned
about cut-
through traffic
Remove from
consideration.
15
Prado Road
interchange
vs overpass
Agree with TF-LUCE
Evaluate both
interchange and
overpass
Interchange is
part of existing
Circulation
Element.
Evaluate both
interchange (15-2)
and overpass (15-3)
16
Connections
to Dalidio
from Froom
and/or Calle
Joaquin Agree with TF-LUCE
Evaluate whether
one or more
connections are
needed to provide
an additional
connection between
LOVR and
Prado/Dalidio; and
whether an internal
east-west or loop
road is needed to
connect these roads
on the Dalidio
property.
PH1 - 17
Attachment 4
ITEM PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES TF-LUCE
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER
ADVISORY
BODY INPUT
17
Realign
Vachel Lane Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
17-2 Vachel to
Higuera connection
as a “back up”
alternative in the
event Buckley Road
does not connect to
S. Higuera.
18
N-S
connection
between
Tank Farm
and Buckley
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternative
18-2 creating a
north-south
connection between
Tank Farm and
Buckley for future
connectivity.
19
Buckley to
LOVR
connections
Agree with TF-LUCE
Support alternatives
19-2 (Buckley to
Higuera) and 19-3
(Higuera to LOVR
behind Los Verdes –
101 bypass)
PH1 - 18
Land Use
THE GENERAL PLAN
1-14
Community’s Goals
Introduction
Goals describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the
community's preferences for basic future directions. In the goal statements, "San Luis
Obispo" means the community as a whole, not just the City as a municipal corporation. The
statements also indicate what the City should do and what it should influence others to do.
The goals state San Luis Obispo's basic positions on the extent, rate, composition, and
financing of growth. The following Growth Management section includes policies and
programs which offer more specific guidance on these topics. Later sections, dealing with
parts of the City and with land-use categories, give more detailed direction on preserving
neighborhoods and designing new development.
Approach to Planning
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Choose its future, rather than let it happen. San Luis Obispo
should be proactive in implementing its vision of the future, and should
work with other agencies and institutions to create our desired mutual
future.
Environment
San Luis Obispo should:
2. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality
of air, water, soil, and open space.
3. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife
habitat on land surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks and
other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse,
native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area.
4. Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains.
5. Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of the
planning area and the county, protect agriculture from development and
from incompatible uses, and protect remaining undeveloped prime
agricultural soils.
6. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the
city, such as the volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks.
7. Foster appreciation among citizens of the complex abundance of
the planning area's environment, and of the need to respect natural
systems.
8. Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets to
preserve and protect them.
Society and Economy
San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community. Environmental, social, and
economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Luis
Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. The social fabric of
the community for both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance.
Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives of this element, the City shall
maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well being
of the community.
San Luis Obispo should:
9. Provide employment opportunities appropriate for area residents'
desires and skills.
PH1 - 19
Land Use
THE GENERAL PLAN
1-15
10. Provide goods and services which substantial numbers of area
residents leave the area regularly to obtain, provided doing so is consistent
with other goals.
11. Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate
expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals.
12. Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings
and land areas already committed to urban development.
13. Provide an adequate revenue base for local government and
public schools.
14. Provide high quality public services, ensuring that demands do not
exceed resources and that adequate facilities and services can be
provided in pace with development.
15. Cooperate with other agencies in the county to assure that
increases in the numbers of workers and college and university students in
the San Luis Obispo area do not outpace housing availability.
16. Accommodate residents within all income groups.
17. Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents with
very low, low, and moderate incomes.
18. Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to
residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes, within existing
neighborhoods and within expansion areas.
19. Encourage opportunities for elder care and child care within the
city.
20. Enrich community cultural and social life by accommodating
people with various backgrounds, talents, occupations, and interests.
21. Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its
parts without causing overall harm to the community.
22. Have developments bear the costs of resources and services
needed to serve them, except where the community deliberately chooses
to help pay in order to achieve other community goals.
23. Provide for high quality education and access to related services
such as museums, art galleries, public art, and libraries.
24. Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government;
education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural,
professional, medical, and social services; community organizations; retail
trade.
25. Provide a wide range of parks and sports and recreational facilities
for the enjoyment of our citizens.
26. Retain accessible, responsive, and capable local government.
27. Ensure that residents' opportunities for direct participation in City
government and their sense of community can continue.
City Form
San Luis Obispo should:
28. Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place
to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it
from other urban development.
29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development
occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern.
30. Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban
development and surrounding open land.
31. Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate
boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form.
PH1 - 20
Land Use
THE GENERAL PLAN
1-16
32. Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, and
preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places.
33. Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense
of place and architectural heritage.
34. Develop buildings and places which complement the natural
landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods.
35. Focus its government and cultural facilities and provide a variety of
business services and housing in the downtown.
36. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, for
recreation and other daily activities.
37. Be a safe place to live.
PH1 - 21
Circulation
THE GENERAL PLAN
2-8
1.5 Goals and objectives
Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to
express the community's preferences for current and future conditions and directions. In
the following statements, San Luis Obispo means the community as a whole, not just the
city as a municipal corporation.
Transportation Goals
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo
while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal
of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such
as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of
transportation.
4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the
projects will cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.
6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.
7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San
Luis Obispo County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly.
8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies,
telecommuting and compact work weeks.
Overall Transportation Strategy
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by:
1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element;
2. Funding alternative forms of transportation;
3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities;
4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in
transportation modes;
5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and
Highways;
7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety.
Transportation Objectives
1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits
San Luis Obispo should:
1.Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Figure #1) and
depend less on the single-occupant use of vehicles.
2.Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective
similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single-
occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation.
1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:
1.Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths
within existing developed parts of the city by 2000, and extend the system to serve
new growth areas.
2.Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed
areas by 2000, and provide service to new growth areas.
PH1 - 22
Circulation
THE GENERAL PLAN
2-9
3.Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic
reduction programs.
4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of
transportation other than the single-occupant vehicle.
1.8 Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development
to the rates and levels stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing
regulations. Limit increases in ADT and VMT to the increase in employment within
the City's Urban Reserve.
2. Support county-wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county-
wide travel demand.
3. Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing
road system and reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of
transportation throughout the city and connect with Regional Routes and
Highways.
5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic
levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased
headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists.
6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted
to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.
7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood-serving business and
provide parks and recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by
pedestrians or bicyclists.
8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or
controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets.
9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of
land uses around the airport to avoid noise and safety problems.
1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of
air pollution.
A. The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed
natural gas fueling stations in the San Luis Obispo area.
B. When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City
will consider purchasing alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution.
C. The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis.
2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of
information to substitute for travel to work or meetings. Develop goals and policies
for City employee participation in telecommuting systems.
3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of
innovative transportation technologies in San Luis Obispo.
4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and
other transportation corridors.
1.10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation.
San Luis Obispo will:
PH1 - 23
Circulation
THE GENERAL PLAN
2-10
1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Figure
#1 and bi-annually review and adjust transportation programs if necessary.
1.11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors.
The City will:
1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that
create safe, attractive, and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining
land uses and the traveling public.
PH1 - 24
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
4 Public Input 2013 06 11b RRR.docx
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
#4
,
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
Ju
n
e
1,
20
1
3
Th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
ho
s
t
e
d
th
e
fo
u
r
t
h
in
a
se
r
i
e
s
of
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
in
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Up
d
a
t
e
on
Ju
n
e
1,
20
1
3
.
Th
e
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
ev
e
n
t
,
ca
l
l
e
d
“F
u
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2”
,
wa
s
at
t
e
n
d
e
d
by
ov
e
r
30
0
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
me
m
b
e
r
s
,
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
me
m
b
e
r
s
,
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
,
an
d
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
.
Wh
i
l
e
20
8
si
g
n
e
d
in
(1
6
8
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
40
ot
h
e
r
s
wh
o
we
r
e
ei
t
h
e
r
no
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
or
wh
o
di
d
n
’
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
st
r
e
e
t
ad
d
r
e
s
s
)
,
ot
h
e
r
s
ch
o
s
e
no
t
to
si
g
n
in
an
d
st
a
f
f
at
th
e
si
gn
‐in
ta
b
l
e
s
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
an
o
t
h
e
r
80
‐
10
0
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
di
d
no
t
si
g
n
in
.
At
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
ab
l
e
to
dr
o
p
in
be
t
w
e
e
n
1:
0
0
–
5:
0
0
pm
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
p
u
t
at
si
x
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Fi
v
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
fe
a
t
u
r
e
d
a
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
ar
e
a
of
th
e
ci
t
y
an
d
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
va
r
i
o
u
s
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
bo
t
h
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
o
s
e
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
wh
o
si
g
n
e
d
in
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
co
l
o
r
‐co
d
e
d
do
t
s
to
us
e
at
ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
e
i
r
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
fo
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
or
la
n
d
us
e
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
by
th
e
al
te
r
n
at
i
v
e
s
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
co
m
m
e
n
t
bo
x
e
s
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
at
ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
so
th
a
t
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
mo
r
e
le
n
g
t
h
y
an
d
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
ab
o
u
t
ea
c
h
of
th
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
or
pr
o
p
o
s
e
th
e
i
r
ow
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
an
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
si
x
t
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
tw
o
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
fi
r
s
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
ma
p
of
th
e
ci
t
y
wi
t
h
ei
g
h
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
.
Ea
c
h
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
wa
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
ha
n
d
o
u
t
wh
e
r
e
th
e
y
co
u
l
d
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
e
i
r
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
fo
r
wh
i
c
h
mo
d
e
of
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
.
e
.
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
bi
k
e
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
or
ve
h
i
c
l
e
)
sh
o
u
l
d
be
em
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
d
on
th
a
t
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
ro
a
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
se
c
o
n
d
pa
r
t
of
th
i
s
st
a
t
i
o
n
wa
s
an
in
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
we
b
pr
o
g
r
a
m
wh
e
r
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
on
tr
a
n
s
i
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
mi
s
s
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
ar
e
a
s
,
he
a
d
w
a
y
ti
m
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
,
or
ge
n
e
r
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ag
a
i
n
,
co
m
m
e
n
t
ca
r
d
s
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
so
th
a
t
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
Ki
d
’
s
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
ar
e
a
an
d
a
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
to
wr
i
t
e
do
w
n
ot
h
e
r
id
e
a
s
we
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
Th
e
ev
e
n
t
wa
s
ca
l
l
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2 to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
a
t
it
wa
s
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
th
e
in
p
u
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
at
th
e
fi
r
s
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
he
l
d
in
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
2
.
Id
e
a
s
an
d
co
n
c
e
p
t
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
th
i
s
ea
r
l
i
e
r
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
we
r
e
ad
d
e
d
to
ot
h
e
r
in
p
u
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
fr
o
m
on
‐li
n
e
in
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
pu
b
l
i
c
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
an
d
a
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
wi
d
e
su
r
v
e
y
.
Th
e
s
e
in
p
u
t
s
we
r
e
us
e
d
by
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
to
id
en
t
i
f
y
each of the alternatives
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
at
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
en
d
e
d
at 5:00 p.m. after City staff
an
d
th
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
team informed attendees of
ne
x
t
st
e
p
s
in
th
e
process. The workshop
su
m
m
a
r
y
wi
l
l
be
added to the Land Use and
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
Update website at:
ww
w
.
s
l
o
2
0
3
5
.
c
o
m
Th
i
s
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Update process is focused on
re
v
i
e
w
of
ar
e
a
s
of
potential physical changes in
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
As
these potential changes are
fu
r
t
h
e
r
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
,
they will be added to the
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
of
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
policy changes or
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
agreed with the Task
Fo
r
c
e
th
a
t
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
goals should be used as a
to
o
l
to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
la
n
d
use and circulation changes
an
d
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
poli
c
i
e
s
wi
l
l
be reviewed for how well
th
e
y
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
se
r
v
e
the community’s stated
go
a
l
s
an
d
ne
w
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
will be considered where
ne
e
d
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
new areas or topics identified
by
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
,
state law, or policy gaps
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
.
The upcoming phase of the
up
d
a
t
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
wi
l
l
entail getting into the “meat”
of
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Land Use and Circulation
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
PH1 - 25
Th
e
gr
a
p
h
i
c
to
th
e
ri
g
h
t
ou
t
l
i
n
e
s
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
th
a
t
ha
v
e
or
wi
l
l
oc
c
u
r
to
cr
e
a
t
e
a pl
a
n
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
’
s
va
l
u
e
s
an
d
no
r
m
s
an
d
Co
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
th
i
s
fo
c
u
s
e
d
up
d
a
t
e
.
In
th
e
up
c
o
m
i
n
g
mo
n
t
h
s
,
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
,
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
an
d
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
wi
l
l
ov
e
r
s
e
e
th
e
si
f
t
i
n
g
of
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
an
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
of
cu
r
r
e
n
t
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
By
la
t
e
Fa
l
l
,
an
o
t
he
r
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
wi
l
l
pr
e
s
e
n
t
mo
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
ea
c
h
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
pa
c
k
a
g
e
so
th
a
t
th
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
is
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
th
e
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
fo
r
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
po
l
i
c
y
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
be
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
an
d
fi
s
c
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
Vi
e
w
of
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
PH1 - 26
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
fo
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
Si
m
i
l
a
r
to
th
e
la
s
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
pu
b
l
i
c
no
t
i
c
e
of
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2
us
i
n
g
a
nu
m
b
e
r
of
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
me
t
h
o
d
s
.
Po
s
t
e
d
fl
y
e
r
s
an
n
o
u
n
c
i
n
g
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Ra
n
tw
o
di
s
p
l
a
y
ad
s
in
th
e
SL
O
Tr
i
b
u
n
e
an
d
on
e
in
th
e
Ne
w
Ti
m
e
s
.
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
ne
w
s
re
l
e
a
s
e
pr
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
in
pr
e
‐
an
d
po
s
t
‐
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
co
v
e
r
a
g
e
by
KS
B
Y
,
Th
e
Tr
i
b
u
n
e
,
an
d
To
l
o
s
a
Pr
e
s
s
.
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
eB
l
a
s
t
s
(e
‐ma
i
l
no
t
i
c
e
s
)
to
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
e‐ma
i
l
li
s
t
th
r
e
e
ti
m
e
s
pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
an
d
hu
n
g
a
ba
n
n
e
r
fo
r
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
ov
e
r
th
e
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
to
th
e
Li
b
r
a
r
y
.
Po
s
t
e
d
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
on
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Up
d
a
t
e
we
b
s
i
t
e
wi
t
h
me
e
t
i
n
g
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
At
t
e
n
d
e
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
fo
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
,
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
of
Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
,
Ro
t
a
r
y
,
an
d
La
t
i
n
o
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
Co
u
n
c
i
l
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
to
pr
o
m
o
t
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Se
c
u
r
e
d
sp
e
c
i
a
l
eN
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
fr
o
m
th
e
SL
O
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
of
Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
to
al
l
me
m
b
e
r
s
.
Co
n
t
a
c
t
e
d
fa
i
t
h
ba
s
e
d
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
in
Ci
t
y
.
KC
B
X
in
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
pr
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
ai
r
e
d
on
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
pr
i
o
r
to
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
Pl
a
c
a
r
d
s
we
r
e
po
s
t
e
d
in
al
l
Ci
t
y
bu
s
e
s
.
At
t
e
n
d
e
d
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
an
d
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
Fa
r
m
e
r
’
s
Ma
r
k
e
t
s
(M
a
y
30
an
d
Ju
n
e
1,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
)
to
pr
o
m
o
t
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
th
e
ev
e
n
t
.
2,
0
0
0
cu
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
d
po
s
t
c
a
r
d
s
we
r
e
ma
i
l
e
d
to
si
x
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
wh
e
r
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ch
a
n
g
e
s
we
r
e
be
i
n
g
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
to
al
l
wa
t
e
r
/
s
e
w
e
r
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
pr
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
of
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
.
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
Th
e
ma
i
n
ro
o
m
fo
r
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
ha
d
fo
u
r
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
a
si
d
e
ro
o
m
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
th
e
fi
f
t
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
on
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Th
e
fi
v
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
co
v
e
r
e
d
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
pa
r
t
s
of
th
e
ci
t
y
(s
e
e
ma
p
on
ne
x
t
pa
g
e
)
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
bo
t
h
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
wa
s
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
a co
l
o
r
to
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
in
wh
a
t
pa
r
t
of
th
e
ci
t
y
th
a
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wa
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
.
Ea
c
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
nu
m
b
e
r
of
si
te
s
th
a
t
we
r
e
be
i
n
g
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
.
Si
t
e
s
th
a
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
la
n
d
us
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
we
r
e
gi
v
e
n
a
le
t
t
e
r
,
A
–
S.
Si
t
e
s
th
a
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
we
r
e
gi
v
e
n
a
nu
m
b
e
r
,
1
–
19
.
Fo
r
ea
c
h
of
th
e
38
si
t
e
s
,
a
po
s
t
e
r
wa
s
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
th
e
wa
l
l
th
a
t
sh
o
w
e
d
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
th
a
t
ha
d
be
e
n
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
Ea
c
h
po
s
t
e
r
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
to
le
a
v
e
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
un
ch
a
n
g
e
d
or
to
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
“n
o
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e”
.
Th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
we
r
e
di
v
i
d
e
d
as follows (and shown
on
th
e
ma
p
on
th
e
ne
x
t
page):
Re
d
St
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ar
e
a
on
no
r
t
h
side of city
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
A – D
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 1 – 2
Ye
l
l
o
w
St
a
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
/ Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
/ Mid‐Higuera Area
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
E – H
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 3 – 9
Bl
u
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
/ Br
o
a
d
Ar
e
a
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
I – J
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 10 – 13
Gr
e
e
n
St
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/ LO
V
R
Ar
e
a
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
K – O
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 14 – 16
Or
a
n
g
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
t
h
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
/ Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Area
La
n
d
Us
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
:
P – S
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Alternatives: 17 – 19
At
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
as
k
e
d
to visit each station and
us
e
do
t
st
i
c
k
e
r
s
to
mark their preference for each
si
t
e
(t
h
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
they liked best). Each
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
wa
s
gi
v
e
n
enough dots to place one on
ea
c
h
po
s
t
e
r
.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
were also able to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
wr
i
t
t
e
n
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
at each station.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
PH1 - 27
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
4
PH
1
-
28
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
Th
e
si
x
t
h
st
a
t
i
o
n
at
th
e
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
de
a
l
t
wi
t
h
th
e
co
n
c
e
p
t
of
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
.
Th
e
te
r
m
“C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
”
is
de
f
i
n
e
d
as
a
ro
a
d
w
a
y
th
a
t
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
sa
f
e
ac
c
e
s
s
al
o
n
g
an
d
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
fo
r
al
l
tr
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
:
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
,
an
d
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
mo
d
e
s
.
At
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
sh
o
w
n
ni
n
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
as
k
e
d
to
as
s
i
g
n
a
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
to
ea
c
h
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
mo
d
e
fo
r
th
a
t
st
r
e
e
t
.
In
ot
h
e
r
wo
r
d
s
,
fo
r
ea
c
h
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
,
ra
n
k
th
e
mo
d
e
s
fr
o
m
1
to
4,
wi
t
h
1
be
i
n
g
th
e
mo
d
e
wi
t
h
th
e
hi
g
h
e
s
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
an
d
4
be
i
n
g
th
e
lo
w
e
s
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
.
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
ar
e
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
(a
n
d
sh
o
w
n
on
ma
p
to
ri
g
h
t
)
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Bl
v
d
.
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St
.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
.
Lo
s
Os
o
s
Va
l
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
At
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
al
s
o
as
k
e
d
th
e
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
“W
o
u
l
d
yo
u
be
wi
l
l
i
n
g
to
do
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
th
e
wa
l
k
i
n
g
an
d
/
o
r
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ar
e
a
?
”
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
ra
n
k
i
n
g
s
an
d
the response to the above
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
ar
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
following the land use
an
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
PH1 - 29
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Th
e
pa
g
e
s
th
a
t
fo
l
l
o
w
sh
o
w
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
th
a
t
we
r
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
fo
r
ea
c
h
si
t
e
at
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2.
Th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
in
th
e
ci
r
c
l
e
in
th
e
upper right corner of each
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
do
t
s
(r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
)
th
a
t
we
r
e
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
ea
c
h
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
by
th
o
s
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
in the fair’s activity.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
PH1 - 30
RE
D
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Land Use
Mu
c
h
mo
r
e
at
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
ne
e
d
s
to
be
pa
i
d
to
SR
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
fr
o
m
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
to
10
1
.
It
is
ou
r
pr
i
m
a
r
y
ga
t
e
w
a
y
.
Ke
e
p
th
e
Fa
s
t
food / Gas to a min. add in
cl
a
s
s
A of
f
i
c
e
an
d
mi
x
e
d
us
e
.
Ge
t
ri
d
of
ol
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
an
d
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
N.
Ch
o
r
r
o
as
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
bi
k
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
.
Ne
e
d
bi
k
e
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
10
1
to
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
on
th
e
we
s
t
si
d
e
of the railroad tracks – need
a us
e
r
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Th
i
s
is
a to
u
r
i
s
m
ga
t
e
w
a
y
in
t
o
th
e
ci
t
y
– it
sh
o
u
l
d
lo
o
k
gr
e
a
t
,
be
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
fo
r
th
e
un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
/ co
l
l
e
g
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
flow well all the way to 101
To
u
r
i
s
m
ga
t
e
w
a
y
– it
sh
o
u
l
d
lo
o
k
be
t
t
e
r
al
l
al
o
n
g
th
e
10
1
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
re
l
a
t
e
d
– So
u
t
h
bo
u
n
d
Hw
y
1 to
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
an
d
bl
o
c
k
ac
c
e
s
s
to
Ch
o
r
r
o
.
Re
m
o
v
e
se
c
t
i
o
n
of
Is
l
a
n
d
to
al
l
o
w
bi
c
y
c
l
e
travel to south bound
Hw
y
1 to
so
u
t
h
bo
u
n
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
– Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
bi
k
e
la
n
e
fr
o
m
we
s
t
bo
u
n
d
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
fr
o
m
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
to
we
s
t
of
Mu
s
t
a
n
g
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Conditions
We
bo
u
g
h
t
ou
r
ho
m
e
6 ye
a
r
s
ag
o
– 4 ho
u
s
e
s
ha
v
e
so
l
d
an
d
be
c
o
m
e
ro
w
d
y
an
d
no
i
s
y
Ca
l
Po
l
y
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
!
We
ha
v
e
co
n
f
r
o
n
t
e
d
the new owners
wh
o
ar
e
bu
y
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
(R
‐1)
an
d
ab
u
s
i
n
g
th
e
co
d
e
of
5 mi
l
e
s
Wh
y
no
t
ha
v
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
li
v
e
in
ca
m
p
u
s
ho
u
s
i
n
g
so
th
a
t
st
a
f
f
,
in
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
et
c
.
ca
n
li
v
e
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
li
k
e
th
e
y
us
e
d
to
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
ci
t
y
to
se
a
bi
c
y
c
l
e
pa
t
h
s
Th
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l
fo
c
u
s
on
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
ar
e
a
s
.
Ar
e
a
s
se
e
m
li
k
e
a lo
s
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
Pe
r
h
a
p
s
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
co
u
l
d
be expanded slightly to
lo
o
k
at
th
o
s
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
br
o
a
d
e
r
ar
e
a
th
a
n
th
e
y
ar
e
in
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
/ Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
an
d
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
ar
e
a
to
o
na
r
r
o
w
in
fo
c
u
s
(w
h
y
ju
s
t
on
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
an
d
do
e
s
no
t
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
me
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
land use discussion
ab
o
u
t
th
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
ar
e
a
s
.
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
an
d
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
ar
e
go
o
d
ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
of
a li
t
t
l
e
br
o
a
d
e
r
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
to
la
n
d
us
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ca
l
Po
l
y
mu
s
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
un
d
e
r
a
g
e
(2
1
)
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
to
re
s
i
d
e
on
ca
m
p
u
s
an
d
no
t
in
cl
u
s
t
e
r
s
of
5 mi
l
e
aw
a
y
R‐1 ho
u
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
/ ne
e
d
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
re
v
i
s
i
t
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
in
ce
r
t
a
i
n
ar
e
a
s
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
an
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
It
is
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
/ pl
a
n
n
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ke
y
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
ci
t
y
’
s
stated jobs / housing
ba
l
a
n
c
e
go
a
l
s
,
th
e
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
pl
a
n
,
cl
i
m
a
t
e
ac
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
an
d
th
e
ge
n
e
r
a
l
pl
a
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
fo
r
th
e
fu
t
u
r
e
bu
i
l
d
ou
t
of
th
e
ci
t
y
so
th
a
t
co
m
m
o
n
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ex
t
e
n
d
s
be
y
o
n
d
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
up
d
a
t
e
/ 20 year horizon
So
m
e
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
ap
p
e
a
r
to
o
ov
e
r
l
y
fo
c
u
s
e
d
on
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
PH1 - 31
1
A.
Di
o
c
e
s
e
Si
t
e
on
Da
l
y
Av
e
.
A-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A-
2
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
i
-
P
a
r
k
A-
3
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
w
i
t
h
P
a
r
k
S
e
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
PF
Da
l
y
A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
PA
R
K
RM
D
Da
l
y
A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
PA
R
K
RM
D
RL
D
Da
l
y
A
v
e
.
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
RL
D
PF
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
A‐2
Un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
sp
a
c
e
be
h
i
n
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
m
e
s
be
c
o
m
e
s
park
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
on
Je
f
f
e
r
y
Dr. and Daly Ave.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
A‐3
Sh
a
r
e
d
on
‐si
t
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
ch
u
r
c
h
/ pa
r
k
Us
e
s
pa
r
k
to
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
ne
w
ho
m
e
s
fr
o
m
ch
u
r
c
h
/ pre‐school
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
on
Je
f
f
e
r
y
Dr. and Daly Ave.
12
10
49
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
PH1 - 32
Si
t
e
A
Land Use
Wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
A‐2 wi
t
h
RM
D
an
d
Pa
r
k
ma
d
e
to
OS
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
op
t
i
o
n
A3
ON
L
Y
re
u
s
e
pa
r
k
an
d
MD
R
so
th
e
r
e
is
a bu
f
f
e
r
be
t
w
e
e
n
MD
R
to
SF
R
on
Je
f
f
r
e
y
In
c
l
u
d
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
la
n
d
us
e
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
a sm
a
l
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ma
r
k
e
t
th
a
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
co
u
l
d
walk to for basic
gr
o
c
e
r
y
su
p
p
l
y
.
Di
o
c
e
s
e
Si
t
e
on
Da
l
y
ha
s
de
e
d
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
so
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
is
mo
o
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
PH1 - 33
2
B.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
@ Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St.
B-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B-
2
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
B-
3
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
fo
r
se
n
i
o
r
s
/
e
m
p
t
y
ne
s
t
e
r
s
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
z
e
st
r
e
e
t
pa
t
t
e
r
n
wi
t
h
a me
d
i
a
n
on
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
for pedestrian safety
Ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
sh
o
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
an
ac
t
i
v
e
so
c
i
a
l
scene, with entertainment
an
d
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
an
em
p
h
a
s
i
s
on
al
c
o
h
o
l
Ma
k
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
wa
l
k
a
b
l
e
wi
t
h
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
an
d
sh
o
p
s
and restaurants opening
on
t
o
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
th
e
ar
e
a
to
lo
o
k
li
k
e
Po
l
y
Ca
n
y
o
n
Vi
l
l
a
ge
Li
m
i
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
to
th
r
e
e
st
o
r
i
e
s
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
De
v
e
l
o
p
Cl
a
s
s
1 bi
k
e
tr
a
i
l
fr
o
m
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
to
LO
V
R
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
B‐2
Da
s
h
e
d
ci
r
c
l
e
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a re
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
fi
r
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
which could be on‐site. Exact
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
si
t
e
de
s
i
g
n
Sa
m
e
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s as
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Plan (except fire station site) –
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
B‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define
us
e
s
an
d
mi
x
)
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
at
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
corner of Foothill Blvd. and
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
RH
D
NC
RL
D
CC
RH
D
CR
PF
O
O
MU Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(n
e
e
d
s
n
e
w
p
o
l
i
c
y
t
o
d
o
)
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
CR
PF
PF
PF
NC
NC
4
15
15
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
0
PH1 - 34
3
B.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
@ Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St.(cont’d)
B-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B-
4
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
(
w
/
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
)
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
.
RH
D
NC
RL
D
CC
RH
D
CR
PF
O
O
MU
Re
a
l
i
g
n
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
MU Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(n
e
e
d
s
n
e
w
p
o
l
i
c
y
t
o
d
o
)
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
B‐4
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define
us
e
s
an
d
mi
x
)
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
si
t
e
wo
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of circulation system (as
sh
o
w
n
)
4
52
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
1
PH1 - 35
Si
t
e
B
Land Use
A po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Id
e
a
l
fo
r
re
z
o
n
i
n
g
.
Go
o
d
ar
e
a
fo
r
a re
s
e
a
r
c
h
pa
r
k
Ar
e
a
pe
r
f
e
c
t
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
Mo
r
e
Me
d
i
u
m
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ne
e
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
Ca
l
Po
l
y
’
s
ne
e
d
s
I li
k
e
th
e
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
B3
– La
n
d
us
e
s
an
d
2‐3 Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
pl
a
c
e
a pl
a
n
t
e
d
me
d
i
a
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
2
PH1 - 36
4
C.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Si
t
e
RL
D
PFSl
a
c
k
S
t
.
C-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C-
2
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
u
s
e
C-
3
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
u
s
e
,
M
i
x
e
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
RL
D
RL
D
RM
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
C‐2
Co
n
v
e
r
t
ol
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with surrounding
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
C‐3
Co
n
v
e
r
t
ol
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with surrounding
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Ar
e
a
at
co
r
n
e
r
of
Sl
a
c
k
St
r
e
e
t
and Grand Avenue designated
fo
r
Me
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
to
al
l
o
w
mu
l
t
i
‐fa
m
i
l
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Sl
a
c
k
S
t
.
Sl
a
c
k
S
t
.
43
12
24
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
3
PH1 - 37
5
C.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Si
t
e
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
RL
D
PFSl
a
c
k
S
t
.
C-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C-
4
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
R
e
u
s
e
RM
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
C‐4
Co
n
v
e
r
t
ol
d
sc
h
o
o
l
si
t
e
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with surrounding
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
pa
r
k
ar
e
a
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
m
e
s
as
a buffer
Sl
a
c
k
S
t
.
PA
R
K
43
45
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
4
PH1 - 38
Si
t
e
C
Land Use
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
fo
r
me
d
i
u
m
or
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Al
l
o
w
s
fo
r
so
m
e
mi
x
e
d
us
e
to
co
m
p
l
i
m
e
n
t
a ne
w
residential area.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
Si
t
e
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
fo
r
me
d
i
u
m
to
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
Si
t
e
– Pr
e
f
e
r
RL
D
Ca
l
Po
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
en
o
u
g
h
ho
u
s
i
n
g
on
ca
m
p
u
s
fo
r
it
s
en
t
i
r
e
fr
e
s
h
m
a
n
cl
a
s
s
an
d
th
e
n
re
q
u
i
r
e
al
l
fr
e
s
h
m
a
n
to
li
v
e
on campus even if they are
lo
n
g
‐ti
m
e
SL
O
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
or
if
th
e
i
r
pa
r
e
n
t
s
bo
u
g
h
t
an
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ho
m
e
fo
r
th
e
m
to
pa
r
t
y
or
li
v
e
in
Th
e
wh
o
l
e
pl
a
c
e
sh
o
u
l
d
be
a pa
r
k
fo
r
ge
n
e
r
a
l
us
e
.
No
mo
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
– to
o
ma
n
y
pe
o
p
l
e
us
e
th
e
ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
di
a
m
o
n
d
fi
e
l
d
.
There should be a place
to
pl
a
y
fo
r
th
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
th
e
r
e
.
It
is
al
r
e
a
d
y
Pa
r
t
y
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
no
ne
e
d
fo
r
mo
r
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ca
l
Po
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
AL
L
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
th
e
y
se
l
l
.
AN
D
gi
v
e
mo
r
e
bu
s
ac
c
e
s
s
so
m
e
w
h
e
r
e
else
I vo
t
e
d
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
bu
t
wo
u
l
d
be
ha
p
p
i
e
s
t
wi
t
h
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/ pa
r
k
pl
a
n
.
It
wa
s
so
cl
o
s
e
to
th
e
fl
o
o
r
that I missed it entirely until
so
m
e
o
n
e
me
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
it
.
Wh
y
no
t
ha
v
e
a me
e
t
i
n
g
on
ea
c
h
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
so
th
a
t
yo
u
ge
t
in
p
u
t
fr
o
m
th
e
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
.
This is a great
fo
r
u
m
bu
t
I am
mo
s
t
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
in
th
e
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
Pl
a
n
th
a
n
ot
h
e
r
s
.
Ca
l
Po
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
be
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
en
r
o
l
l
mo
r
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
un
t
i
l
th
e
y
ca
n
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
on
ca
m
p
u
s
fo
r
it
s
students.
In
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
zo
n
e
s
,
pa
r
k
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
is
s
u
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
no
t
ju
s
t
2 to
ea
c
h
ho
m
e
.
In
my neighborhood 1 house
ha
s
6 Ag
r
i
c
.
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
ea
c
h
wi
t
h
a 6‐wh
e
e
l
pi
c
k
‐up
tr
u
c
k
.
Th
e
r
e
is
on
l
y
ro
o
m
fo
r
on
e
tr
u
c
k
in
fr
o
n
t
of
th
e
na
r
r
o
w
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
The students can’t use
th
e
ga
r
a
g
e
be
c
a
u
s
e
it
is
a li
v
i
ng
un
i
t
.
Th
e
dr
i
v
e
is
st
e
e
p
an
d
th
e
y
ca
n
n
o
t
ba
c
k
a tr
u
c
k
ou
t
of
it
so
th
e
y
le
a
v
e
th
e
dr
i
v
e
empty and park a truck in
fr
o
n
t
of
my
ho
u
s
e
ta
k
i
n
g
up
2 ca
r
sp
a
c
e
s
.
Th
i
n
k
lo
n
g
te
r
m
ab
o
u
t
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Ci
t
y
ne
e
d
s
re
a
l
vi
s
i
o
n
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
student rentals
Wh
e
r
e
is
vi
s
i
o
n
fo
r
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a bo
n
‐a‐fi
d
e
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
zo
n
e
fo
r
st
u
d
e
n
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
?
?
?
?
Th
i
n
k
bi
g
ab
o
u
t
fu
t
u
r
e
of
Ha
t
h
w
a
y
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
– ne
e
d
to
t
a
l
us
e
fo
r
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
Ca
l
Po
l
y
st
u
d
e
n
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
se
r
v
e
s
a gr
e
a
t
ne
e
d
fo
r
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
in
ou
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Ou
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ne
e
d
s
more classroom space
no
t
le
s
s
.
On
c
e
it
is
go
n
e
it
is
ne
v
e
r
re
p
l
a
c
e
d
.
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Pa
r
k
/
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
.
Fi
e
l
d
s
.
Si
t
t
i
n
g
Ga
r
d
e
n
s
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
sh
o
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
fo
r
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
pa
r
k
s
– no
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ol
d
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
el
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
ke
e
p
lo
w
de
n
s
i
t
y
.
Ke
e
p
pl
a
y
i
n
g
fi
e
l
d
s
.
Ke
e
p
k‐12
sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ke
e
p
Pa
c
h
e
c
o
sc
h
o
o
l
as
is
.
LO
V
R
‐
wa
y
to
o
mu
c
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
!
Ad
d
2n
d
la
n
e
to
FW
Y
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
an
d
ex
t
e
n
d
LO
V
R
so
u
t
h
to meet Buckley Road.
Ke
e
p
la
n
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
FW
Y
an
d
Lo
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Pa
r
k
no
de
n
s
i
t
y
:
OS
an
d
/
o
r
AG
[ Co
m
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
vi
a
e‐ma
i
l
on
6/
4
/
2
0
1
3
]
.
Hi
Ki
m
,
Ju
s
t
sp
o
k
e
to
yo
u
& I wo
n
'
t
be
ab
l
e
to
ma
k
e
Sa
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
fo
r
land use on Grand & Slack
St
.
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
gi
v
e
my
id
e
a
s
fo
r
go
o
d
la
n
d
us
e
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Af
t
e
r
ow
n
i
n
g
fo
r
7 ye
a
r
s
an
d
en
j
o
y
i
n
g
th
e
pa
r
k
li
k
e
at
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
and noticing
th
e
r
e
ar
e
fe
w
pa
r
k
s
in
th
e
ar
e
a
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e to
sa
y
I am
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
in
fa
v
o
r
of
at
le
as
t
ha
l
f
pa
r
k
an
d
th
e
ot
h
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(low density). Maybe higher
de
n
s
i
t
y
co
u
l
d
fi
t
ne
a
r
Gr
a
n
d
wi
t
h
en
o
u
g
h
pa
r
k
i
n
g
(b
i
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
)
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
5
PH1 - 39
6
D.
Di
o
c
e
s
e
Si
t
e
ne
a
r
Br
e
s
s
i
P
l
.
and
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Se
r
r
a
n
o
D
r
.
Broad St.
RM
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
D‐2
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
de
n
s
i
t
y
on
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
pa
r
c
e
l
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
additional housing
op
t
i
o
n
s
.
RL
D
OS
D-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
D-
2
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
OS
43
35
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
6
PH1 - 40
Si
t
e
D
Land Use
D‐2 In
c
l
u
d
e
ac
c
e
s
s
to
hi
k
i
n
g
tr
a
i
l
s
on
Ce
r
r
o
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
7
PH1 - 41
7
E.
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Ar
e
a
E-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
E-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
CT
CR
RL
D
OS
O
PF
RH
D
RL
D
PF
CC
RM
H
D
NC
OS
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
E
No
ma
j
o
r
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
changes proposed
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
area will be policy driven
(t
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
in
St
e
p
2 of
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
development)
Up
d
a
t
e
po
l
i
c
y
on
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Use Area
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
po
l
i
c
y
on
de
s
i
g
n
guidance and enhancement
Be
t
t
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
to
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Lo
o
k
at
pa
r
k
i
n
g
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
Is
there a good location for a
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
?
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
14
50
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
8
PH1 - 42
Si
t
e
E
Land Use
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
ta
k
e
ou
r
st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
on
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Cl
o
s
i
n
g
Br
o
a
d
/
M
o
n
t
e
r
r
e
y
by
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
:
Wh
a
t
ab
o
u
t
th
e
24
co
n
d
o
s
B+
B
,
an
d
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
go
i
n
g
in
on
wh
a
t
mi
g
h
t
be
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
mall? Will that
wo
r
k
?
E‐2 Sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
be
se
e
n
as
an
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
it
ma
y
b
e
on
e
or
tw
o
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
on
th
e
i
r
ow
n
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
r
e
e
t
al
l
o
w
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
.
4 st
o
r
y
al
l
o
w
fo
r
a pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
an
d
a pa
r
k
i
n
g
in
li
e
u
pr
o
g
r
a
m
to allow small site to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
de
n
s
i
t
y
Jo
i
n
E & F pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ma
p
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
do
e
s
n
’
t
se
e
m
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
un
l
e
s
s
ho
t
e
l
s
co
u
l
d
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
/
u
s
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Up
p
e
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
mo
r
e
CT
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
9
PH1 - 43
8
F.
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ar
e
a
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
F
No
ma
j
o
r
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
Th
e
r
e
ma
y
be
se
v
e
r
a
l
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
va
c
a
n
t
or
un
d
e
r
‐utilized sites that have
re
‐de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
wi
l
l
be
po
l
i
c
y
dr
i
v
e
n
(t
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
in
St
e
p
2 of
th
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
F-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
F-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
12
46
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
0
PH1 - 44
Si
t
e
F
Land Use
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
u
p
l
e
t
s
ma
k
e
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
st
r
e
e
t
.
Ma
k
e
Ma
r
s
h
2 wa
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
u
p
l
e
t
s
‐
cl
o
s
e
of
f
al
l
pa
r
k
i
n
g
la
n
e
s
an
d
wi
d
e
n
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
ar
e
a
ai
r
sp
a
c
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
on
c
e
3 st
o
r
i
e
s
.
Mu
s
t
bu
y
ai
r
sp
a
c
e
ri
g
h
t
s
,
fr
o
m
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
lo
w
e
r
than 3 stories.
Co
u
l
d
n
’
t
vo
t
e
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
ev
e
n
th
o
u
g
h
I ag
r
e
e
th
a
t
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
co
u
l
d
be
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
.
I th
i
n
k
th
e
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
must not clog up S.
Ro
s
a
,
an
d
I th
i
n
k
it
ne
e
d
s
to
ta
k
e
bi
k
e
s
an
d
pe
d
s
in
t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t
.
I’
m
al
s
o
wo
r
r
i
e
d
ab
o
u
t
ge
t
t
i
n
g
to
th
e
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
on
Ol
i
v
e
.
I’d like to see something
th
a
t
do
e
s
n
’
t
hu
r
t
th
e
th
r
u
‐tr
a
f
f
i
c
of
th
e
ne
a
r
b
y
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
en
f
o
r
c
e
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
of
f
i
c
e
an
d
re
t
a
i
l
Al
l
o
w
fo
r
mo
r
e
he
i
g
h
t
/
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
;
ex
t
e
n
d
st
u
d
y
ar
e
a
to
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
wi
t
h
G
Br
o
a
d
is
an
ar
t
e
r
y
so
u
t
h
of
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
We
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ab
l
e
to
st
a
y
on
it
th
r
o
u
g
h
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
to
th
e
ot
h
e
r
si
d
e
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
having to evade the plaza.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
mo
r
e
fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
!
Cl
o
s
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
to
ca
r
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
St
r
o
n
g
l
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
wi
d
e
r
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
on
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
(S
R
‐Ni
p
o
m
o
)
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ex
p
l
o
r
e
va
r
i
o
u
s
me
t
h
o
d
s
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
.
Th
a
n
k
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
/
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
in
f
i
l
l
;
e.
g
.
co
n
d
o
or
to
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
(e
v
e
n
sm
a
l
l
si
n
g
l
e
fa
m
i
l
y
)
.
Mo
r
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
to
li
v
e
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
= more people
wa
l
k
i
n
g
,
us
i
n
g
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,
et
c
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
1
PH1 - 45
9
G.
Mi
d
‐Hi
g
u
e
r
a
Ar
e
a
G-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
SM
CR
OS
RH
D
IO
S
CT
RM
H
D
RM
D
RL
D
PF
CR
OS
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
G
No
ma
j
o
r
la
n
d
us
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
ch
a
n
g
e
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
ar
e
a
wi
l
l
be
po
l
i
c
y
dr
i
v
e
n
(t
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
in Step 2 of the alternatives
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
lo
t
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
enhancements
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
.
Se
e
ne
x
t
pa
g
e
fo
r
de
t
a
i
l
s
on
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
So
u
t
h
S
t
.
Bridge St.
G-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
26
23
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
2
PH1 - 46
Si
t
e
G
Land Use
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St
r
e
e
t
‐
li
k
e
ke
e
p
i
n
g
1 wa
y
,
bu
t
re
d
u
c
e
fr
o
m
32 la
n
e
s
‐
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
la
n
e
wi
d
t
h
an
d
ad
d
bi
k
e
la
n
e
.
No
w
to
o
na
r
r
o
w
for bike riding and not
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
‐
ma
y
b
e
wi
d
e
n
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
to
o
?
G‐2‐
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pl
a
n
ar
e
a
bi
k
e
tr
a
i
l
re
l
i
e
s
on
a fe
w
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
lo
w
us
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
.
Th
i
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ch
a
n
g
e
d
to
be
a cl
a
s
s
1 th
r
o
u
g
h
the entire area. Align
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
to
Br
i
d
g
e
St
du
r
i
n
g
th
i
s
bu
i
l
d
th
e
bi
k
e
/
p
e
d
cl
a
s
s
1 sh
o
u
l
d
be
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
as
a gr
a
d
e
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
NO
at grade‐crossing of
ro
a
d
w
a
y
.
Mi
d
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
‐
cr
e
a
t
e
ar
t
i
s
t
i
c
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ou
t
of
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Gr
e
a
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
on
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
fo
r
re
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ga
t
e
w
a
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
in
t
o
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
area and what that can
lo
o
k
li
k
e
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
a “l
o
f
t
”
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
fr
o
m
S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
to
Ma
r
s
h
St
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
3
PH1 - 47
10
H.
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Si
t
e
H-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
H-
2
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
w
i
t
h
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N
o
d
e
H-
3
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
M
i
d
-
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
P
l
a
n
RH
D
PA
R
K
CR
IO
S
CT
SM
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
H‐2
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/ office uses with some housing
(n
e
e
d
s
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y
to
de
f
i
n
e
)
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
to
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Br
i
d
g
e
St
r
e
e
t
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
pl
a
n
on
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Road
Ar
e
a
s
of
si
t
e
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
ha
v
e
constraints due to adjacent
cr
e
e
k
an
d
fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
H‐3
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
pl
a
n
on
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
of
Ma
d
o
n
na
Road
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
pu
r
s
u
e
to
u
r
i
s
t
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
s
as
described in Mid‐HigueraPlan
Us
e
LU
C
E
Up
d
a
t
e
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
si
t
e
fo
r
to
u
r
i
s
t
use called out in Mid‐Higuera
Pl
a
n
Ar
e
a
s
of
si
t
e
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
ha
v
e
constraints due to adjacent
cr
e
e
k
an
d
fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
)
CT
CR
CR
PA
R
K
CR
PA
R
K
15
36
27
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
4
PH1 - 48
11
H.
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Si
t
e
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
H-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
H-
4
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
w
i
t
h
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N
o
d
e
RH
D
PA
R
K
CR
IO
S
CT
SM
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
H‐4
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/ office uses with some housing
(n
e
e
d
s
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y
to
de
f
i
n
e
)
Us
e
no
r
t
h
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
si
t
e
fo
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Or
i
e
n
t
ac
c
e
s
s
to
si
t
e
of
f
of
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
s
of
si
t
e
no
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
ha
v
e
constraints due to adjacent
cr
e
e
k
an
d
fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
pl
a
n
on
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a Road
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
)
CR
CR
PA
R
K
15
12
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
5
PH1 - 49
Si
t
e
H
Land Use
Wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
be
e
n
ni
c
e
if
yo
u
ha
d
to
l
d
us
th
i
s
wa
s
al
l
th
e
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
is
s
u
e
s
,
no
t
ju
s
t
my
bl
o
c
k
.
I am
no
t
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
!
I’
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
fo
r
th
e
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
an
d
So
u
t
h
th
a
t
’
s
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
an
d
pe
d
s
.
Ha
r
d
to make the area South
of
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
a de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ro
a
d
s
‐
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
,
et
c
.
Re
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
e
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
!
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
ne
e
d
e
d
.
On
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
,
if
ro
a
d
cl
o
s
e
d
,
wh
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ro
a
d
be
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
?
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
6
PH1 - 50
12
I.
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
Si
t
e
I-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
I-
2
.
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
I-
3
.
M
e
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
(
C
a
r
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
RL
D
RM
D
PF
PF
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Ot
h
e
r
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
:
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
/ in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
li
v
i
n
g
(a
l
l
o
w
e
d
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
designation)
Me
n
t
a
l
il
l
n
e
s
s
re
c
o
v
e
r
y
ce
n
t
e
r
(a
l
l
o
w
e
d
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
designation)
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
(a
l
l
o
w
e
d
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Me
d
i
c
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
s
(r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
PF
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
O de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
De
t
o
x
ce
n
t
e
r
(r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
PF
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
O de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
tr
a
i
l
s
(f
o
l
l
o
w
al
o
n
g
co
n
t
ou
r
,
ad
d
fi
t
n
e
s
s
tr
a
i
l
)
th
a
t
connects into larger regional system
Us
e
gr
a
d
e
to
da
y
‐li
g
h
t
fi
r
s
t
fl
o
o
r
un
i
t
s
bu
i
l
t
in
t
o
hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ne
e
d
s
to
be
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to views
Th
e
up
p
e
r
sl
o
p
e
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
to
be
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
Ke
e
p
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pu
b
l
i
c
ac
c
e
s
s
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
Su
n
n
y
Ac
r
e
s
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
du
e
to
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
tr
af
f
i
c
is
a co
n
c
e
r
n
Si
t
e
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
in
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
a va
r
i
e
t
y
of uses (to discuss in Step 2 of the
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
I‐2
Ex
p
a
n
d
ar
e
a
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
fo
r
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
to the city limit line
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
al
l
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
us
e
s
as
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
(P
F
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
I‐3
Ex
p
a
n
d
ar
e
a
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
fo
r
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
to the city limit line
Ch
a
n
g
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
si
t
e
to Medium Density Residential
(R
M
D
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
al
l
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
us
e
s
as
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(P
F
)
RM
D
RL
D
PF
OS
RL
D
Ci
t
y
Li
m
i
t
s
Ur
b
a
n
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Li
n
e
PF
PF
RL
D
OS
PF
PF
OS
RL
D
47
8
43
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
7
PH1 - 51
Si
t
e
I
Land Use
I‐3.
Al
l
o
w
fo
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
se
n
i
o
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
/ as
s
i
s
t
e
d
li
v
i
n
g
.
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
PF
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
R
Ad
d
a li
n
e
a
r
pa
r
k
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
(c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fl
o
r
a
/ Fi
x
l
i
n
i
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Bl
v
d
.
)
Ma
k
e
th
e
pa
r
k
ha
v
e
facilities that would /
co
u
l
d
be
a de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
po
i
n
t
.
Ol
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
– co
n
s
i
d
e
r
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
el
d
e
r
ca
r
e
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
th
e
ol
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
(p
u
r
p
o
s
e
)
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
/ Li
z
z
i
e
an
d
Bi
s
h
o
p
/ Jo
h
n
s
o
n
th
e
traffic is already intolerable
Do
no
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
si
t
e
.
Th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ca
n
n
o
t
ha
n
d
l
e
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
8
PH1 - 52
13
J.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
Moylan Terrace Development
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
J-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Ar
e
a
J
No
lo
n
g
e
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
in
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
Street area
J-
2
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
Y
o
u
r
I
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
A
r
e
a
47
17
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
6
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
9
PH1 - 53
Si
t
e
J
Land Use
Pl
e
a
s
e
,
pl
e
a
s
e
,
PL
E
A
S
E
ad
d
2 pe
d
xi
n
g
li
g
h
t
s
to
Br
o
a
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
Or
c
u
t
t
an
d
So
u
t
h
‐
to
cu
t
it
in
1/
3
’
s
…
wo
u
l
d
be
tr
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
only if button was
pu
s
h
e
d
.
St
i
l
l
al
l
o
w
ca
r
s
to
tu
r
n
le
f
t
on
t
o
an
d
of
f
of
Br
o
a
d
No
me
d
i
a
n
pl
e
a
s
e
,
ar
t
e
r
i
e
s
mu
s
t
st
a
y
un
c
l
o
g
g
e
d
.
Ke
e
p
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
pl
a
n
ex
c
e
p
t
ta
k
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
ou
t
.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
a ne
w
pl
a
n
do
n
’
t
ab
a
n
d
o
n
yo
u
r
fi
v
e
year effort
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
– Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
pl
a
n
th
a
t
wa
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
at
Co
u
n
c
i
l
bu
t
to
al
l
o
w
AL
S
O
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
zo
n
i
n
g
to
be
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
with all existing properties
up
o
n
sa
l
e
so
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
is
no
su
c
h
th
i
n
g
as
a “p
r
e
‐ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
no
n
‐co
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
us
e
”
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
mo
r
e
pe
d
/
b
i
k
e
ov
e
r
or
un
d
e
r
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
tr
a
c
k
s
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
a gr
e
a
t
be
n
e
f
i
t
of
ge
t
t
i
n
g
pe
o
p
l
e
out of cars.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
to
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
st
u
d
y
.
Th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
pl
a
n
wa
s
a lo
n
g
in
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
by
many residents!
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
be
s
t
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Pl
a
n
.
Ex
c
l
u
d
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
fr
o
m
ar
e
a
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
fr
o
m
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
ne
e
d
s
to
be
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
.
Ke
e
p
sh
a
r
e
d
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
.
No
me
d
i
a
n
on
Br
o
a
d
.
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ne
a
r
St
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
/
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
to
cr
o
s
s
Br
o
a
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
Br
i
n
g
ba
c
k
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Pl
a
n
fo
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I li
v
e
in
th
e
ar
e
a
we
s
t
of
Br
o
a
d
.
Tu
r
n
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
on
t
o
So
u
t
h
St
is
so
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
ve
r
y
di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
be
c
a
u
s
e
of
th
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
traffic on South. Please
cr
e
a
t
e
a li
m
i
t
li
n
e
on
So
u
t
h
to
al
l
o
w
em
e
r
g
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
to
en
t
e
r
an
d
tu
r
n
le
f
t
on
t
o
Br
o
a
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
me
d
i
a
n
sh
o
u
l
d
be
pl
a
n
t
e
d
wi
t
h
tr
e
e
s
,
wh
i
c
h
sh
o
u
l
d
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Br
o
a
d
St
.
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
Pl
a
n
Ke
e
p
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
pl
a
n
,
ex
c
e
p
t
ta
k
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
ou
t
.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
a ne
w
pl
a
n
do
n
’
t
ab
a
n
d
o
n
yo
u
r
fi
v
e
year effort.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
pl
a
n
th
a
t
wa
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
at
Co
u
n
c
i
l
bu
t
to
al
l
o
w
al
s
o
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
zo
n
i
n
g
to
be
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
wi
t
h
al
l
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
properties for sale so that
th
e
r
e
is
no
t
su
c
h
th
i
n
g
as
a “p
r
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
no
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
us
e
”
[ Co
m
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
vi
a
e‐ma
i
l
on
5/
2
9
/
2
0
1
3
]
.
I re
c
e
i
v
e
d
a po
s
t
c
a
r
d
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
th
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
th
i
s
we
e
k
e
n
d
.
I wo
u
l
d
love to attend but I had
ma
d
e
pr
i
o
r
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
I no
t
i
c
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
im
a
g
e
on
th
e
po
s
t
c
a
r
d
de
p
i
c
t
e
d
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
ar
e
a
.
I'
d
li
k
e
to
offer the following
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
my
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
if
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
be
an
app
r
op
r
i
a
t
e
ti
m
e
to
do
so
.
Th
e
ar
e
a
de
f
i
n
e
d
in
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
Pl
a
n
(S
B
S
A
P
)
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a un
i
q
u
e
mi
x
of
wo
r
k
i
n
g
fo
l
k
s
,
be
th
e
y
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
,
commercial‐
se
r
v
i
c
e
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐re
t
a
i
l
,
an
d
fo
l
k
s
th
a
t
ch
o
o
s
e
to
li
v
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
i
s
th
r
i
v
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
my
s
e
l
f
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
is certainly going to change
bu
t
I fe
e
l
th
a
t
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
gr
o
w
t
h
ar
e
no
t
mu
t
u
a
l
l
y
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
.
We
ju
s
t
ne
e
d
to
tw
e
a
k
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
th
a
t
al
r
e
a
d
y
exists to allow for the
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
la
n
d
us
e
s
an
d
to
al
l
o
w
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
d
us
e
s
.
Fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ar
e
my
su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
:
1)
Ke
e
p
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
as
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
in
th
e
SB
S
A
P
2)
Ke
e
p
th
e
"f
o
r
m
ba
s
e
d
co
d
e
s
"
as
pr
o
pos
e
d
in
th
e
SB
S
A
P
3)
Al
l
o
w
an
y
us
e
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ar
e
a
4)
Cr
e
a
t
e
an
ov
e
r
l
a
y
fo
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐Se
r
v
i
c
e
us
e
s
th
a
t
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
no
i
s
e
and emission standards, and
li
m
i
t
ho
u
r
s
of
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
5)
Re
q
u
i
r
e le
a
s
e
s
an
d
de
e
d
s
to
ac
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
th
e
uni
q
u
e
zo
n
i
n
g
of
th
i
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
0
PH1 - 54
14
K.
Su
n
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
‐In
Si
t
e
K-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
K-
2
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
s
e
K-
3
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
K‐2
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
dr
i
v
e
‐in
th
e
a
t
e
r
as
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
up
p
e
r
ed
g
e
of
si
t
e
as
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
(O
S
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
K‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mi
x
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/ office uses with some housing
(n
e
e
d
s
ne
w
po
l
i
c
y
to
de
f
i
n
e
)
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ma
y
ne
e
d
to
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
services center (or work
wi
t
h
Ci
t
y
on
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Us
e
as
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
to
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
si
t
e
on
c
e
ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
change
Ta
k
e
ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pr
a
d
o
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
/
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
nge
Wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
si
t
e
’
s
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
fl
o
o
d
zo
n
e
as part of site development
IO
S
CR
SM
O
PF
OS
OS
RM
D
RM
H
D
CR
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
)
OS
OS
21
33
83
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
4
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
1
PH1 - 55
Si
t
e
K
Land Use
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
PF
:
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
de
t
o
x
,
et
c
.
It
sh
o
u
l
d
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
mo
b
i
l
e
ho
m
e
pa
r
k
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
as part of the study area
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
(e
x
c
e
p
t
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
ce
n
t
e
r
)
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
s
e
r
v
e
d
fo
r
li
g
h
t
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
We
ne
e
d
a pl
a
c
e
for vehicle repair,
we
l
d
i
n
g
,
li
g
h
t
as
s
e
m
b
l
y
,
dr
y
cl
e
a
n
,
et
c
.
Mo
v
e
mi
d
‐Hi
g
u
e
r
a
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
lu
m
b
e
r
,
ca
r
re
p
a
i
r
to
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Sc
r
e
e
n
we
l
l
fr
o
m
Elks lane and Prado. Free
up
mi
d
‐Hi
g
u
e
r
a
fo
r
lo
f
t
sp
a
c
e
,
mi
xe
d
us
e
,
st
a
r
t
up
of
f
i
c
e
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
40
Pr
a
d
o
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
ce
n
t
e
r
an
d
ot
h
e
r
pu
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
i
s
is
th
e
on
l
y
lo
g
i
c
a
l
pl
a
c
e
fo
r
HS
C
.
Ar
e
a
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
mo
b
i
l
e
ho
m
e
pa
r
k
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
We
fa
v
o
r
40
Pr
a
d
o
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
sh
e
l
t
e
r
Lo
o
k
se
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
to
us
e
40
Pr
a
d
o
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
si
t
e
Su
n
s
e
t
Dr
i
v
e
‐In
:
Pu
t
lo
t
fo
r
mi
x
e
d
us
e
,
bu
t
on
l
y
if
dr
i
v
e
in
is
al
l
o
w
e
d
to
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
th
e
r
e
an
d
be
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
zo
n
i
n
g
.
Do not want drive in ruled
in
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
fo
r
zo
n
i
n
g
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
2
PH1 - 56
15
L.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
/ Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
L-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
L-
2
.
C
o
u
n
t
y
“
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
J
”
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L-
3
.
F
u
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐2
Th
i
s
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wo
u
l
d
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
to match the project contained
in
Co
u
n
t
y
“M
e
a
s
u
r
e
J”
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐3
Wo
u
l
d
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
sh
o
w
n
as
Op
e
n
Space (OS), Interim Open
Sp
a
c
e
(I
O
S
)
an
d
Me
d
i
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
M
D
)
to Agriculture (AG)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐4
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
a po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
’
s
designation of General Retail
(C
R
)
to
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐5
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
al
l
of
th
e
un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
existing General Plan’s
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
to
Me
d
i
u
m
Density Residential (RMD)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
L‐6
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
al
l
of
th
e
un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
existing General Plan’s
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
to
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(AG) or Open Space (OS)PARK
CR
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
O
PF
CT
OS
PA
R
K
CR AG
PA
R
K
BP
BP
PF
CR
AG
OS
Area set aside for proposed Prado Interchange
CR
PF
CR
PF
OS
PF
5
49
18
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
3
PH1 - 57
16
L.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
/ Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
L-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
L-
4
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
M
i
x
L-
5
.
T
a
s
k
F
o
r
c
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
F
o
c
u
s
)
CR
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
O
PF
TC
OS
PA
R
K
RL
D
CR
PF
CR
PF
OS
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
RM
H
D
RM
D
OS
L-
6
.
T
a
s
k
F
o
r
c
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(
A
g
/
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
O
n
l
y
)
CR
PF
RM
H
D
AG
/
O
S
PF
5
6
36
61
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
4
PH1 - 58
17
L.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
/
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
L-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
CR
IO
S
RM
H
D
IO
S
O
PF
TC
OS
PA
R
K
PF
5
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Bu
i
l
d
an
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
at
Pr
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
,
no
t
an
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Th
e
Pr
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
ne
e
d
s
to
be
re
s
o
l
v
e
d
before moving ahead with the
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ot
h
e
r
La
n
d
Us
e
id
e
a
s
:
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
a
r
c
e
l
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
t
a
i
n
e
d
in
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Cr
e
a
t
e
an
ur
b
a
n
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
fa
r
m
,
with farms sales and education
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
of
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
Pa
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ce
n
t
e
r
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
pa
r
k
/ ho
t
e
l
/ re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ad
d
ot
h
e
r
us
e
s
(o
f
f
i
ce
,
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
id
e
a
s
:
Ac
t
i
v
e
st
r
e
e
t
ed
g
e
/ pa
r
k
i
n
g
be
h
i
n
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Ex
t
e
n
d
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
to
si
t
e
Be
t
t
e
r
tr
a
i
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
/ be
t
t
e
r
bi
k
e
access
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
tr
e
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
al
o
n
g
Madonna Road
Wa
l
k
a
b
l
e
re
t
a
i
l
/ ic
o
n
i
c
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
In
t
e
n
s
i
f
y
Ma
d
o
n
na Ro
a
d
pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
la
c
k
of
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
fa
c
i
l
i
ti
e
s
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
5
PH1 - 59
Si
t
e
L
Land Use
Pl
e
a
s
e
DO
NO
T
co
n
n
e
c
t
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
.
Th
i
s
is
a fa
m
i
l
y
ar
e
a
wi
t
h
lo
t
s
of
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
We
do
no
t
wa
n
t
th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
traffic in this residential
ar
e
a
.
Ca
r
s
al
r
e
a
d
y
dr
i
v
e
fa
s
t
do
w
n
th
i
s
ro
a
d
.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
:
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ne
e
d
s
to
be
re
‐pl
a
n
n
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
wi
t
h
so
m
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(f
i
n
i
s
h
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
ar
e
a
)
and hotel (Destination). *4/5
a ra
n
g
e
of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
fr
o
m
SF
D
MF
.
A ge
n
e
r
o
u
s
o/
s
se
t
b
a
c
k
al
o
n
g
10
1
to
ke
e
p
th
e
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
ni
c
e
to
to
w
n
.
My
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
is
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
bu
t
a be
t
t
e
r
us
e
wo
u
l
d
be
mo
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
al
l
o
w
mo
r
e
me
d
i
u
m
density
Ne
e
d
ba
l
a
n
c
e
of
me
d
i
u
m
to
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
is
id
e
a
l
fo
r
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Ha
v
e
mo
r
e
of
a ba
l
a
n
c
e
of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
(m
e
d
i
u
m
‐hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
)
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(o
f
f
i
c
e
s
,
hospitality) along with
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
(p
a
r
k
,
AG
st
r
i
p
,
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
fr
o
m
he
r
e
to
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
)
.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
vi
e
w
fr
o
m
10
1
.
Ne
e
d
to
ad
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
th
a
t
re
f
l
e
c
t
s
Ci
t
y
ba
l
l
o
t
it
e
m
an
d
vo
t
e
.
I’
m
ho
p
i
n
g
wh
o
e
v
e
r
bo
u
g
h
t
(o
r
bu
y
s
)
th
e
Da
l
i
d
i
o
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
wi
l
l
do
as
mu
c
h
as
Da
l
i
d
i
o
wa
n
t
e
d
to
.
I do
n
’
t
th
i
n
k
OS
is
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
‐
al
w
a
y
s
ma
k
e
it
AG
/
O
S
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
Da
l
i
d
i
o
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ar
e
a
.
My
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
wa
s
no
t
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
.
1.
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
gr
e
a
t
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
r
o
u
g
h
AG
/
o
p
e
n
space to the Laguna Lake
ar
e
a
.
No
t
ju
s
t
a st
r
i
p
bu
t
a br
o
a
d
e
r
gr
e
e
n
be
l
t
.
2.
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
th
e
SL
O
Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
.
3.
No
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ranch Rd through SLO
Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
.
4.
Op
e
n
fo
r
ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
us
e
s
of
Da
l
i
d
i
o
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
in
cl
u
d
i
ng
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
of
Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
an
d
a Pr
a
d
o
Rd
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
If an overpass can help
so
l
v
e
ac
r
o
s
s
10
1
co
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
is
s
u
e
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
th
e
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
be
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
6
PH1 - 60
18
M.
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
M-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
M-
2
.
R
e
u
s
e
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
PF
RM
D
CR
CR
RL
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
M‐2
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
is
s
u
e
re
l
a
t
i
v
e
to
fu
t
u
r
e
of
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
may influence the site
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pu
b
l
i
c
Pa
r
k
as
pa
r
t
of
si
t
e
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
to
bu
f
f
e
r
existing residential uses
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
al
o
n
g
LO
V
R
to
Of
f
i
c
e
(O
)
an
d
General Retail l (CR)
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
M‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pu
b
l
i
c
Pa
r
k
as
pa
r
t
of
si
t
e
CR
O
PA
R
K
M-
3
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
P
a
r
k
MU
PA
R
K
RLD
10
13
32
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
7
PH1 - 61
19
M.
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
M-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
M-
4
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
o
c
u
s
SM
RM
D
CR
CR
RL
D
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
M‐4
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
si
t
e
wi
t
h
hi
g
h
e
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
us
i
n
g
Medium High Density
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
M
H
D
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pu
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
as
pa
r
t
of
si
t
e
RM
H
D
PA
R
K
10
27
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
8
PH1 - 62
Si
t
e
M
Land Use
I do
n
’
t
th
i
n
k
th
e
pa
r
k
is
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
it
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
be
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
Af
r
a
i
d
th
a
t
if
th
e
H.
D
.
Re
s
op
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
s
we
wi
l
l
lo
s
e
ou
r
wa
l
k
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
du
e
to
ca
r
s
ac
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
th
a
t
si
t
e
un
l
e
s
s
it
is
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
for industries without
ca
r
s
Pu
t
gr
e
e
t
do
t
on
M‐1 Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
:
Ta
k
e
“O
”
ou
t
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
a
g
e
in
M‐2
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
:
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
c
i
t
y
pa
r
k
‐
ba
l
l
fi
e
l
d
s
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Be
a
c
h
Si
t
e
:
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
us
e
…
Al
l
Pa
r
k
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
3
9
PH1 - 63
20
N.
Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Au
t
o
Sa
l
e
s
Ar
e
a
N-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
N-
2
.
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
t
o
N
o
n
-
A
u
t
o
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N-
3
.
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
F
o
c
u
s
OS
RM
D
CR
SM
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
N‐1
Ke
e
p
th
i
s
si
t
e
as
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Plan (shown on map to left)
Po
l
i
c
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
ne
e
d
e
d
to
av
o
i
d
vi
s
u
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
from repair and other
au
t
o
re
l
a
t
e
d
us
e
s
If
au
t
o
us
e
de
s
i
r
e
d
,
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
auto center area to enhance
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
of
ar
e
a
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
N‐2
Ex
t
e
n
d
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
(C
a
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
)
in
t
o
Da
l
i
d
i
o
property to complete loop.
Al
l
o
w
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(C
R
)
us
e
s
If
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
as
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
or
agricultural, extension of Calle
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
N‐3
Ex
t
e
n
d
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
(C
a
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
)
in
t
o
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
to complete loop
De
v
e
l
o
p
ar
e
a
fo
r
hi
g
h
w
a
y
or
i
e
n
t
e
d
To
u
r
i
s
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(TC)
If
Da
l
i
d
i
o pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
as
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
or
agricultural, extension of Calle
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
CR
CT
NO
T
E
:
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
ar
e
a
s
no
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
in
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
bu
t
se
e
n
as
ne
e
d
e
d
to
ma
k
e
au
t
o
ce
n
t
e
r
co
n
c
e
p
t
vi
a
b
l
e
on
en
t
i
r
e
si
t
e
.
23
17
38
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
0
PH1 - 64
Si
t
e
N
Land Use
I’
m
af
r
a
i
d
if
yo
u
ta
k
e
aw
a
y
la
n
d
se
t
as
i
d
e
no
w
fo
r
au
t
o
de
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
yo
u
ma
y
re
g
r
e
t
in
5‐10
ye
a
r
s
wh
e
n
auto dealerships need to
ex
p
a
n
d
an
d
we
’
v
e
ta
k
e
n
aw
a
y
th
e
i
r
sp
a
c
e
!
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
1
PH1 - 65
21
O.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
on
LO
V
R
O-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
OS
SM
SM
CC
RM
D
RL
D
IO
S
CR
PF
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
O‐2
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
n
g
si
t
e
as
a Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
(S
P
)
site. This would allow for
be
t
t
e
r
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
to
ma
t
c
h
th
e
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
with this site (access,
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
vi
e
w
s
h
e
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
et
c
.
)
Ci
t
y
Li
m
i
t
s
Ur
b
a
n
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Li
n
e
O-
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
CR
SP
40
65
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
2
PH1 - 66
Si
t
e
O
Land Use
In
s
t
e
a
d
of
SP
us
e
PD
ov
e
r
l
a
y
Ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
SP
to
GP
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
3
PH1 - 67
RE
D
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
:
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
/
b
i
k
e
la
n
e
fr
o
m
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
fr
o
m
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
to
we
s
t
of
Mu
s
t
a
n
g
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Hazardous Conditions
Fu
l
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
/
n
e
e
d
e
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
So
m
e
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
ap
p
e
a
r
to
o
ov
e
r
l
y
fo
c
u
s
e
d
on
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
to
Se
a
bi
c
y
c
l
e
pa
t
h
.
Th
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l
fo
c
u
s
on
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
ar
e
a
.
Ar
e
a
s
se
e
m
li
k
e
a lo
s
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
Pe
r
h
a
p
s
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
co
u
l
d
be expanded slightly to
lo
o
k
at
th
o
s
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
br
o
a
d
e
r
ar
e
a
th
a
t
th
e
y
ar
e
in
.
Wh
a
t
is
th
e
50
ye
a
r
vi
s
i
o
n
?
Wh
a
t
co
u
l
d
be
do
n
e
wi
t
h
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
properties? Could we
do
a pi
l
o
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
to
be
a mo
d
e
l
fo
r
ad
v
a
n
c
i
n
g
po
l
i
c
i
es
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ga
i
n
na
t
i
o
n
a
l
at
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
?
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
4
PH1 - 68
22
OS
OS
P.
LO
V
R
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
Ar
e
a
P-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P-
2
.
M
e
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P-
3
.
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CT
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
P
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
zo
n
e
that is on part of site
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of LOVR with a connection
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ro
a
d
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
a ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
given distance available
an
d
wi
l
l
di
c
t
a
t
e
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐2
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Me
d
i
u
m
Hi
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(R
M
H
D
) on northeastern portion
of
si
t
e
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
se
c
t
i
o
n
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
fo
r
co
n
t
i
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
of Agriculture (AG) and to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
co
n
t
r
o
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
Op
e
n
Space (OS) designated area
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐3
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
L
D
)
on
bo
t
h
sides of realignment
We
s
t
e
r
n
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
fo
r
co
n
t
i
n
u
a
t
i
on
of Agriculture (AG) and Open
Sp
a
c
e
(O
S
)
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
co
n
t
r
o
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
IO
S
OS
RL
D
RL
D
RMHD
AG
AG
OS
OS
4
1
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
5
PH1 - 69
23
OS
OS
OS
OS
P.
LO
V
R
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
Ar
e
a
(c
o
n
t
’
d
)
P-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
P-
4
.
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
U
s
e
P-
5
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
i
x
CT
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
P
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
fl
o
o
d
zo
n
e
that is on part of site
Al
l
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
ar
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of LOVR with a connection
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ro
a
d
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
a ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
given distance available
an
d
wi
l
l
di
c
t
a
t
e
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
us
e
d
fo
r
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
as Agriculture (AG) on the Land
Us
e
Di
a
g
r
a
m
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
P‐5
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Me
d
i
u
m
Hi
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(R
M
H
D
) on north portion of site
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
se
c
t
i
o
n
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
fo
r
Lo
w
De
n
s
i
t
y
Residential (RLD) use adjacent
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
IO
S
OS
RL
D
AG
AG
RM
H
D
4
51
34
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
6
PH1 - 70
Si
t
e
P
Land Use
Sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
R&
D
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
of
LO
V
R
Mo
v
e
me
d
i
u
m
de
n
s
i
t
y
fr
o
m
P2
to
P3
[N
O
T
E
:
ca
r
d
st
a
t
e
s
“Q
”
,
bu
t
co
n
t
e
x
t
pl
a
c
e
s
th
i
s
on
“P
”
]
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
7
PH1 - 71
24
Q.
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
Q-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
/
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
IO
S
O
O
RM
D
RL
D
PF
SM
SM
CC
RH
D
RH
D
RM
H
D
RL
D
RL
D
RM
H
D
RM
D
RL
D
RM
D
OS
OS
BP
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Q‐1
Ke
e
p
th
i
s
ar
e
a
as
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Plan (shown on map to
le
f
t
)
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
al
l
o
w
e
d
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Specific Plan
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Q‐2
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
an
up
d
a
t
e
to
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
to
al
l
o
w
hi
g
h
e
r
densities for housing in red
ci
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
mo
r
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
in
a co
m
p
a
c
t
city footprint
22 39
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
8
PH1 - 72
Si
t
e
Q
Land Use
No
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
4
9
PH1 - 73
25
R.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
@ Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Rd
.
R-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
CC
BP
SM
O
RM
D
R-
2
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
N
o
d
e
R-
3
.
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
CR
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
R‐2
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
si
t
e
wi
t
h
a co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ce
n
t
e
r
un
d
e
r
the General Commercial (CR)
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
De
s
i
g
n
of
si
t
e
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ga
t
e
w
a
y
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
for entering city
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
R‐3
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(M
U
)
:
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
mi
x
(needs new policy to define)
De
s
i
g
n
of
si
t
e
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ga
t
e
w
a
y
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
for entering city
MU
(
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
)
NO
T
E
:
Th
i
s
si
t
e
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ad
o
p
t
e
d
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Ar
e
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
4
24
45
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
0
PH1 - 74
Si
t
e
R
Land Use
No
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
1
PH1 - 75
26
S.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
S-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
S-
2
.
F
u
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
S-
3
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
’
s
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
+
N
o
r
t
h
B
u
f
f
e
r
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
p
u
t
on
Si
t
e
(f
r
o
m
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
1 an
d
Mi
n
d
M
i
x
e
r
)
Re
t
a
i
n
in
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
a sp
o
r
t
s
co
m
p
l
e
x
Th
e
ar
e
a
is
a go
o
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Th
e
ar
e
a
is
a go
o
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
li
v
e
/
w
o
r
k
ho
u
s
i
n
g
Th
e
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
So
u
t
h
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
s
h
o
u
l
d
be addressed with
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
S‐2
Da
s
h
e
d
ci
r
c
l
e
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(NC) center. Exact
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
si
t
e
de
s
i
g
n
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
S‐3
Ba
s
e
d
on
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
co
n
c
e
p
t
bu
t
wi
t
h
a buffer added along northern
ed
g
e
pe
r
TF
‐LU
C
E
in
p
u
t
s
BP
AG
OS
SM
RL
D
RLD
NC
OS
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
.
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
.
NO
T
E
:
Th
i
s
si
t
e
is
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ad
o
p
t
e
d
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Ar
e
a
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
RL
D
RL
D
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
.
OS
NC
PA
R
K
RL
D
MD
R
RL
D
RD
L
RL
D
RL
D
RM
D
Es
t
a
t
e
AG
AG
PA
R
K
AG
AG
12
12
54
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
4
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
2
PH1 - 76
Si
t
e
S
Land Use
Ho
w
ab
o
u
t
a Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
on
th
e
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
an
d
a di
g
n
i
t
y
vi
l
l
a
g
e
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
?
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
ne
e
d
in
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
tw
o
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ar
e
a
s
of
“R
L
D
”
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Wh
y
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
in
t
o
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
?
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
in
t
o
fu
t
u
r
e
we
sh
o
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ar
e
a
to
so
u
t
h
of
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
Cr
e
e
k
an
d
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
complete south of airport
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Gr
e
a
t
fo
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
in
tu
r
n
su
p
p
o
r
t
so
m
e
lo
c
a
l
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
re
t
a
i
l
.
Ex
t
e
n
d
bu
c
k
l
e
y
to S. Higuera
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
Do
no
t
ne
e
d
mo
r
e
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
s
;
Al
s
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
mu
c
h
ne
e
d
e
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to S. Higuera and Bob
Jo
n
e
s
Bi
k
e
Pa
t
h
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Al
l
o
w
fo
r
cr
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
in
ne
w
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
or
sp
o
r
t
s
co
m
p
l
e
x
ma
y
be
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
Extend the boundaries
of
th
e
ar
e
a
mo
r
e
so
u
t
h
.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
la
r
g
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
a “M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
So
u
t
h
”
co
n
c
e
p
t
– al
l
o
w
s
fo
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
connections;
ex
p
a
n
d
ne
a
r
cr
e
e
k
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Th
e
tr
e
n
d
to
w
a
r
d
s
re
z
o
n
i
n
g
it
ou
t
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
an
d
in
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
is
go
o
d
.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Mo
r
e
lo
w
in
c
o
m
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ne
e
d
e
d
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Ex
p
a
n
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
– mo
r
e
li
k
e
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
‐
ex
p
a
n
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Go
o
d
si
t
e
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
ci
t
y
.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
an
ad
d
e
d
sp
h
e
r
e
of
in
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
in
th
e
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
ar
e
a
‐th
i
s
ha
s
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ta
k
e
pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
of
f
of
ot
h
e
r
areas and allow for new
un
i
q
u
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Lo
o
k
be
y
o
n
d
th
i
s
ma
p
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
al
l
o
w
fo
r
ot
h
e
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
po
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
is
s
u
e
s
at Buckley and LOVR.
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
:
Th
e
st
u
d
y
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
to
th
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
to
th
e
so
u
t
h
an
d
ea
s
t
(c
r
e
e
k
)
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
an
o
t
h
e
r
worth study would be
to
th
e
no
r
t
h
fo
r
la
r
g
e
wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
/
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
3
PH1 - 77
1
1.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ne
a
r
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Blvd
1-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
1-
2
.
O
v
e
r
/
U
n
d
e
r
P
a
s
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
St
e
n
n
e
r
G
l
e
n
St
u
d
e
n
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
1-
3
.
B
o
y
s
e
n
A
c
c
e
s
s
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
–
B
i
k
e
s
&
P
e
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
O
n
l
y
Is
s
u
e
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
ja
y
w
a
l
k
ac
r
o
s
s
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
r
e
e
t
no
r
t
h
of Foothill Blvd
Fu
t
u
r
e
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
& Bi
k
e
Connections
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
1‐2
En
h
a
n
c
e
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
al
l
mo
d
e
s
Fo
l
l
o
w
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
t
h
w
a
y
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
by
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Co
u
l
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
da
y
l
i
g
h
t
in
tu
n
n
e
l
wi
t
h
op
e
n
i
n
g
along median
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
1‐3
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
ea
s
t
en
d
of
Bo
y
s
e
n
Av
e
.
at
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St. to further enhance or
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
ov
e
r
or
un
d
e
r
pa
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
St
e
n
n
e
r
G
l
e
n
St
u
d
e
n
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
St
e
n
n
e
r
G
l
e
n
St
u
d
e
n
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CH
E
V
R
O
N
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
27
57
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
4
PH1 - 78
Si
t
e
1
Circulation
Su
g
g
e
s
t
pe
d
/
b
i
k
e
si
g
n
a
l
@ Bo
y
s
e
n
in
s
t
e
a
d
of
tu
n
n
e
l
or
br
i
d
g
e
.
Sl
o
w
tr
a
f
f
i
c
/
c
u
t
co
s
t
!
1‐3.
Wh
i
l
e
I re
a
l
l
y
li
k
e
th
e
id
e
a
of
cl
o
s
i
n
g
th
i
s
to
Mo
t
o
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
as
it
wi
l
l
he
l
p
bo
t
h
pe
d
s
an
d
bi
k
e
s
‐
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
some difficulty for
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
/
o
u
t
of
Bo
y
s
e
n
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e
s
e
ar
e
ma
i
n
l
y
st
u
d
e
n
t
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
Si
n
c
e
th
e
no
r
t
h
en
d
of
Ch
o
r
r
o
is
no
t
accessible from a
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
an
y
b
o
d
y
re
t
u
r
n
i
n
g
fr
o
m
Cu
e
s
t
a
or
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
to
us
e
Fe
r
r
i
n
i
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
wh
i
c
h
ha
v
e
th
e
i
r
own traffic issues
al
r
e
a
d
y
.
Cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a tu
n
n
e
l
fo
r
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
ne
a
r
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
An
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
wo
u
l
d
be
ex
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
5
PH1 - 79
2
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2-
2
.
C
h
o
r
r
o
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2-
3
.
B
r
o
a
d
&
B
o
y
s
e
n
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Is
s
u
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
is
skewed; volumes at Foothill Blvd and
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
r
e
e
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ev
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
wi
l
l
exceed capacity of current geometry
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
Be
t
t
e
r
si
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
s
fo
r
dr
i
v
e
r
s
at
ri
g
h
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
than at skewed intersection
Re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
Ch
o
r
r
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
wo
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
crossing time along Foothill
Bl
v
d
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
at
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
an
d
Santa Rosa Street
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
and Santa Rosa Street
Co
s
t
s
fo
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
2‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
(s
o
u
t
h
of
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
)
so
th
a
t
it intersects Foothill Blvd. at a right
an
g
l
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
2‐3
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
(s
o
u
t
h
of
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
)
so
th
a
t
it intersects Foothill Blvd. at a right
an
g
l
e
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ch
o
r
r
o
St
.
(n
o
r
t
h
of
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
)
so
th
a
t
it intersects at Broad St.
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Bo
y
s
e
n
A
v
e
.
so
it
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
s
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Broad St
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Broad St
2.
Ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ne
a
r
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Blvd
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Broad St
2-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CHEVRON
CL
U
B
24
GY
M
CH
E
V
R
O
N
24
3
51
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
6
PH1 - 80
Si
t
e
2
Circulation
No
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
7
PH1 - 81
YE
L
L
O
W
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
re
l
a
t
e
d
:
So
u
t
h
bo
u
n
d
HW
Y
1 to
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
an
d
bl
o
c
k
ac
c
e
s
s
to
Ch
o
r
r
o
.
Re
m
o
v
e
se
c
t
i
o
n
of
Is
l
a
n
d
to
al
l
o
w
bi
c
y
c
l
e
travel for southbound
HW
Y
1 to
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
.
St
u
d
y
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
go
al
l
th
e
wa
y
to
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Pl
e
a
s
e
lo
o
k
in
t
o
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a ma
r
k
e
t
in
th
e
ol
d
Co
p
e
l
a
n
d
s
St
o
r
e
un
d
e
r
th
e
Ma
r
s
h
St
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
ga
r
a
g
e
.
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
ve
n
d
o
r
s
wh
o
would provide SLO grown
al
l
we
e
k
.
Pi
k
e
St
.
Ma
r
k
e
t
as
th
e
mo
d
e
l
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
lo
o
k
in
t
o
a ma
r
k
e
t
in
ol
d
Co
p
e
l
a
n
d
s
St
o
r
e
@ Ma
r
s
h
‐fe
a
t
u
r
e
lo
c
a
l
l
y
so
u
r
c
e
s
ve
n
d
o
r
s
Re
:
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
at
Bu
c
h
o
n
/
T
o
r
o
– on
e
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
on
th
i
s
st
r
e
e
t
do
e
s
no
t
h
i
n
g
‐
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ta
k
e
s
it
at
fu
l
l
sp
e
e
d
or
fa
s
t
e
r
as a joke‐ cars gouge the
as
p
h
a
l
t
‐
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
in
pi
c
k
u
p
s
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
tr
a
i
l
e
r
s
bo
u
n
c
e
(n
o
i
s
y
)
‐
no
i
s
y
ev
e
n
at
3a
.
m
.
– Ca
r
s
ho
n
k
as
th
e
y
pa
s
s
ov
e
r
bu
m
p
– bump needs to be build
cu
r
b
to
cu
r
b
li
k
e
on
Pi
s
m
o
‐
no
w
,
ca
r
s
go
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
bu
m
p
an
d
tr
a
v
e
l
in
pa
r
k
i
n
g
la
n
e . Li
s
t
e
n
to
th
e
ta
x
pa
y
e
r
s
in
s
t
e
a
d
of Cal Poly kids who are
go
n
e
in
a fe
w
ye
a
r
s
.
Th
e
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
th
i
s
is
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
a “r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ba
s
e
d
”
pr
o
c
e
s
s
wa
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
at
th
i
s
fu
t
u
r
e
fair‐ as if this was never
an
is
s
u
e
.
Th
e
si
g
n
in
sh
e
e
t
as
k
e
d
fo
r
an
“a
d
d
r
e
s
s
”
an
d
no
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
ga
v
e
ci
t
y
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
ad
d
r
e
s
s
,
et
c
.
Th
e
r
e
wa
s
NO
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
staff asking those
wh
o
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
if
th
e
y
we
r
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Co
u
n
c
i
l
di
r
e
ct
e
d th
a
t
th
i
s
pr
o
c
e
s
s
be
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
ba
s
e
d
at the last “Future Fair” (as
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
th
e
ta
s
k
fo
r
c
e
,
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
et
c
in
p
u
t
)
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
to
pu
t
th
e
i
r
ci
t
y
of
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
.
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
st
a
f
f
asked those submitting
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
if
th
e
y
we
r
e
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
th
e
ci
ty
‐
if
no
t
,
it
wa
s
so
no
t
e
d
.
Th
e
Pr
a
d
o
Rd
po
s
t
e
r
as
k
e
d
if
pe
o
p
l
e
wa
n
t
e
d
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
‐
bu
t
do
e
s
no
t
as
k
wh
o
sh
o
u
l
d
pa
y
fo
r
it
‐
th
a
t
wa
s
vo
t
e
d
upon in a city election &
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
vo
t
e
d
ag
a
i
n
su
b
s
i
d
y
of
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
co
s
t
(o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
)
La
c
k
of
me
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
no
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wh
o
wo
u
l
d
be
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
by
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
at
th
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
.
The city sent out very
ge
n
e
r
a
l
no
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
an
d
th
e
re
a
c
t
i
o
n
wa
s
‐
th
i
s
do
e
s
no
t
ap
p
l
y
to
my
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
or
th
i
s
is
no
t
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
proposal that would affect
my
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
.
If
th
e
ci
t
y
ha
d
se
n
t
ou
t
no
t
i
c
e
s
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wh
o
wo
u
l
d
be
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
by
a sp
e
c
i
f
ic
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
wh
a
t
th
a
t
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
was many residents
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
be
e
n
up
s
e
t
(O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
)
.
Th
e
r
e
we
r
e
ma
n
y
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
wh
o
ha
v
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
/
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
holdings.
Q:
Wh
e
r
e
is
th
e
ci
t
y
go
i
n
g
to
ge
t
fu
n
d
s
to
pa
y
fo
r
al
l
th
e
s
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
?
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
8
PH1 - 82
3
3.
CA
‐1 & US
10
1
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
3-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
3
-
2
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
ra
m
p
s
CR
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
(O
l
i
v
e
S
t
)
NB
o
n
/
o
f
f
r
a
m
p
s
(O
s
o
s
S
t
)
NB
o
n
/
o
f
f
r
a
m
p
s
(T
o
r
o
S
t
)
Is
s
u
e
s
Do
e
s
no
t
me
e
t
mo
d
e
r
n
de
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
on
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
Ra
m
p
sy
s
t
e
m
ro
u
t
e
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
r
o
u
g
h
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
neighborhoods
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
3‐2
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
al
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
streets
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ac
c
e
s
s
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(Olive & Walnut)
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ra
m
p
s
to
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
Os
o
s
St
r
e
e
t
an
d
Ol
i
v
e
St
r
e
e
t
To
r
o
St
r
e
e
t
an
d
Ol
i
v
e
St
r
e
e
t
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
3-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
S
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
PO
L
I
C
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
SH
E
L
L
GA
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
SH
E
L
L
GA
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
PO
L
I
C
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
33
58
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
5
9
PH1 - 83
Si
t
e
3
Circulation
3‐2.
I li
k
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
i
n
g
ac
c
e
s
s
to
1 bu
t
no
t
to
cl
o
s
e
Br
o
a
d
St
ra
m
p
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
0
PH1 - 84
4
4.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
& US
10
1
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
ra
m
p
s
SB
o
n
/
o
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
(O
l
i
v
e
S
t
)
NB
o
n
/
o
f
f
r
a
m
p
s
(T
o
r
o
S
t
)
Is
s
u
e
s
Do
e
s
no
t
me
e
t
mo
d
e
r
n
de
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Ra
m
p
sy
s
t
e
m
ro
u
t
e
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
r
o
u
g
h
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
neighborhoods
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
4‐2
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
al
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
streets
Cl
o
s
e
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
on
‐
an
d
of
f
‐ra
m
p
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
in
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
.
4-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
4
-
2
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
R
a
m
p
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
54
43
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
6
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
1
PH1 - 85
Si
t
e
4
Circulation
Wh
a
t
ab
o
u
t
cl
o
s
i
n
g
on
l
y
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
on
‐ra
m
p
(N
W
si
d
e
)
si
d
e
at
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
/
H
w
y
10
1
Br
o
a
d
St
& US
10
1
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
:
Pl
a
c
e
a pl
a
n
t
e
d
me
d
i
a
n
st
r
i
p
do
w
n
Br
o
a
d
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
sl
o
w
do
w
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fo
r
th
e
mi
s
s
i
o
n
school children.
Br
o
a
d
St
.
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
fo
r
pe
d
’
s
& bi
k
e
s
Br
o
a
d
St
e/
10
1
cl
o
s
e
of
f
1 on
ra
m
p
s
& pu
t
a br
i
d
g
e
ov
e
r
or
un
d
e
r
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
& pe
d
s
Br
o
a
d
St
& US
10
1
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
& mo
r
e
st
o
p
si
g
n
s
on
Br
o
a
d
Cl
o
s
i
n
g
Br
o
a
d
at
10
1
wo
u
l
d
cl
o
s
e
th
e
ve
s
s
e
l
fo
r
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
ac
c
e
s
s
ot
h
e
r
ar
e
a
s
.
Re
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
wo
u
l
d
ju
s
t
ad
d
mo
r
e
traffic to other areas,
an
d
wo
u
l
d
be
ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
to
th
e
pe
o
p
l
e
th
a
t
li
v
e
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
!
Br
o
a
d
St
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
– bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
on
l
y
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Do
no
t
fo
r
g
e
t
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pl
a
n
!
!
!
Do
No
t
fo
r
g
e
t
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pl
a
n
PE
D
PL
A
N
!
!
!
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
2
PH1 - 86
5
5.
Ma
r
s
h
/
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
& Pi
s
m
o
/ Bu
c
h
o
n
T
w
o
‐
wa
y
Ro
a
d
s
an
d
Co
u
p
l
e
t
s
5-
2
.
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
B
u
c
h
o
n
t
o
O
n
e
-
W
a
y
Is
s
u
e
s
Fi
r
s
t
po
i
n
t
of
E/
W
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
is
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
leading to cut‐through traffic
He
a
v
y
sc
h
o
o
l
ti
m
e
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
5‐2
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Bu
c
h
o
n
S
t
.
to
an
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
on
e
‐wa
y
street, forming a couplet with
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Pi
s
m
o
St
.
Re
d
u
c
e
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
by
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
westbound movements
Li
m
i
t
s
ac
c
e
s
s
fo
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
5‐3
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Ma
r
s
h
St
.
an
d
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St
.
to
tw
o
‐wa
y
streets east of Santa Rosa St.
Re
d
u
c
e
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
by
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
sh
o
r
t
e
r
routes.
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
ac
c
e
s
s
an
d
im
p
a
c
t
s
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
for business along these
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
&
Ma
r
s
h
.
5-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
5-
3
.
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
M
a
r
s
h
&
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
t
o
T
w
o
-
W
a
y
(
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
t
o
S
R
)
AL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
S
SL
O
H
S
AL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
S
SL
O
H
S
AL
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
S
SLOHS
51
18
68
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
3
PH1 - 87
Si
t
e
5
Circulation
Bu
c
h
o
n
ne
e
d
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ca
l
m
i
n
g
.
on
e
wa
y
wo
n
’
t
so
l
v
e
it
un
l
e
s
s
it
is
do
n
e
li
k
e
Pi
s
m
o
wi
t
h
on
e
la
n
e
.
Cu
t
t
i
n
g
of
f
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
R.
tu
r
n
on
t
o
Bu
c
h
o
n
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
& Ma
r
s
h
be
i
n
g
tw
o
wa
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
& Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
…
Buchon is still two way
in
th
i
s
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
ma
k
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
on
e
wa
y
To
he
l
p
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fl
o
w
in
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
:
1.
En
f
o
r
c
e
do
u
b
l
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
la
w
s
2.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
de
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
be
f
o
r
e
9 or
8 am
.
3.
Al
l
wa
y
s
st
o
p
Ch
o
r
r
o
at
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sc
r
a
m
b
l
e
Se
n
d
ou
t
no
t
i
c
e
to
Bu
c
h
o
n
Re
s
.
Re
:
on
e
wa
y
st
(i
s
wa
y
to
o
)
Fi
n
d
it
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
be
l
i
e
v
e
pe
o
p
l
e
ca
n
vo
t
e
on
th
e
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
a
t
do
n
’
t
li
v
e
th
e
r
e
.
Mo
s
t
ha
v
e
no
re
g
a
r
d
for traffic speed or
no
i
s
e
.
Th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
st
u
d
y
di
d
no
go
o
d
to
co
n
t
r
o
l
sp
e
e
d
or
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
.
We
li
v
e
at
Bu
c
h
o
n
& To
r
o
– ne
e
d
to
sl
o
w
tr
a
f
f
i
c
– cu
r
r
e
n
t
bu
m
p
no
go
o
d
us
e
!
Fo
u
r
wa
y
st
o
p
to
ma
k
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
st
o
p
.
Or
if
one way, a 3 way stop &
mo
r
e
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
in
th
e
11
0
0
bl
o
c
k
of
Bu
c
h
o
n
.
Fo
r
on
e
wa
y
‐
li
k
e
Pi
s
m
o
bi
k
e
la
n
e
,
pa
r
k
i
n
g
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
,
1 la
n
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
still‐use 3 way stop!
Do
n
’
t
ma
k
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
a on
e
‐wa
y
st
r
e
e
t
.
Do
no
t
wa
n
t
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
.
to
be
on
e
wa
y
!
We
li
v
e
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
.
an
d
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
mo
v
e
if
yo
u
ma
k
e
it
on
e
‐wa
y
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
do
th
i
s
.
On
e
la
n
e
fo
r
ca
r
s
,
on
e
la
n
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
of
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
al
l
wa
y
al
o
n
g
Bu
c
h
o
n
,
on
e
wa
y
ea
s
t
bo
u
n
d
fr
o
m
High at Higuera to
Bu
c
h
o
n
al
l
th
e
wa
y
to
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
wi
t
h
sp
e
e
d
hu
m
p
s
.
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
ro
u
t
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
,
hi
l
l
wi
t
h
le
a
s
t
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
ga
i
n
,
& st
o
p
l
i
g
h
t
at Broad street. #5 #8
co
m
b
o
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ma
k
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
on
e
wa
y
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
wi
t
h
on
e
ca
r
la
n
e
,
on
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
,
an
d
sp
e
e
d
hu
m
p
s
(l
i
k
e
th
e
ea
s
t
en
d
of
Pi
s
m
o
St.) It would be a
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
u
n
t
e
r
p
a
r
t
to
we
s
t
‐bo
u
n
d
Pi
s
m
o
.
It
is
to
o
na
r
r
o
w
a st
r
e
e
t
fo
r
2 ca
r
la
n
e
s
/
a
n
d
/
o
r
2 wa
y
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Pe
o
p
l
e
wh
o
must park on Buchon
re
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
lo
s
e
th
e
i
r
si
d
e
mi
r
r
o
r
s
be
c
a
u
s
e
pe
o
p
l
e
mi
s
j
u
d
g
e
th
e
na
r
r
o
w
st
r
e
e
t
.
Th
i
s
is
so
un
s
a
f
e
fo
r
cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
4
PH1 - 88
6
6.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
6-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
6-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
S
i
t
e
L
a
y
o
u
t
o
n
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Is
s
u
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
ce
n
t
e
r
co
u
l
d
be
a “s
e
l
f
‐co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
”
hu
b
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
6‐2
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
as
on
e
‐wa
y
(w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
)
and provide pedestrian safety
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St. and HigueraSt.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
6‐3
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
to
tw
o
‐wa
y
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
safety enhancements
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
St
.
an
d
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
St.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
6
,
SL
O
C
O
G
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
S
t
u
d
y
,
Ma
r
c
h
5
,
2
0
1
2
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
S
i
t
e
L
a
y
o
u
t
W
/
T
w
o
-
W
a
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
6
,
SL
O
C
O
G
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
S
t
u
d
y
,
Ma
r
c
h
5
,
2
0
1
2
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
BA
N
K
OF
AM
E
R
I
C
A
SH
E
L
L
GA
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
5
65
21
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
5
PH1 - 89
Si
t
e
6
Circulation
Ha
v
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
ab
o
u
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
bu
s
e
s
– th
e
y
sh
o
u
l
d
be
on
To
r
o
St
ex
c
e
p
t
to
ac
c
e
s
s
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
& Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
ke
e
p
busses out of the
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
No
t
su
r
e
wh
a
t
op
t
i
o
n
I pr
e
f
e
r
,
bu
t
th
i
n
k
2‐wa
y
on
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
is
a hi
n
d
e
r
a
n
c
e
to
fo
o
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
6
PH1 - 90
7
7.
Br
o
a
d
St
Do
g
Le
g
(M
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
z
a
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
)
7-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
7-
2
.
S
m
a
l
l
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
z
a
7-
3
.
L
a
r
g
e
r
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
z
a
Is
s
u
e
:
Co
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
pa
s
s
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
al
o
n
g
Br
o
a
d
Street
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
on
7‐2
Cl
o
s
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
to
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
be
t
w
e
e
n
Pa
l
m
St. and Monterey St.
Cl
o
s
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
bl
o
c
k
of
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
be
t
w
e
e
n
Mission Plaza and Broad St.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
on
7‐3
Cl
o
s
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
to
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
be
t
w
e
e
n
Pa
l
m
St. and Monterey St.
Ex
t
e
n
d
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
to
Ni
p
o
m
o
St
.
MI
S
S
I
O
N
MI
S
S
I
O
N
MI
S
S
I
O
N
58
26
63
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
7
PH1 - 91
Si
t
e
7
Circulation
Al
l
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
st
r
e
e
t
cl
o
s
u
r
e
s
‐
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
mi
s
s
i
o
n
pl
a
z
a
– sh
o
u
l
d
be
te
s
t
e
d
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
– ma
y
b
e
wi
t
h
mo
v
a
b
l
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
.
I th
i
n
k
th
a
t
pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
do
g
l
e
g
is
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.
I li
v
e
ne
a
r
th
i
s
ar
e
a
an
d
kn
o
w
wh
a
t
ar
e
a
s
li
k
e
th
i
s
attract in late night hours. I
wo
n
d
e
r
wh
e
r
e
fu
n
d
s
to
do
th
i
s
wi
l
l
co
m
e
fr
o
m
.
Ci
t
y
ne
e
d
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
/
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
si
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
be
f
o
r
e
do
i
n
g
th
i
s
.
Monterey St. closure would
be
a mi
s
t
a
k
e
…
my
op
i
n
i
o
n
.
7‐3 I’
m
in
fa
v
o
r
of
th
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
cl
o
s
u
r
e
.
BU
T
:
bi
c
y
c
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ne
e
d
s
to
be
al
l
o
w
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
& sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
pl
a
n
n
e
d
fo
r
.
No
t
e
that part of this area
(c
l
o
s
u
r
e
ar
e
a
)
is
“p
l
a
n
n
e
d
”
to
be
a bi
k
e
bl
v
d
in
th
e
20
0
7
Bi
k
e
Tr
a
n
s
.
Pl
a
n
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
vo
t
e
fo
r
7.
2
[ Co
m
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
vi
a
e‐ma
i
l
on
6/
4
/
2
0
1
3
]
.
I ju
s
t
wa
n
t
e
d
to
co
n
f
i
r
m
ou
r
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
ea
r
l
i
e
r
th
i
s
we
e
k
.
I am
un
a
b
l
e
to attend the meeting
to
d
a
y
bu
t
am
op
p
o
s
e
d
to
th
e
cl
o
s
u
r
e
of
th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
.
/
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
St
.
ar
e
a
fo
r
se
v
e
r
a
l
re
a
s
o
n
s
:
o
in
f
r
i
n
g
e
s
on
th
e
ri
g
h
t
s
of
th
e
pr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
in
th
e
su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
ar
e
a
o
ad
d
s
to
co
n
g
es
t
i
o
n
on
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
a
t
in
a 4 bl
o
c
k
st
r
e
t
c
h
on
Pa
l
m St
.
,
th
e
r
e
is
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
Pr
e
p
,
the Mission and two parking
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
Wi
t
h
an
y
gi
v
e
n
ev
e
n
t
,
th
i
s
ar
e
a
is
al
r
e
a
d
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
.
o
an
y
cl
o
s
u
r
e
wo
u
l
d
ju
s
t
en
h
a
n
c
e
tr
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
/
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
we
ha
v
e
in
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
I wi
l
l
ke
e
p
th
i
s
sh
o
r
t
bu
t
it
se
e
m
s
th
a
t
so
me ar
e
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to
se
e
th
i
s
ha
p
p
e
n
wi
t
h
o
u
t
a fu
l
l
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
of what's going on in our
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
24
/
7
an
d
no
t
ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
la
r
g
e
r
is
s
u
e
s
th
i
s
su
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
8
PH1 - 92
8
8.
Hi
g
h
& Pi
s
m
o
/ Hi
g
u
e
r
a
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
8-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
8-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
H
i
g
h
S
t
.
t
o
O
n
e
W
a
y
Is
s
u
e
s
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
in
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Aw
k
w
a
r
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
af
f
e
c
t
s
sa
f
e
t
y
Lo
n
g
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
8‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
Ln
.
wi
t
h
Hi
g
h
St
.
an
d
co
n
v
e
r
t
Hi
g
h
St. to one‐way (eastbound
on
l
y
)
be
t
w
e
e
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Wa
l
k
e
r
St
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
8‐3
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Pi
s
m
o
St
.
wi
t
h
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
Ln
.
an
d
co
n
v
e
r
t
High St. to one‐way (eastbound
on
l
y
)
be
t
w
e
e
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Wa
l
k
e
r
St
.
Higuera St.
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
8-
3
.
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
L
n
Hi
g
h
S
t
.
Hi
g
h
S
t
.
Hi
g
h
S
t
.
GL
A
C
I
E
R
IC
E
GL
A
C
I
E
R
IC
E
GL
A
C
I
E
R
ICE
27
18
45
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
6
9
PH1 - 93
Si
t
e
8
Circulation
As
a ho
m
e
ow
n
e
r
on
Hi
g
h
St
,
I kn
o
w
fr
o
m
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
th
a
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
go
e
s
to
o
fa
s
t
on
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
.
It
is
al
s
o
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
se
e
oncoming traffic from the
an
g
l
e
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
th
a
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
wi
t
h
Hi
g
h
St
.
Hi
g
h
do
e
s
no
t
fe
e
l
sa
f
e
as
a wa
l
k
e
r
,
bi
k
e
r
,
or
dr
i
v
e
r
.
Ma
k
i
n
g
Hi
g
h
St
on
e
wa
y
with a single lane, stop
si
g
n
s
,
bi
k
e
la
n
e
an
d
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
us
i
n
g
th
e
Pi
s
m
o
St
mo
d
e
l
wo
u
l
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
sa
f
e
t
y
on
Hi
gh
St
.
Th
e
s
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
ma
k
e
no
se
n
s
e
.
I th
i
n
k
ch
a
n
g
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
fo
c
u
s
on
ho
w
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
is
ar
r
a
n
g
e
d
no
t
on
e
wa
y
/
b
o
t
h
wa
y
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
So
m
e
be
t
t
e
r
si
g
n
a
g
e
,
more clear where
ev
e
r
y
t
h
i
n
g
le
a
d
s
.
He
c
k
,
a ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
is
a be
t
t
e
r
op
t
i
o
n
th
a
n
th
e
2 pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
(b
u
t
ho
n
e
s
t
l
y
mo
r
e
cl
e
a
r
si
g
n
a
g
e
w/
st
r
e
e
t
names of where lanes
le
a
d
is
pr
o
b
a
b
l
y
pr
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
0
PH1 - 94
9
9.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/ Hi
g
u
e
r
a
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
9-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
9-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
&
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Is
s
u
e
Sh
a
r
p
tu
r
n
s
an
d
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
si
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
s
at
sk
e
w
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
9‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
to
th
e
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Br
i
d
g
e
St. intersection
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
or
ot
h
e
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
improvements
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
9‐3
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
to
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
an
d
Br
i
d
g
e
St. intersections
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Br
i
d
g
e
St. without additional
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Fu
l
l
‐st
r
e
e
t
Me
d
i
a
n
di
v
e
r
t
e
r
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
R
d
Higuera St.
Bridge St
So
u
t
h
S
t
Beebee St
Higuera St.
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
Beebee St
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
C
u
t
T
h
r
u
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
R
d
Higuera St.
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
So
u
t
h
S
t
Beebee St
In
s
t
a
l
l
cu
t
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Me
d
i
a
n
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
49
43
12
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
1
PH1 - 95
Si
t
e
9
Circulation
Ei
t
h
e
r
si
d
e
of
th
e
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
& S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ha
s
ve
r
y
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
– ga
t
e
w
a
y
vs
.
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
us
a
g
e
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
& Hi
g
u
e
r
a
ne
e
d
mo
r
e
st
u
d
y
fo
r
be
t
t
e
r
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
I do
n
’
t
su
p
p
o
r
t
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
on
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
2
PH1 - 96
BL
U
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
I wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
ac
r
o
s
s
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
So
u
t
h
St
.
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
th
e
Bu
c
h
o
n
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
The existing
fl
a
s
h
i
n
g
ye
l
l
o
w
li
g
h
t
at
Up
h
a
m
St
r
e
e
t
is
NE
V
E
R
re
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
by
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
.
It
sh
o
u
l
d
be
a fu
l
l
st
o
p
li
g
h
t
.
1)
Be
ve
r
y
ca
r
e
f
u
l
of
wh
a
t
yo
u
al
l
o
w
ne
a
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
si
t
e
.
Th
i
s
is
a gr
e
a
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
th
a
t
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
be
cu
r
t
a
i
l
e
d
by
inappropriate new dev. 2)
No
t
h
i
n
g
he
r
e
ab
o
u
t
th
e
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
fr
o
m
SL
C
U
S
D
‐
tr
a
f
f
i
c
st
u
d
y
?
So
o
n
ha
v
e
a ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
/
C
r
e
s
t
v
i
e
w
/
T
a
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
/
S
o
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
n
t
a
l
s
an
d
noncompliance issues.
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
gr
e
a
t
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
th
e
Or
c
u
t
t
/
T
a
n
k
Fa
r
m
/
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
ar
e
a
.
It
is
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
it
re
m
a
i
n
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
or
VL
D
housing with access only
on
Bu
l
l
o
c
k
La
n
e
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wh
i
c
h
is
in
th
e
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
.
Or
c
u
t
t
wh
i
c
h
go
e
s
to
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
ha
s
go
o
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
flow at present. It will
de
s
t
r
o
y
th
e
fl
o
w
no
t
to
me
n
t
i
o
n
th
e
Or
c
u
t
t
/
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
in
te
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
If
th
e
an
t
i
ci
p
a
t
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
is
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
as
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
designed. Ditto the
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
tr
a
i
n
wh
i
c
h
wi
l
l
go
on
af
t
e
r
th
a
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
‐
Di
d
an
y
o
n
e
as
k
us
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
?
NO
!
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
‐Br
o
a
d
Av
e
:
Be
s
t
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
is
1.
Bu
i
l
d
ve
h
i
c
l
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
at
Or
c
u
t
t
RR
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
,
2.
Bu
i
l
d
pe
d
/
b
i
k
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
ov
e
r
RR
at Humbert/Del camp, 3.
De
l
e
t
e
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
ve
h
i
c
l
e
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Th
i
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ve
h
i
c
l
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ov
e
r
RR
an
d
mo
s
t
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
alternative transportation
fo
r
pa
r
k
s
,
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
po
o
l
,
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
.
Al
s
o
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
a tr
a
f
f
i
c
ni
g
h
t
m
a
re
an
d
se
v
e
r
e
l
y
im
p
a
ct
Bi
s
h
o
p
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
ro
w
ne
e
d
s
to
be
ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
or
tu
r
n
e
d
in
t
o
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
.
St
r
o
n
g
l
y
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a bi
k
e
/
p
e
d
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
near Del Campo and
Hu
m
b
e
r
t
to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ge
t
pe
o
p
l
e
ou
t
of
ca
r
s
.
Al
s
o
co
n
n
e
c
t
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
an
d
parks, school, pool, etc.
It
wo
u
l
d
be
ni
c
e
to
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
pl
a
n
s
wi
t
h
bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
I’
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
mo
r
e
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
inclusion of bicycle in
ev
e
r
y
as
p
e
c
t
.
I sa
y
th
i
s
be
c
a
u
s
e
,
wh
i
l
e
my
hu
s
b
a
n
d
ri
d
e
s
hi
s
bi
k
e
ju
s
t
ab
o
u
t
ev
e
r
y
w
h
e
r
e
,
I am
si
m
p
l
y
to
o
la
z
y
to
fi
g
u
r
e
out a bicycle route‐
in
s
t
e
a
d
I ju
m
p
in
t
o
my
ca
r
to
ge
t
ar
o
u
n
d
‐
an
d
we
li
v
e
ne
a
r
Gl
en
n
Bu
r
d
e
t
t
e
.
(s
a
d
bu
t
tr
u
e
)
Th
e
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
pl
a
n
ne
e
d
s
to
go
ba
c
k
to
co
u
n
c
i
l
af
t
e
r
th
e
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
It
CA
N
N
O
T
be
de
a
d
in
th
e
wa
t
e
r
be
c
a
u
s
e
it went to a split 4 person
co
u
n
c
i
l
!
!
If
yo
u
ta
k
e
al
l
ri
g
h
t
ha
n
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
do
w
n
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
St
an
d
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
yo
u
mu
s
t
pu
t
in
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
!
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
is a speedway when you
ch
a
n
g
e
d
th
e
pa
t
t
e
r
n
to
th
e
ga
s
st
a
t
i
o
n
.
1)
Pl
e
a
s
e
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
Cl
a
s
s
2 bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
an
d
mo
r
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
in
t
o
an
y
ro
a
d
w
a
y
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
th
e
va
r
i
o
u
s
pa
r
t
s
of
town. 2) Consider greater
em
p
h
a
s
i
s
on
bi
c
y
c
l
e
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
:
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
,
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
bi
k
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
,
re
m
o
v
a
l
of street parking for greater
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
us
e
(s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
ca
f
é
s
,
et
c
.
)
As
pa
r
t
of
ov
e
r
a
l
l
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
I be
l
i
e
v
e
we
ne
e
d
to
ga
r
n
e
r
mo
r
e
me
d
i
u
m
an
d
hi
g
h
de
n
s
i
t
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
‐
an
d
ho
p
e
f
u
l
l
y
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
.
Also think we must
re
s
p
e
c
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
‐
e.
g
.
re
c
e
n
t
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
or
make non‐conforming
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
us
e
s
Ad
d
a li
n
e
a
r
pa
r
k
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
(c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fl
o
r
a
/
F
i
x
l
i
n
i
bi
c
y
c
l
e
Bl
v
d
)
Ma
r
k
th
e
pa
t
h
ha
v
e
facilities that would/could
be
a de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
po
i
n
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
3
PH1 - 97
10
10
.
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
10
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Is
s
u
e
s
No
ea
s
t
/
w
e
s
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
and Johnson Avenue
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
al
o
n
g
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
an
d
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
Avenue
Cu
t
‐
th
r
o
u
g
h
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
Pi
s
m
o
/ Bu
c
h
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Li
m
i
t
e
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
ro
u
t
e
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
10
‐2
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
as
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
Mu
s
t
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
wi
t
h
Un
i
o
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Re
d
u
c
e
s
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
ot
h
e
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
ds
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
on
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
10
-
2
.
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
FI
R
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
FR
E
S
H
&
EA
S
Y
FR
E
S
H
&
EA
S
Y
FI
R
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
29
89
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
4
PH1 - 98
Si
t
e
10
Circulation
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
on
RR
to
Ro
u
n
d
Ho
u
s
e
St
:
It
wo
u
l
d
be
lo
v
e
l
y
to
ma
k
e
th
i
s
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
cr
o
s
s
no
t
ca
r
s
.
Fi
n
d
a wa
y
to
li
n
e
up
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
wi
t
h
So
u
t
h
.
Wh
y
di
d
ci
t
y
bu
i
l
d
fi
r
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
in
pa
t
h
?
Al
i
g
n
wi
t
h
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e
.
10
‐1 Sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
a pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
k
e
ov
e
r
/
u
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
.
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
bu
s
on
l
y
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
.
Ho
w
wi
l
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
th
e
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
to
So
u
t
h
,
Br
o
a
d
,
or
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
SB
?
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
in
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
Te
r
r
a
c
e
Hi
l
l
Pa
r
k
ne
e
d
s
to
ha
v
e
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
to
sl
o
w
do
w
n
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
5
PH1 - 99
11
11
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
Moylan Terrace Development
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
11
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
11
‐2
No
lo
n
g
e
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
ar
e
a
in
th
e
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
Street area
No
Co
u
n
t
s
–
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Only
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
6
PH1 - 100
Si
t
e
11
Circulation
Av
o
i
d
T‐in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
al
l
co
s
t
s
(B
r
o
a
d
St
.
)
No
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
zo
n
e
s
fo
r
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
S Br
o
a
d
.
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
:
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
/
S
t
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
do
u
b
l
e
li
g
h
t
(synchronized). Like up
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
on
bo
t
h
si
d
e
s
of
S Br
o
a
d
.
If
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
e
n
sp
e
e
d
bu
m
p
s
on
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
.
Do
n
’
t
cu
t
th
i
n
g
s
/
z
o
n
i
n
g
mi
d
b
l
o
c
k
.
Up
h
a
m
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
no
t
th
e
sa
m
e
as
fu
r
t
h
e
r
so
u
t
h
.
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
e
a
:
Ma
k
e
it
in
t
o
an
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
le
a
d
i
n
g
dr
i
v
e
r
s
in
t
o
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
(m
e
d
i
a
n
s
,
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
pe
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
)
.
Forget Victoria.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
7
PH1 - 101
12
12
.
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Av
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
12
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
12
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
E
m
i
l
y
S
t
Is
s
u
e
s
He
a
v
y
Br
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Lo
c
a
l
ac
c
e
s
s
li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ac
r
o
s
s
br
o
a
d
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
12
‐2
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Av
e
.
at
it
s
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
en
d
to
Em
i
l
y
St.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
12
‐3
Li
m
i
t
ac
c
e
s
s
to
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Av
e
.
fr
o
m
Br
o
a
d
St
.
an
d
certain cross streets, only
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
ac
c
e
s
s
at
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
St
.
an
d
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Dr.
Mo
y
l
a
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Moylan Terrace Development
In
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
G
r
i
d
12
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
W
/
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
u
r
n
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
Mo
y
l
a
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Ca
u
d
i
l
l
1
81
31
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
8
PH1 - 102
Si
t
e
12
Circulation
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
un
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
tr
a
i
n
tr
a
c
k
s
Hu
m
b
e
r
t
St
.
an
d
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
St
.
If
yo
u
on
l
y
al
l
o
w
le
f
t
tu
r
n
s
in
t
o
th
e
Me
a
d
o
w
Pa
r
k
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
th
e
n
yo
u
mu
s
t
ca
l
m
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
an
d
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
‐
Wo
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
is a freeway not
as
it
is
.
12
‐2:
Ca
r
e
/
f
o
c
u
s
on
ro
u
t
e
as
a pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
ro
u
t
e
fo
r
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
(o
v
e
r
Br
o
a
d
)
.
Li
m
i
t
sp
e
e
d
s
,
in
s
t
a
l
l
bi
k
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
any “door zone” on‐street
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
12
‐3 I li
k
e
12
‐3 ex
c
e
p
t
I do
n
’
t
se
e
ho
w
it
im
p
r
o
v
e
s
bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
7
9
PH1 - 103
13
13
.
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
.
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Crossing
13
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
13
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Is
s
u
e
Li
m
i
t
e
d
ea
s
t
‐we
s
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
13
‐2
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
an
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
ov
e
r
ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Mu
s
t
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
wi
t
h
Un
i
o
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Ot
h
e
r
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
ma
y
be
considered
Im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
sa
f
e
t
y
tr
a
i
l
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
Overpass RailroadCrossing
Ro
u
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
S
t
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CH
E
V
R
O
N
CH
E
V
R
O
N
MO
R
R
I
S
&
GA
R
R
I
T
A
N
O
I
N
S
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
54
59
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
0
PH1 - 104
Si
t
e
13
Circulation
Pr
e
f
e
r
un
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
in
s
t
e
a
d
of
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
‐
wh
i
c
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
bl
o
c
k
s
vi
e
w
s
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
co
s
t
s
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
co
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
13
‐2:
wi
t
h
re
g
a
r
d
s
to
RR
S
T
im
p
a
c
t
:
Th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
be
a pe
r
f
e
c
t
ti
m
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
RR
S
T
un
d
e
r
th
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
an
d
th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
eliminate bikes/peds from
ha
v
i
n
g
to
cr
o
s
s
Or
c
u
t
t
.
Th
e
en
d
of
th
e
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
ne
e
d
s
to
be
co
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
to
La
u
r
e
l
an
d
Or
c
u
t
t
an
d
ad
d
mo
r
e
bi
k
e
‐on
l
y
li
g
h
t
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
1
PH1 - 105
GR
E
E
N
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Circulation
Pl
e
a
s
e
pu
t
th
e
ac
c
e
s
s
ba
c
k
to
Sp
e
n
c
e
r
’
s
fr
o
m
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Ta
k
i
n
g
aw
a
y
th
e
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
‐ac
r
o
s
s
ha
s
ma
d
e
it more dangerous. People
do
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
[t
u
r
n
ri
g
h
t
th
e
n
U tu
r
n
in
me
d
i
a
n
th
e
n
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
to
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
th
e
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
,
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
travel.]
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
Ga
r
c
i
a
du
e
to
cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
/
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
t
r
o
l
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
at
t
e
m
p
t
s
.
As
Ga
r
c
i
a
Dr
.
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
,
I would rather deal with
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
/
e
g
r
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
th
a
n
hi
g
h
sp
e
e
d
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
&r
e
t
a
i
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Wh
e
n
LO
V
R
/
1
0
1
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
re
w
o
r
k
e
d
,
ma
k
e
su
r
e
bi
k
e
pa
t
h
cr
o
s
s
e
s
LO
V
R
no
t
at
gr
a
d
e
‐
i.
e
.
ha
v
e
it
go
be
l
o
w
th
e
br
i
d
g
e
over LOVR.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/
L
O
V
R
Ar
e
a
:
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
pu
t
t
i
n
g
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
ac
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
Ta
r
g
e
t
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
cu
t
t
i
n
g
th
r
o
u
g
h
this neighborhood
se
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
hi
n
d
e
r
s
th
e
so
c
i
a
l
an
d
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
qu
i
e
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
fi
x
LO
V
R
/ 10
1
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
br
i
d
g
e
an
d
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
an
d
/
i
n
in
Co
s
t
c
o
& LO
V
R
& le
f
t
to
ci
t
y
li
m
i
t
s
Ke
e
p
th
e
4 sm
a
l
l
pa
r
c
e
l
s
th
a
t
ma
k
e
a la
r
g
e
r
pa
r
c
e
l
ne
x
t
to
th
e
Al
f
a
n
o
Ch
e
v
r
o
l
e
t
de
a
l
e
r
OP
E
N
sp
a
c
e
.
Ad
d
it
to
th
e
SL
O
urban farm.
Th
i
s
ar
e
a
ha
s
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
fo
r
ac
c
e
s
s
an
d
le
a
v
i
n
g
ar
e
a
fr
o
m
pa
s
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
,
et
c
.
wi
t
h
i
n
wa
l
k
i
n
g
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
If
ha
v
e
to
drive go right on LOVR from
Ga
r
c
i
a
Dr
do
a U tu
r
n
at
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
an
d
th
e
le
f
t
on
Fr
o
o
m
Rd
in
t
o
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
.
We
ne
e
d
1 mo
r
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
go
i
n
g
we
s
t
on
LO
V
R
in
t
o
Ne
w
Fr
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
/
H
o
m
e
De
p
o
t
ar
e
a
.
Go
i
n
g
ea
s
t
yo
u
ca
n
tu
r
n
right and go behind the
Ne
w
Fr
o
n
t
i
e
r
an
d
ac
c
e
s
s
Ho
m
e
De
p
o
t
.
Bu
t
go
i
n
g
we
s
t
th
e
me
d
i
a
n
ex
t
e
n
d
s
ju
s
t
to
o
fa
r
an
d
yo
u
ca
n
’
t
ma
k
e
th
e
le
f
t
.
Re
f
e
r
to map on other side
(o
f
co
m
m
e
n
t
ca
r
d
)
fo
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ro
u
t
e
an
d
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ro
ut
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
2
PH1 - 106
14
14
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
14
-
2
.
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
t
o
F
r
o
o
m
Is
s
u
e
s
Li
m
i
t
e
d
ac
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to the east, LOVR, and Madonna
Ro
a
d
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
wi
t
h
Fr
o
o
m
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
& LO
V
R
Volume Increases
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
LO
V
R
& Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Si
t
e
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
ma
k
e
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
or
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of lanes highly challenging. This
li
k
e
l
y
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
an
d
disruption of existing
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Wa
y
an
d
/
o
r
LOVR to provide
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
ex
i
t
fr
o
m
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
bu
t
ma
y
le
a
d
to cut‐through traffic.
Se
e
k
in
p
u
t
fr
o
m
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
as
to
whether they need different
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
14
‐2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
south to FroomRanch
Wa
y
in
or
d
e
r
to
ac
c
e
s
s
LO
V
R
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
14
‐3
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
west to LOVR
14
-
3
.
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
t
o
L
O
V
R
14
.
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
57
23
6
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
3
PH1 - 107
Si
t
e
14
Circulation
Do
no
t
op
e
n
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
.
Ab
o
v
e
al
l
el
s
e
,
we
do
no
t
wa
n
t
Pe
r
e
r
i
a
or
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
be
au
t
o
ar
t
e
r
i
e
s
to
Pr
e
f
u
m
o
Co
m
m
o
n
s
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
.
Th
e
Lakewood subdivision is a
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
!
We
wi
l
l
no
t
to
l
e
r
a
t
e
an
y
mo
r
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Yo
u
ha
v
e
n
’
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
ac
c
e
s
s
to
La
g
u
n
a
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
centers. Why are you
pr
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
it
wh
e
r
e
we
li
v
e
?
Pl
e
a
s
e
do
no
t
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
.
As
a hu
s
b
a
n
d
an
d
fu
t
u
r
e
da
d
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
wa
n
t
to
se
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in amount and
sp
e
e
d
fo
r
us
an
d
th
e
ot
h
e
r
fa
m
i
l
i
e
s
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Th
a
n
k
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
SE
R
I
O
U
S
L
Y
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
LO
V
R
/
M
a
d
o
n
n
a
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
ap
p
r
o
x
.
2 we
e
k
s
ag
o
on
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
@ 10
:
3
0
a
m
I wa
s
on
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
waiting to turn left
go
i
n
g
on
t
o
LO
V
R
.
Th
e
r
e
we
r
e
4 li
g
h
t
s
re
d
/
g
r
e
e
n
‐
an
d
I we
n
t
th
r
u
on
th
e
5t
h
li
g
h
t
.
Ri
d
i
c
u
l
o
u
s
!
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
sp
e
e
d
s
an
d
qu
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
ha
v
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(a
n
d
no
le
f
t
tu
r
n
on
t
o
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
Ga
r
c
i
a
)
…
pr
e
f
e
r
that it not become an
op
t
i
o
n
fo
r
pe
o
p
l
e
wa
n
t
i
n
g
to
by
p
a
s
s
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(s
u
c
h
as
ho
w
it
wo
r
k
s
on
th
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ac
r
o
s
s
the street).
Do
no
t
ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
th
e
fi
r
e
tr
u
c
k
s
us
i
n
g
Pe
r
e
i
r
a
Dr
i
v
e
as
a th
r
o
u
g
h
ro
a
d
.
Sm
a
l
l
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
in
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
an
d
no
i
s
e
.
Li
v
e
in
Lo
s
Os
o
s
/
M
a
d
o
n
n
a
ne
e
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
on
LO
V
R
be
t
t
e
r
th
a
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
50
fe
e
t
be
f
o
r
e
si
g
n
a
l
.
To
o
mu
c
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
on
l
y
pe
o
p
l
e
wh
o
wi
l
l
be
n
e
f
i
t
fr
o
m
op
e
n
i
n
g
up
Ta
r
g
e
t
(F
r
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
)
to
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
wi
l
l
be
fo
l
k
s
wh
o
li
v
e
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
area. That will become a
gr
e
a
t
fr
e
e
w
a
y
th
r
u
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
wh
i
c
h
we
do
no
t
ne
e
d
.
Th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
sh
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
th
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
in
p
u
t
on
ma
k
i
n
g
these changes, please
re
s
p
e
c
t
ou
r
in
p
u
t
.
Th
is
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
wa
s
in
ex
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
lo
n
g
be
f
o
r
e
al
l
th
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ca
m
e
an
d
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ja
m
s
on
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
and LOVR.
No
ma
i
n
ro
a
d
th
r
u
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
to
ge
t
to
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
.
14
.
3
We
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
a le
f
t
tu
r
n
op
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
th
e
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
.
Re
a
l
l
y
do
no
t
wa
n
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ranch or from Vicente to
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
.
Th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ca
n
’
t
ta
k
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Wh
e
n
I ta
k
e
LO
V
R
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
fr
o
m
Ga
r
c
i
a
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Ro
a
d
it
is
ve
r
y
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
ge
t
in
t
o
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
to
LO
V
R
.
Ne
e
d
le
f
t
‐ha
n
d
tu
r
n
ac
c
e
s
s
on
t
o
LO
V
R
Re
Ar
e
a
14
(O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
)
:
So
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
sh
o
u
l
d
be
do
n
e
to
1)
sl
o
w
do
w
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
an
d
2)
to
di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
us
e
as
an alternate to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/
L
O
V
R
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
ca
l
m
i
n
g
in
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
is
ne
e
d
e
d
no
w
‐
be
f
o
r
e
an
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
is
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
.
We submitted 62
op
i
n
i
o
n
sh
e
e
t
s
fr
o
m
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
to
d
a
y
.
HE
L
P
US
!
14
‐2 Th
i
s
op
t
i
o
n
se
e
m
s
li
k
e
it
wo
u
l
d
wo
r
k
th
e
be
s
t
wh
i
l
e
no
t
im
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
LO
V
R
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
BU
T
it
wo
u
l
d
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
cut through traffic. I
vo
t
e
d
fo
r
it
wi
t
h
th
i
s
ca
v
e
a
t
:
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
mu
s
t
be
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
to
di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
cu
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
De
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
vi
e
w
of
vi
a
b
l
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
,
at
th
i
s
po
i
n
t
,
I do
no
t
se
e
an
y
,
bu
t
on
e
op
t
i
o
n
I wo
u
l
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
or accept is turning
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Dr
in
t
o
a di
r
e
c
t
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e
to
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
wa
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
4
PH1 - 108
In
th
e
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
a pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
wa
s
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
pr
i
o
r
to
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2 co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
pe
o
p
l
e
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
ha
v
e
addressed. At Future Fair 2,
68
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
as
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
us
e
in
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
s
Up
d
a
t
e
.
Th
e
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
fo
r
m
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
five statements that
pe
o
p
l
e
co
u
l
d
ma
r
k
in
su
p
p
o
r
t
.
Th
e
s
e
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
li
s
t
e
d
be
l
o
w
,
an
d
th
e
nu
mbe
r
of
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
ma
r
k
e
d
in
su
p
p
o
r
t
of
th
e
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
is shown on the left
si
d
e
of
th
e
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
.
Do
No
t
Cr
e
a
t
e
An
y
Au
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
th
i
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
in
t
o
th
e
Ta
r
g
e
t
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
ac
r
o
s
s
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Ro
a
d
on
th
e
20
3
5
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Up
d
a
t
e
An
y
at
t
e
m
p
t
to
op
e
n
ou
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
in
t
o
th
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
wi
l
l
au
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
di
v
e
r
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
from major arteries in
se
a
r
c
h
of
fa
s
t
e
r
ro
u
t
e
s
to
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
an
d
10
1
ac
c
e
s
s
.
Am
o
n
g
th
e
st
a
t
e
d
go
a
l
s
of
th
e
20
3
5
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
is
to
Maintain the integrity and
en
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
fo
r
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
of
th
o
s
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Wh
e
n
lo
o
k
i
n
g
to
th
i
s
ar
e
a
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
changes keep
th
o
s
e
go
a
l
s
in
mi
n
d
.
We
Ne
e
d
Sa
f
e
an
d
Re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Ca
l
m
i
n
g
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
As
a re
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
th
e
La
g
u
n
a
La
k
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
th
e
Ta
r
g
e
t
/
F
r
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Ro
a
d
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
,
I would like to propose
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
i
t
i
a
l
e
d
st
e
p
s
to
en
a
b
l
e
ou
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
to
re
m
a
i
n
sa
f
e
fo
r
ou
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wh
i
l
e
im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
the safety for the current
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Th
e
s
e
wi
l
l
al
s
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
sa
f
e
t
y
as
we
en
t
e
r
an
d
ex
i
t
ou
r
st
r
e
e
t
s
to
and from major arteries.
62
1.
Po
s
t
25
m
p
h
Sp
e
e
d
Li
m
i
t
si
g
n
s
at
al
l
4 en
t
r
i
e
s
to
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
/
O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Dr
.
,
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Road/ Periera,
Ga
r
c
i
a
/
L
O
V
R
,
an
d
Fr
o
o
m
/
L
O
V
R
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ne
x
t
to
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Th
i
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ha
s
NO
ST
O
P
Si
g
n
s
or
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
53
2.
Pl
a
c
e
St
o
p
Si
g
n
s
an
d
ma
r
k
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
an
d
Ca
y
u
c
o
u
s
,
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
an
d
Pinecove, and at Garcia
an
d
Vi
n
c
e
n
t
e
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
be
t
t
e
r
sp
e
e
d
co
n
t
r
o
l
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
bo
t
h
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
as well as increased
bi
c
y
c
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
an
d
is
of
mi
n
i
m
a
l
ex
p
e
n
s
e
wi
t
h
ma
x
i
m
u
m
be
n
e
f
i
t
to
th
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Th
i
s
ca
n
al
s
o
co
n
t
r
o
l
and discourage
cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
us
i
n
g
ou
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
as
a sh
o
r
t
c
u
t
to
th
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
s
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
th
e
sa
f
e
t
y
of our residential streets.
45
3.
In
Li
e
u
of
st
o
p
si
g
n
s
an
d
ma
r
k
e
d
cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
,
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
Sp
e
e
d
Bu
m
p
s
.
54
4.
Re
d
Pa
i
n
t
e
d
No
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
on
cu
r
b
s
wi
t
h
i
n
8 fe
e
t
of
al
l
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
al
l
o
w
be
t
t
e
r
vi
s
i
o
n
fo
r
al
l
ca
r
s
,
pedestrians and bicycles
en
t
e
r
i
n
g
fr
o
m
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
On
e
pa
r
k
e
d
tr
u
c
k
,
SU
V
,
or
va
n
ca
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
bl
i
n
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
at
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in this neighborhood.
Le
f
t
Ha
n
d
Tu
r
n
s
on
t
o
LO
V
R
48
5.
A si
m
p
l
e
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
to
sa
f
e
l
y
ex
i
t
i
n
g
th
i
s
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
on
t
o
LO
V
R
is
to
ch
a
n
g
e
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
so
th
a
t
ca
r
s
existing Froom Ranch
Ro
a
d
on
th
i
s
si
d
e
of
LO
V
R
en
t
e
r
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
o
u
t
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
an
y
co
m
p
e
t
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
th
e
op
p
o
s
i
t
e
(Home Depot) side and
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
a le
f
t
ha
n
d
tu
r
n
fr
o
m
bo
t
h
th
e
ce
n
t
e
r
la
n
e
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
fa
r
le
f
t
.
Di
s
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
s
ag
a
i
n
s
t
a red light from the
op
p
o
s
i
t
e
si
d
e
of
LO
V
R
wo
u
l
d
re
m
o
v
e
an
y
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
5
PH1 - 109
15
15
.
Pr
a
d
o
Ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
/ In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
15
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
15
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
P
r
a
d
o
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
15
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
P
r
a
d
o
R
o
a
d
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
O
n
l
y
Is
s
u
e
Li
m
i
t
e
d
ea
s
t
‐we
s
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
ci
t
y
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
:
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
on
co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
ac
c
e
s
s
to
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
development
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
ea
s
t
side of US 101
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
15
‐2
De
v
e
l
o
p
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Re
l
i
e
v
e
s
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
at
LO
V
R
& Madonna interchanges.
Re
l
i
e
v
e
s
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
al
o
n
g
Ma
d
o
n
na Road & Oceanaire
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
El
k
s
La
n
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
or
cu
l
‐de
‐sa
c
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
Si
t
e
15
‐3
Ex
t
e
n
d
Pr
a
d
o
Rd
.
ov
e
r
US
10
1
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Rd
.
El
k
s
La
n
e
re
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
or
cu
l
‐de
‐sa
c
Wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
l
i
e
v
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
at
LO
V
R
or
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
interchanges and may drive
fu
r
t
h
e
r
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
th
o
s
e
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
Da
l
i
d
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Da
l
i
d
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Da
l
i
d
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
10 8
107
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
6
PH1 - 110
Si
t
e
15
Circulation
15
‐2,
3
ha
t
e
to
se
e
AG
la
n
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
Pr
a
d
o
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
sh
o
u
l
d
be
a pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
th
a
t
is
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
us
e
.
Ar
e
a
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
40
Pr
a
d
o
re
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
it
fo
r
li
g
h
t
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ce
n
t
e
r
.
No
mi
x
e
d
us
e
.
Bu
i
l
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
u
s
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
7
PH1 - 111
16
16
.
Fr
o
o
m
Ra
n
c
h
Wa
y
/ Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
16
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
16
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
w
i
t
h
O
n
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
16
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
w
i
t
h
S
e
v
e
r
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Is
s
u
e
s
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
fo
r
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
Wa
y
an
d
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
on
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
& LO
V
R
Ro
a
d
s
Cu
t
‐th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Pr
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
can enhance circulation
an
d
al
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
at
LO
V
R
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
an
d
LO
V
R
& Madonna Road
Re
d
u
c
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
on
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Ac
t
i
v
e
st
r
e
e
t
ed
g
e
/ pa
r
k
i
n
g
be
h
i
n
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Tr
a
i
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
ac
c
e
s
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
Da
l
i
d
i
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
areas
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
16
‐2
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
Wa
y
to
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
at
one (1) location
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
16
‐3
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
to
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Ro
a
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
Fr
o
o
m
R
a
n
c
h
Wa
y
to
Ca
l
l
e
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
at
two (2) or more locationsProposed Prado Road improvementsProposed Prado Road improvements
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
a
d
o
Ro
a
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
17
4
68
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
8
PH1 - 112
Si
t
e
16
Circulation
Th
e
r
e
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
go
o
d
wa
y
to
ma
k
e
a le
f
t
on
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
th
e
LO
V
R
/
M
a
d
o
n
n
a
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
At
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
,
we
sh
o
u
l
d
have Froom Ranch Rd
w/
ke
e
p
cl
e
a
r
fo
r
BO
T
H
th
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
AN
D
th
e
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
la
n
e
in
t
o
Co
s
t
c
o
to
al
l
o
w
ca
r
s
fr
o
m
th
e
LO
V
R
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
ro
a
d
to get out to LOVR.
In
s
t
e
a
d
of
wa
i
t
i
n
g
fo
r
1 or
2 gr
e
e
n
li
g
h
t
s
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
8
9
PH1 - 113
17
17
-
2
.
V
a
c
h
e
l
L
n
.
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
17
.
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Ro
a
d
to
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
Ro
a
d
Is
s
u
e
s
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
&
LO
V
R
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Sk
e
w
of
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
an
d
VachellLane
LO
V
R
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
17
‐2
Re
a
l
i
g
n
Va
c
h
e
l
l
L
n
.
so
u
t
h
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Park to connect to S. HigueraSt.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
LO
V
R
in
fr
o
n
t
of
Los Verdes
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
17
‐3
Fo
r
m
a cu
l
‐de
‐sa
c
at
th
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
en
d
of
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Ln. and do not provide
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
S.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
lo
t
fo
r
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ac
c
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
17
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
17
-
3
.
V
a
c
h
e
l
L
n
.
C
u
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
VachelLn.VachelLn.
VachelLn.
7
58
9
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
0
PH1 - 114
Si
t
e
17
Circulation
Yo
u
mu
s
t
do
so
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
re
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
of
th
e
vo
t
e
.
Tu
r
n
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
fr
o
m
Va
c
h
e
l
l
La
n
d
ri
g
h
t
on
t
o
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
is
a de
a
t
h
(
s
)
wa
i
t
i
n
g
to happen. It’s fast, under
pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
an
d
of
t
e
n
bl
i
n
d
,
if
so
m
e
o
n
e
is
on
th
e
le
f
t
si
d
e
.
So
u
t
h
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
/
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
Ar
e
a
1.
Se
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
E/
W
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
in
So
.
SL
O
.
2.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
Sa
n
t
a
Fe
/
T
a
n
k
Fa
r
m
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
b)
li
n
k
w/
Ho
o
v
e
r
c)
im
p
r
o
v
e
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Rd
.
& bu
i
l
d
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
to
So
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
*i
n
c
l
u
d
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
3.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
Pr
a
d
o
/
1
0
1
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
w/
fu
l
l
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
la
t
e
r
.
b)
wo
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
ph
a
s
i
n
g
in
th
r
u
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
4.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
CL
II
or
CL
I bi
k
e
w
a
y
al
o
n
g
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
be
t
w
e
e
n
Sa
n
t
a
Fe
& Fa
r
m
Su
p
p
l
y
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
b)
Li
n
k
wi
t
h
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
ar
e
a
5.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
:
a)
ro
u
n
d
‐ab
o
u
t
@ Pr
a
d
o
& Br
o
a
d
St
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
1
PH1 - 115
18
18
.
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Ro
a
d
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
18
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Is
s
u
e
s
He
a
v
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
,
LO
V
R
,
an
d
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
Ro
a
d
an
d
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Road
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
co
u
l
d
be
ma
d
e
fa
r
t
h
e
r
ea
s
t
an
d
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
with the Chevron
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
18
‐2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a no
r
t
h
‐so
u
t
h
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
connecting Horizon Road and
Je
s
p
e
r
s
e
n
Ro
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
wi
t
h
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
Ro
a
d
Di
s
t
u
r
b
s
so
m
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
& pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
18
‐3
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a no
r
t
h
‐so
u
t
h
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
so
m
e
w
h
e
r
e
between VachellLane and
Je
s
p
e
r
s
e
n
Ro
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
Ro
a
d
Ma
y
Di
s
t
u
r
b
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
& pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Cr
e
e
k
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Buckley RdVachell RdSuburban RdTank Farm Rd
18
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
Vachell Rd
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
B
a
r
n
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
Vachell Rd
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
18
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
f
o
r
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LESS
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
9
59
1
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
2
PH1 - 116
Si
t
e
18
Circulation
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
on
bi
k
e
la
n
e
s
on
Ta
n
k
Fa
r
m
ne
e
d
e
d
(p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
tr
a
f
f
i
c
an
d
cr
o
s
s
‐wi
n
d
s
.
)
18
.
3
is
a go
o
d
no
t
i
o
n
bu
t
ex
a
c
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
no
r
t
h
/
s
o
u
t
h
ro
a
d
sh
o
u
l
d
go
fu
r
t
h
e
r
to
Ea
s
t
to
w
a
r
d
s
ai
r
p
o
r
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
3
PH1 - 117
19 Buckley Rd
19
.
LO
V
R
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
19
-
1
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
19
-
2
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
L
O
V
R
B
y
p
a
s
s
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Is
s
u
e
s
Ea
s
e
of
ac
c
e
s
s
en
t
e
r
i
n
g
& ex
i
t
i
n
g
Lo
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Vo
l
u
m
e
of
tr
a
f
f
i
c
pa
s
s
i
n
g
by
Lo
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
at
LO
V
R
& Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
LO
V
R
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
19
‐2
Mo
v
i
n
g
ro
a
d
an
d
no
i
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
on
e
si
d
e
of Los Verdes to the other
Op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
an
d
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
Ca
r
e
f
u
l
no
t
to
di
s
t
u
r
b
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Sm
a
l
l
we
t
l
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
of
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Po
i
n
t
s
on
19
‐3
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
of
LO
V
R
By
p
a
s
s
Ca
r
e
f
u
l
no
t
to
di
s
t
u
r
b
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Vachell Rd
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
Vachell Rd
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
B
a
r
n
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
Suburban RdTank Farm Rd
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
R
d
19
-
3
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
B
u
c
k
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Vachell Rd
Su
b
u
r
b
a
n
R
d
Ta
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
d
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LESS
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
FO
O
D
4 LE
S
S
MA
R
R
I
O
T
T
RV
ST
O
R
A
G
E
2
14
56
Co
m
b
i
n
e
19
‐2 & 19
‐3
46
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
4
PH1 - 118
Si
t
e
19
Circulation
I li
k
e
it
bu
t
mo
r
e
Bi
k
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
be
do
n
e
wi
t
h
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
be
i
n
g
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
th
e
r
e
ne
e
d
s
to
be
bu
i
l
d
ou
t
of
pl
a
n
n
e
d
bike trails to Broad to
ac
c
e
s
s
Lo
s
Ra
n
c
h
o
s
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Th
e
bi
g
g
e
r
pr
o
b
l
e
m
is
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
is
no
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Cl
a
s
s
I pl
a
n
n
e
d
to
cr
o
s
s
10
1
on
LO
V
R
,
wh
i
c
h
would be the Laguna
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
ro
u
t
e
fo
r
bi
k
es
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ke
e
p
th
e
“n
a
t
u
r
e
”
as
p
e
c
t
of
Bo
b
Jo
n
e
s
Tr
a
i
l
in
mi
n
d
as
yo
u
di
s
c
u
s
s
LO
V
R
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
& ro
a
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
– no more development
al
o
n
g
Bo
b
Jo
n
e
s
Tr
a
i
l
so
u
t
h
of
LO
V
R
,
or
we
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
a wo
r
s
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
Ke
e
p
AG
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
!
Ge
t
LO
V
R
to
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
22
7
– a cr
o
s
s
va
l
l
e
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
is
ne
e
d
e
d
.
Mu
s
t
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
Oc
t
a
g
o
n
Ba
r
n
Ct
r
.
An
d
bi
k
e
tr
a
i
l
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
19
.
2
& 19
.
3
sh
o
u
l
d
be
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
in
t
o
on
e
op
t
i
o
n
Wh
a
t
ab
o
u
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
10
1
Li
k
e
to
se
e
an
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
LO
V
Rd
(b
e
h
i
n
d
Pa
r
k
2)
– LO
V
to
o
bu
s
y
no
w
un
l
e
s
s
th
e
r
e
ca
n
be
a si
g
n
a
l
@ Pa
r
k
s
1 & 2
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
5
PH1 - 119
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
At
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
sh
o
w
n
ni
n
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
as
k
e
d
to
as
s
i
g
n
a pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
to
ea
c
h
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
mo
d
e
fo
r
th
a
t
street. In other words,
fo
r
ea
c
h
ro
a
d
w
a
y
se
g
m
e
n
t
,
ra
n
k
th
e
mo
d
e
s
fr
o
m
1 to
4,
wi
t
h
1 be
i
n
g
th
e
mo
d
e
wi
t
h
th
e
hi
g
h
e
s
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
an
d
4 be
i
n
g
th
e
lo
w
e
s
t
priority.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
pa
g
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a su
m
m
a
r
y
of
th
i
s
in
p
u
t
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
6
PH1 - 120
PU
R
P
L
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Streets / Transit
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
do
no
t
kn
o
w
wh
a
t
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
ar
e
.
An
d
ye
t
yo
u
ar
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
up
ex
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
input.
Fo
r
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
SL
O
:
re
m
o
v
e
al
l
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
ar
e
a
fo
r
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
si
d
e
‐wa
l
k
s
/
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
.
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
a la
n
e
of
travel for separate bike
la
n
e
.
Ad
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
on
pe
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
of
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
r
e
.
LO
V
R
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
or
co
n
n
e
c
t
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
So
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
.
An
y
t
h
i
n
g
to
qu
i
e
t
no
i
s
e
on
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
Au
t
o
s
Fu
n
d
th
e
LO
V
R
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
sy
m
b
o
l
s
in
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
/
n
e
e
d
s
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
as
wh
a
t
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
(a
b
l
e
d
people) may be able to
na
v
i
g
a
t
e
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
pe
o
p
l
e
ma
y
no
t
pl
u
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
in
th
e
s
e
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
wh
e
n
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
th
e
tw
o
cl
a
s
s
e
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ma
k
e
su
r
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of
pe
o
p
l
e
wi
t
h
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
st
r
e
e
t
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
Vi
s
i
t
th
e
we
b
s
i
t
e
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
organization Access for
Al
l
fo
r
mo
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
fr
e
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
me
m
b
e
r
s
:
ww
w
.
s
l
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
.
o
r
g
Th
a
n
k
yo
u
!
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
be
i
n
g
ma
d
e
in
a va
c
u
u
m
.
Sh
i
f
t
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
s
an
d
yo
u
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
an
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
for people. Think auto
pa
r
k
me
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
.
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
as
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
Ju
n
e
1 co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
ig
n
o
r
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
th
e
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
un
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
!
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
9
7
PH1 - 121
DOWNTOWNAREA
#9
#6
#7
#8
#10 #5#4#3#2#1
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
FOOTHILL
B
R
O
A
D
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
CHORRO CALIFORNIASANTA ROSA MONTEREY
HI
G
U
E
R
A
Legend
Roadways for Input
Streets
City Limits
Input for Complete Streets
Motorist EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for vehicles on an urban street:
• Increasing vehicle throughput on roadways• Reducing vehicle delay at signalized and unsignalized intersections• Reducing interruptions to traffic flow and preserving vehicle speeds
Transit Passenger EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for transit passengers on an urban street:
• Reliable transit service with frequencies of 15 minutes or less• Higher transit travel speeds• High quality walkways leading to the transit stops• Numerous transit stop locations with benches, shelters, and real-time traveler information• On-board crowding less than 80%, meaning passengers can have a choice of seats
Pedestrian EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for pedestrians on an urban street:
• Providing a walkway on both sides of the roadway with ample width that allows side-by-side walking• Distancing the walkway away from vehicular traffic using bike lanes, shoulders, on-street parking, trees, landscaping, and street furniture• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the walkway• Limiting delay for pedestrians at signalized intersections• Providing raised medians that can serve as pedestrian refuges at both signalized and unsignalized locations• Removing permitted left turn movements by vehicles at signalized intersections• Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections
Bicyclist EmphasisThe following factors lead to a superior environment for bicyclists on an urban street:
• Providing bikeways on both sides of the roadway with ample width• Excellent pavement condition that is free of potholes, damage, and debris• Distancing the bike lane away from vehicular traffic as much as possible• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the bike lane• Removing or reducing on-street parking• Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections• Providing bike lanes through intersections• Limiting or reducing the number of unsignalized intersections or driveways along the street
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
9
8
PH
1
-
12
2
Q1 Please place these users in terms ofpriority for Foothill Boulevard.Answered: 38 Skipped: 5
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 28.95%
11
26.32%
10
23.68%
9
21.05%
8
38
2.63
Bicyclists 36.84%
14
31.58%
12
26.32%
10
5.26%
2
38
3.00
Transit
Passengers
21.05%
8
28.95%
11
34.21%
13
15.79%
6
38
2.55
Motorists 13.16%
5
13.16%
5
15.79%
6
57.89%
22
38
1.82
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
9
9
PH
1
-
12
3
Q2 Please rank these users by priority forChorro Street.Answered: 38 Skipped: 5
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 44.74%
17
28.95%
11
18.42%
7
7.89%
3
38
3.11
Bicyclists 28.95%
11
55.26%
21
15.79%
6
0%
0
38
3.13
Transit
Passengers
7.89%
3
5.26%
2
55.26%
21
31.58%
12
38
1.89
Motorists 18.42%
7
10.53%
4
10.53%
4
60.53%
23
38
1.87
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
0
PH
1
-
12
4
Q3 Please rank these users by priority forSanta Rosa Street.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 25.71%
9
20%
7
25.71%
9
28.57%
10
35
2.43
Bicyclists 20%
7
40%
14
28.57%
10
11.43%
4
35
2.69
Transit
Passengers
14.29%
5
28.57%
10
40%
14
17.14%
6
35
2.40
Motorists 40%
14
11.43%
4
5.71%
2
42.86%
15
35
2.49
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
1
PH
1
-
12
5
Q4 Please rank these users by priority forCalifornia Boulevard.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 37.14%
13
25.71%
9
17.14%
6
20%
7
35
2.80
Bicyclists 22.86%
8
45.71%
16
25.71%
9
5.71%
2
35
2.86
Transit
Passengers
14.29%
5
20%
7
42.86%
15
22.86%
8
35
2.26
Motorists 25.71%
9
8.57%
3
14.29%
5
51.43%
18
35
2.09
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
2
PH
1
-
12
6
Q5 Please rank these user in terms ofpriority for Monterey Street.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 57.14%
20
25.71%
9
5.71%
2
11.43%
4
35
3.29
Bicyclists 20%
7
45.71%
16
28.57%
10
5.71%
2
35
2.80
Transit
Passengers
11.43%
4
17.14%
6
57.14%
20
14.29%
5
35
2.26
Motorists 11.43%
4
11.43%
4
8.57%
3
68.57%
24
35
1.66
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
3
PH
1
-
12
7
Q6 Please rank these users in terms ofpriority for Higuera Street.Answered: 35 Skipped: 8
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 37.14%
13
28.57%
10
14.29%
5
20%
7
35
2.83
Bicyclists 34.29%
12
31.43%
11
22.86%
8
11.43%
4
35
2.89
Transit
Passengers
14.29%
5
22.86%
8
42.86%
15
20%
7
35
2.31
Motorists 14.29%
5
17.14%
6
20%
7
48.57%
17
35
1.97
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
4
PH
1
-
12
8
Q7 Please rank these users in terms ofpriority for Broad Street.Answered: 37 Skipped: 6
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 27.03%
10
24.32%
9
10.81%
4
37.84%
14
37
2.41
Bicyclists 27.03%
10
32.43%
12
32.43%
12
8.11%
3
37
2.78
Transit
Passengers
10.81%
4
24.32%
9
51.35%
19
13.51%
5
37
2.32
Motorists 35.14%
13
18.92%
7
5.41%
2
40.54%
15
37
2.49
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
5
PH
1
-
12
9
Q8 Please rank these users in terms ofpriority for Johnson Avenue.Answered: 34 Skipped: 9
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 29.41%
10
14.71%
5
26.47%
9
29.41%
10
34
2.44
Bicyclists 23.53%
8
38.24%
13
23.53%
8
14.71%
5
34
2.71
Transit
Passengers
20.59%
7
29.41%
10
38.24%
13
11.76%
4
34
2.59
Motorists 26.47%
9
17.65%
6
11.76%
4
44.12%
15
34
2.26
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
6
PH
1
-
13
0
Q9 Please rank these users by priority forLos Osos Valley Road.Answered: 38 Skipped: 5
0%20%40%60%80%100%
PedestriansBicyclists
Transit
Passengers
Motorists
1 2 3 4
Pedestrians 18.42%
7
26.32%
10
21.05%
8
34.21%
13
38
2.29
Bicyclists 31.58%
12
31.58%
12
28.95%
11
7.89%
3
38
2.87
Transit
Passengers
13.16%
5
31.58%
12
44.74%
17
10.53%
4
38
2.47
Motorists 36.84%
14
10.53%
4
5.26%
2
47.37%
18
38
2.37
1 2 3 4 Total Average Ranking
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
7
PH
1
-
13
1
Q10 Would you be willing to do the followingto improve the walking and/or bicyclingenvironment in the Downtown Area?Answered: 40 Skipped: 3
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Reduceon-streetparking fo...Remove avehicletravel lan...
Reduce
on-street
parking fo...
Remove a
vehicle
travel lan...
Yes No
Reduce on-street parking for a
better walking environment.
70%
28
30%
12
40
Remove a vehicle travel lane
for a better walking
environment.
64.86%
24
35.14%
13
37
Reduce on-street parking for a
better cycling environment.
83.33%
30
16.67%
6
36
Remove a vehicle travel lane
for a better cycling
environment.
68.57%
24
31.43%
11
35
Yes No Total Respondents
Future Fair 2 Summary
Pa
g
e
1
0
8
PH
1
-
13
2
Ot
h
e
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
At
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
r
2,
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
we
r
e
al
s
o
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
on
an
y
ot
h
e
r
to
p
i
c
of
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
to
th
e
La
n
d
Use and Circulation Elements
Up
d
a
t
e
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ar
e
th
e
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
0
9
PH1 - 133
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
as
ge
n
e
r
a
l
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
fo
r
th
e
fu
t
u
r
e
bu
i
l
d
ou
t
of
th
e
ci
t
y
so
th
a
t
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ex
t
e
n
d
s
be
y
o
n
d
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
up
d
a
t
e
/
20 year horizon.
It
is
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
ke
y
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
ci
t
y
’
s
stated jobs/housing
ba
l
a
n
c
e
go
a
l
s
,
th
e
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
pl
a
n
,
cl
i
m
a
t
e
ac
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
,
an
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
pl
a
n
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
up
d
a
t
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
an
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
re
v
i
s
i
t
he
i
g
h
t
li
m
i
t
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
in
ce
r
t
a
i
n
ar
e
a
s
.
Li
k
e
to
ke
e
p
fr
e
e
w
a
y
an
d
ot
h
e
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
no
i
s
e
to
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
.
No
i
s
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
on
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ar
e
a
.
Br
i
g
h
t
Li
f
e
Pl
a
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
Ki
m
Lo
v
e
.
I am
tr
y
i
n
g
to
op
e
n
a ch
i
l
d
ca
r
e
ce
n
t
e
r
an
d
ha
v
e
fo
u
n
d
th
e
pe
r
f
e
c
t
sp
a
c
e
to
re
n
t
.
It
is on Broad Street, across
fr
o
m
th
e
ai
r
p
o
r
t
bu
t
is
zo
n
e
d
as
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
I wa
s
to
l
d
th
a
t
I wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to
ap
p
l
y
fo
r
a di
r
e
c
t
o
r
’
s
us
e
pe
r
m
i
t
which is what I am about to
do
.
I ha
v
e
be
e
n
lo
o
k
i
n
g
fo
r
si
x
mo
n
th
s
fo
r
a su
i
t
a
b
l
e
re
n
t
a
l
wi
t
h
en
o
u
g
h
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
ou
r
ne
e
d
s
an
d
ha
v
e
fo
u
n
d
li
t
t
l
e
to
nothing on that aide of 101
th
a
t
is
zo
n
e
d
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
.
I am
aw
a
r
e
th
a
t
th
e
Ma
r
i
g
o
l
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
is
zo
n
e
d
fo
r
a ce
n
t
e
r
bu
t
th
e
r
e
is
no
en
c
l
o
s
e
d
ou
t
d
o
o
r
sp
a
c
e
.
The community child
ca
r
e
li
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
bo
a
r
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
75
s
q
.
fe
e
t
of
ou
t
s
i
d
e
sp
a
c
e
pe
r
ch
i
l
d
th
a
t
is
fe
n
c
e
d
an
d
35
sq
.
fe
e
t
of
in
s
i
d
e
sp
a
c
e
pe
r
ch
i
l
d
.
This facility would allow
50
+
sq
.
fe
e
t
pe
r
ch
i
l
d
wh
i
c
h
is
id
e
a
l
.
I un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
th
a
t
th
i
s
co
u
l
d
ta
k
e
4‐6 we
e
k
s
af
t
e
r
ap
p
l
i
ca
t
i
o
n
is
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
ge
t
an answer as to whether I
wo
u
l
d
be
al
l
o
w
e
d
to
re
n
t
th
e
sp
a
c
e
.
I wa
s
ho
p
i
n
g
to
ta
l
k
to
so
m
e
o
n
e
wh
o
ma
y
be
ab
l
e
to
gi
v
e
me
an
in
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
be
f
o
r
e
4‐6 weeks so that I do not
ha
v
e
to
pa
y
al
m
o
s
t
2 mo
n
t
h
s
of
re
n
t
wi
t
h
no
in
c
o
m
e
.
Yo
u
r
si
g
n
‐in
is
a sl
a
p
in
th
e
fa
c
e
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
as
I st
o
o
d
be
h
i
n
d
so
m
e
o
n
e
I kn
e
w
di
d
n
’
t
li
v
e
he
r
e
bu
t
he
ga
v
e
a bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
address to make it look like
he
di
d
.
Th
e
de
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
e
ma
n
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
a di
s
g
r
a
c
e
.
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
se
n
t
ou
t
fo
r
th
i
s
“i
n
p
u
t
”
wa
s
no
t
ti
m
e
l
y
.
Th
e
s
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
wi
t
h
o
u
t
an
y
co
n
t
e
x
t
.
Th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
,
pr
o
s
an
d
co
n
s
,
an
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ci
t
y
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
ar
e
no
t
presented in order for
pe
o
p
l
e
to
ma
k
e
an
in
f
o
r
m
e
d
ch
o
i
c
e
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
ur
b
a
n
re
s
e
r
v
e
li
n
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
ra
t
e
fo
r
m
u
l
a
is
wr
o
n
g
.
Wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
is
pe
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
Ad
d
“R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
”
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
(o
n
th
e
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
si
g
n
in
sh
e
e
t
.
No
wh
e
r
e
wa
s
I as
k
e
d
my
ad
d
r
e
s
s
an
d
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
to
ma
k
e
th
e
s
e
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Ar
e
ou
r
na
m
e
s
go
i
n
g
to
be
cr
o
s
s
‐ch
e
c
k
e
d
on
voter roster? Wish
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
to
ma
k
e
th
e
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
NO
T
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
.
Mo
r
e
bi
k
i
n
g
/
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
op
t
i
o
n
s
!
I ho
p
e
al
l
th
e
s
e
ne
w
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
he
a
l
t
h
pr
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
ai
r
p
o
r
t
la
n
d
us
e
pl
a
n
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
in
re
g
a
r
d
s
to
ho
u
s
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
as
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
Ju
n
e
1 co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
ig
n
o
r
e
s
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
th
e
Bi
s
h
o
p
St
r
e
e
t
un
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
!
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
on
Bu
c
h
o
n
St
do
no
t
kn
o
w
wh
a
t
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
ar
e
.
An
d
ye
t
yo
u
ar
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
up
ex
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
input.
Fo
r
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
SL
O
:
re
m
o
v
e
al
l
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
ar
e
a
fo
r
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
si
d
e
‐wa
l
k
s
/
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
.
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
a la
n
e
of
travel for separate bike
la
n
e
.
Ad
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
on
pe
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
of
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
co
r
e
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
1
0
PH1 - 134
LO
V
R
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
to
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
Ro
a
d
or
co
n
n
e
c
t
Bu
c
k
l
e
y
to
So
.
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
.
An
y
t
h
i
n
g
to
qu
i
e
t
no
i
s
e
on
LO
V
R
fr
o
m
Au
t
o
s
Fu
n
d
th
e
LO
V
R
ov
e
r
p
a
s
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
sy
m
b
o
l
s
in
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
/
n
e
e
d
s
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
fo
r
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
as
wh
a
t
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
(a
b
l
e
d
people) may be able to
na
v
i
g
a
t
e
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
pe
o
p
l
e
ma
y
no
t
pl
u
s
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
in
th
e
s
e
ar
e
a
s
ar
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
wh
e
n
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
th
e
tw
o
cl
a
s
s
e
s
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
ma
k
e
su
r
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of
pe
o
p
l
e
wi
t
h
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
st
r
e
e
t
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
Vi
s
i
t
th
e
we
b
s
i
t
e
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
organization Access for
Al
l
fo
r
mo
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
fr
e
e
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
me
m
b
e
r
s
:
ww
w
.
s
l
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
.
o
r
g
Th
a
n
k
yo
u
!
Ho
w
ab
o
u
t
a Ci
t
y
Fa
r
m
on
th
e
Av
i
l
a
Ra
n
c
h
an
d
a di
g
n
i
t
y
vi
l
l
a
g
e
fo
r
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
?
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
be
i
n
g
ma
d
e
in
a va
c
u
u
m
.
Sh
i
f
t
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
ce
n
t
e
r
s
an
d
yo
u
wi
l
l
cr
e
a
t
e
mo
r
e
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
an
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
for people. Think auto
pa
r
k
me
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
F
a
i
r
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
1
1
PH1 - 135
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TF-LUCE MINUTES
June 27, 2013
ROLL CALL
Present: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Hema Dandekar, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Chris Richardson, Rob Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla
Saunders, Sharon Whitney, Chuck Crotser (arrived at 6:55 pm), Vice-
Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Task Force Member Matt Quaglino
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director of
Community Development Kim Murry, Associate Planner James David,
Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, and Recording
Secretary Dawn Rudder
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended.
MINUTES:
Minutes of May 14, 2013, were approved as presented.
Minutes of June 19, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jeffrey Specht, San Luis Obispo, voiced that the illegal lodging tickets he has been
receiving constitute harassment and unnecessary ticketing on the City’s part. He asked
the Committee’s help in talking to anyone they can regarding this issue.
Dave Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, indicated that the LUCE workshops were excellent.
He expressed that traffic calming in neighborhood is desirable but is concerned with the
circulation concerning Johnson, Marsh, and Higuera Streets. He urged the Committee
to discourage cut-through traffic in residential areas and direct traffic to the arterial
streets.
Chris Hoover, San Luis Obispo, opposes Buchon as a one-way street and is also
concerned that traffic should be routed to the arterial streets.
Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, offered that speed bumps are not effective and urged the
Committee to come up with a better circulation plan utilizing Marsh and Higuera Streets
so traffic will be routed off of Buchon Street.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PH1 - 136
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 2
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development, presented the question of
whether the Task Force wishes to request the Council appoint additional members to
replace the three members who have resigned.
Task Force members discussed the TF-LUCE guidelines which call for an odd number
of members and also expressed concerns that it would be difficult for a new member to
understand the input and discussions that have occurred over the last year.
Chairperson Meyer voiced support of adding a young voice to the group.
The Task Force consensus was to support the existing size of the Task Force and not
to request Council appoint additional members at this time.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE
Chairperson Meyer requests the Task Force consider a request to consider circulation
item #5 ahead of other items in response to an attendee’s request.
5. Higuera and Marsh Street
Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Planner, pointed out that residents have voiced
concerns that Buchon not be converted to a one-way street. Being able to evaluate
option of two way traffic will be important to understand how this affects overall
circulation in this area.
Task Force Members discussed intent of two-way access on Marsh and Higuera
between Santa Rosa and Johnson and whether this would address traffic on residential
streets.
Task Force member Saunders expressed concern that Buchon residents were not
individually notified of potential circulation changes. Peggy Mandeville offered that the
neighborhood traffic efforts have involved the neighborhood prior to this effort.
On motion by Task Force Member Pierre Rademaker, seconded by Walt Bremer, to
forward an alternative of circulation option 5-3 of the Higuera/Marsh St. proposal.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Task Force Member Rossi
ABSENT: Task Force Members Quaglino and Crotser
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
Public Comments:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, urged the committee to review student proposals that
locate the transit center at the Shell Station property located on Higuera/Monterey and
PH1 - 137
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 3
Santa Rosa. This site can bring everything together in a better vision for the future that
focuses more on pedestrians and bicycles.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Workshop Feedback:
Kim Murry described insights from the workshop offered to staff and asked for
observations from the Task Force not noted in the agenda packet.
Task Force member Saunders expressed concerns regarding workshop attendees and
their lack of information given to them about proposed alternatives due to poster size
limitations.. In addition, committee member Saunders offered that the number of Future
Fair 2 workshop attendees did not reflect the same degree of participation as the 2012
LUCE Community Survey’s 2,200 household and business owner responses.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
Kim Murry presented a summary of the information provided to the Task Force and their
role in evaluating the input and alternatives. The desired outcome will be to identify
which alternatives should proceed for further evaluation.
Committee Comments:
Task Force member Carla Saunders was very uncomfortable with the Alternatives
Newsletter and its failure to note the 2,200 responses to the LUCE Community Survey
or the existing LUCE goals as screening criteria that will be used by City Staff and the
Consultant Team in their comprehensive evaluation of the existing LUE and Circulation
element goals, policies, and implementation programs. She noted that the policy
evaluation considerations listed in the newsletter include extraordinarily broad items
such as “consistency with SLOCOG efforts” and “Sustainable Communities grant-
related items.”
Chairperson Meyer indicated that alternatives being discussed will eventually fit
together but that there are other policies that will need to be folded in such as the
Climate Action Plan and other plans. Identify the overarching goal for the future vision.
Derek Johnson indicated that the goals and vision were identified earlier in the process
and this is what is being used to direct the effort. However, if other bigger visions are
missing, this is the time to identify them.
Sandra Rowley is not comfortable with the update being consistent with a regional
vision such as SLOCOG versus what the residents of the city want to see occur.
Task force Member Chuck Crotser arrived at 6:55 p.m.
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director, indicated that staff and the
consultant team will follow the direction of the Task Force that was confirmed by both
the Planning Commission and Council; namely that the existing LUCE goals will be
used to evaluate amendments to the general plan. He further noted that the newsletter
PH1 - 138
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 4
is not a policy document and it will not be adopted. Mr. Johnson urged the Task Force
to use all of the input received, including the survey and workshop input when
evaluating alternatives.
Task Force Member Saunders continued to express concerns with the alternatives
newsletter.
Task Force Member Rowley asked if Task Force could be provided with the list of what
would be used to evaluate the amendments.
Community Development Director Johnson indicated that the Task Force, Planning
Commission and Council directed staff to use the existing Land Use and Circulation
Element goals as screening criteria and those have been provided to the Task Force.
Task Force members requested information for how student projects are incorporated
into the review process and whether staff those ideas were reviewed when considering
alternatives.
Peggy Mandeville indicated that many of the student and community efforts have been
provided to the consultant team.
Chair Meyer indicated an interest in seeing some of the student projects that might
propose more visionary ideas.
A – Diocese Site on Daly
Kim Murry indicated that this site has a deed provision that restricts use of the site to
Church and church-related uses, and recommends that the Task Force remove this site
from further evaluation of alternatives.
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Bremer, to remove
this site from further consideration of land use alternatives.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke,
Richardson, Crotser, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rossi, Rademaker and
Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Member Quaglino
The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.
Task Force Member Russ Brown left the meeting at 7:10 pm.
B - Foothill Blvd/Santa Rosa
PH1 - 139
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 5
Task Force members discussed the concept of mixed uses on the site in question and
also on the properties on the south side of Foothill Blvd. Members discussed the
concept of being able to evaluate a larger alternative to understand the economics and
impacts over a longer period of time.
On motion by Task Force Member Richardson, seconded by Task Force Member
Crotser, to forward alternatives B3 and B4 and also to include Mixed Uses on the south
side of Foothill Blvd. from the triangular property at Chorro east to Santa Rosa.
.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke,
Richardson, Whitney, Rossi, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Saunders and Rowley
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Member Quaglino
The motion passed on an 10:2 vote.
C - Pacheco elementary site
Sharon Whitney made a motion to remove this site from consideration. She provided a
handout with information stating that the neighborhood is broken, and
1) rezoning will not fix this site, 2) workshop results were bifurcated, 3) no clear
consensus emerged from future fair, and 4) hotel would not be welcome in the area.
On motion by Task Force Member Whitney, seconded by Task Force Member, to
remove this site from further consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Whitney, Rowley and Saunders
NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Richardson,
Crotser, Rossi, Rademaker and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion failed on a 3:9 vote.
Task Force Member Saunders stated the community survey information supports
additional small parks in residential areas.
On motion by Task Force Member Richardson, seconded by Task Force Member
Juhnke, to forward alternative C4 for consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Richardson,
Crotser, Rossi, Rowley, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Whitney and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
PH1 - 140
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 6
The motion passed on a 10:2 vote.
D - Diocese site near Bressi Place and Broad Street
Task Force member Saunders indicates that portions of this property are within a
wildlife corridor noted in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Vice-Chair
Rademaker, to remove this site from further consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Rowley, Whitney, Saunders, Goetz,
Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Richardson, Dandekar and Crotser
RECUSED: Task Force Member Rossi
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on an 8:3 vote.
E - Upper Monterey area:
Staff presented that while there are no physical alternatives being discussed for this
area, the Task Force is able to offer policy considerations for direction.
Task Force member Rowley observed that if a conference center was to be located
near the college campus, the student demographic would need to be understood when
designing the facilities.
Task Force Member Saunders pointed out that this property backs up to low density
residential.
Direction: Task Force members provided comments including the desirability for this
area to host a conference center. Other ideas included use of parking district, street
façade improvements, lot assembly to facilitate more dense development, making the
area more pedestrian-friendly, addressing the appearance of properties in public
ownership, and addressing the transit center location.
F - Downtown Area:
Derek Johnson commented that the downtown pedestrian plan is a product that will be
coming to the Task Force at a future date.
Task Force members discussed the desirability of plazas and public views.
PH1 - 141
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 7
G - Mid-Higuera Area
Task Force Member Rowley commented that the consultants should understand the
purpose of the streets in the area. If future planning includes reduced on-site parking it
will impact residential neighborhoods.
H - Caltrans site
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Member
Dandekar, to forward consideration of Mixed Use on this site that would include Tourist
Commercial, Office and some residential as shown in H-2 and H-4.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Rowley, Whitney, Saunders, Richardson,
Dandekar, Crotser, Rossi, Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
Some Task Force members commented that this site may be appropriate to look at
height limit changes to accommodate the desired development.
I - General Hospital Site
Task Force member Rowley shared her concerns about unstable soils on this site and
does not support using any of the open space portion for housing.
Task Force Member Saunders commented that according to the survey, acquiring &
maintaining open space is what the community wants.
On motion by Task Force Member Rowley, seconded by Task Force Member
Saunders, to remove this site from further consideration and retain the existing
designations.
AYES: Task Force Members Rowley, Whitney and Saunders
NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar, Crotser, Rossi,
Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion failed on a 3:9 vote.
Task Force members discussed options of allowing some additional density on the site
in the area not designated as open space.
PH1 - 142
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 8
On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Task Force Vice-Chair
Rademaker, to forward alternative I-3 but delete the residential low density area shown
between the URL and the City Limit line (current shown as OS).
AYES: Task Force Members Whitney, Saunders, Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar,
Crotser, Rossi, Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Member Rowley
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on an 11:1 vote.
J - Broad Street Area
Some Task Force members voiced their desire to understand more about the concepts
in the Broad Street Area Plan.
Derek Johnson stated the link to this plan will be forwarded to the TF-LUCE members.
He suggested revisiting this area at the next meeting and the Task Force concurred.
K - Sunset Drive-In Site
Task Force members discussed the status of the discussions regarding locating a
homeless center on this property, and how a potential overpass or interchange would
impact uses on the property.
Task Force members also voiced that there is very little to do for middle or high school
age children.
On motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Task Force Member
Rademaker, to forward alternative K-3 for consideration.
AYES: Task Force Members Whitney, Saunders, Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar,
Crotser, Rossi, Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker, Rowley and Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
L - Madonna/LOVR area
The Task Force postponed discussion of this site until the next meeting.
PH1 - 143
TF-LUCE Minutes
June 27, 2013
Page 9
M - Pacific Beach site
Task Force members discussed the potential mix of uses on the property and how
changes in uses will impact the neighborhood.
On motion by Task Force Member Richardson, seconded by Task Force Member
Crotser, to forward consideration of alternatives M-3 and M-4.
AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Richardson, Dandekar, Crotser, Rossi,
Goetz, Juhnke, Rademaker and Meyer
NOES: Task Force Members Rowley, Whitney and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Quaglino
The motion passed on a 9:3 vote.
N - Calle Joaquin Auto Sales
Task Force Member Bremer made a motion to endorse alternative N-3 which was
seconded by Task Force Member Juhnke.
Task Force members discussed whether residential mixed use was appropriate at this
site and observed that alternatives for this property should be discussed in concert with
the Dalidio alternatives.
Task Force Member Bremer withdrew his motion.
SET TIME FOR NEXT TF-LUCE MEETING:
The next meeting TF-LUCE meeting will be held July 1 at 6:00 pm and July 9th at 6 pm
in the Council Hearing Room.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Dawn Rudder
Recording Secretary
PH1 - 144
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TF-LUCE MINUTES
July 1, 2013
ROLL CALL
Present: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema
Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Rob
Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre
Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Task Force Member Sharon Whitney
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director of
Community Development Kim Murry, Principal Transportation Planner
Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner James David, and Recording
Secretary William Kavadas
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud presented the Task Force with a handout showing a student-designed
future Transit Center located on the Shell Station property at Santa Rosa and Monterey.
The proposal includes bus staging areas on-street and reserves the block of Santa
Rosa Street between Higuera and Monterey for bus, pedestrian and bicycle traffic only.
The design provides an opportunity to make a plaza with amenities for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Task Force Member Carla Saunders was not comfortable with the Alternatives
Newsletter characterization of policy screening criteria since it fails to include the 2012
LUCE Community Survey responses.
Community Development Director, Derek Johnson ensures the Task Force that the
direction from the Task Force that was endorsed by both the Planning Commission and
City Council to use the Land Use and Circulation Element Goals will be followed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Schedule:
Staff presented a schedule to the Task Force showing upcoming meetings for
September 2013 through May 2014. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure the
Task Force members would be available for the more frequent meetings that will begin
in September when the draft elements will be presented in legislative draft format.
Alternatives:
PH1 - 145
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 2
The Task Force continued their discussion of Land Use Alternatives for identified sites.
Staff member Murry summarized the comments and general support for each
alternative expressed at the workshop held on June 1st and requested Task Force
direction.
O. Madonna Property on Los Osos Valley Road
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
The Task Force discussed environmental constraints and gateway views on the
property and the types of uses that might be appropriate. The Task Force offered that
neighborhood commercial might be more appropriate at this location rather than
destination commercial uses.
Task Force member Dandekar offered that a student-designed project for this location
won a “Bank of America Affordable Housing Challenge” competition and the site can
accommodate development while protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
Task Force member Saunders cited the community survey as important input since over
50% of respondents favor preserving creeks, marshes and open space.
Public Comment:
John Madonna, property owner, offered that the area may accommodate a future off-
ramp to Hwy 101 at Calle Joaquin. He favored connections to the open space and park
land and biking/walk ways connections from parts of Calle Joaquin to the town as a
whole.
On motion by Rob Rossi, seconded by Pierre Rademaker, to forward the alternative of a
Planned Development Overlay on the property to address future development potential.
Items to be addressed with an application include viewshed, hillside and open space
protection, potential height limits, wetland protection, access to other connections,
historic farm buildings, mixed use to accommodate workforce housing, and
neighborhood commercial type uses.
AYES: Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema Dandekar, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Rob Rossi,
Sandra Rowley, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson
Eric Meyer
NOES: Carla Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.
PH1 - 146
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 3
P. Higuera/Airport Area
Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Planner, presented different options for the property
located between Hwy 101 and the Los Verdes development along Los Osos Valley
Road.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members questioned the viability of continuing the agricultural uses and
discussed constraints on the site including circulation concerns and floodplain
considerations.
Task Force member Rowley indicated this does nothing to solve the problems of
crossing LOVR between Los Verdes I and II, previously identified by residents of those
developments. Entrance onto LOVR from Los Verdes I and II was also identified as a
problem.
Public Comment:
No public comment
On motion by Chris Richardson, seconded by Chuck Crotser, to forward modified
alternative P-5 reflecting infill housing with open space on the property.
AYES: Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema Dandekar, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Rob Rossi, Carla
Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric
Meyer
NOES: Sandra Rowley
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.
Q. Margarita Area Specific Plan
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range Planning, presented the potential for
increased residential density within the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members asked for clarification of issues related to airport safety zones and
expressed concern regarding appropriate density for the area and that any proposal not
impact open space currently designated in Specific Plan.
Community Development Director Johnson explained that the City is working with the
County Airport Land Use Commission as they update the Airport Land Use Plan. He
PH1 - 147
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 4
further noted that the City has engaged an airport land use consultant to advise the City
in the endeavor so that safety and noise considerations are appropriately addressed in
accordance with Caltrans State Aeronautics Handbook standards.
Community Development Director Johnson also explained that higher densities would
impact park requirements.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment.
On motion by Chuck Crotser, seconded by Dave Juhnke to forward the alternative Q-2
that considers the potential for increased density with supporting Neighborhood
Commercial development for the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Rob Rossi,
Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker,
and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Chris Richardson
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
R. Tank Farm at Broad
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presents alternatives for the site.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members discussed uses for the site and indicated that uses that serve the
existing and proposed businesses in the area would be most appropriate. The Task
Force discussed the lack of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in this area and
expressed a desire to include amenities for these types of modes.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment
On motion by Rob Rossi, seconded by Matt Quaglino, to forward an alternative for
mixed commercial uses with limited residential on upper floors. Commercial uses
should serve the surrounding businesses and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity must
be addressed.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris
PH1 - 148
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 5
Richardson, Rob Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-
Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.
S. Avila Ranch
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presented alternative land use options for the
Avila Ranch property.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force member Richardson announced a conflict of interest.
Task Force members discussed creek protection and wildlife corridors; and bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity to other parts of the community, especially to shopping areas
north of the property. Other comments included concerns about the need to connect
Buckley Road to S. Higuera.
Staff explained that the Specific Plan option would address performance criteria and
utilities infrastructure needs as well as issues discussed by Task Force.
Public Comment:
No public comment
On motion by Rob Rossi, seconded by Russ Brown, to forward an alternative that
supports a mix of residential densities, connection to shops to the north, connection to
S. Higuera and a mix of uses similar to alternative S-3.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Rob Rossi,
Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker,
and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Chris Richardson
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
J. Broad Street Area
PH1 - 149
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 6
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning, presented information related to
workshop input for the South Broad Street area.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Chairperson Meyer recused himself due to a recent property purchase in the area.
Task Force members discussed the issue of zoning changes and potential effects to
existing land uses. The members discussed uses located on both the Victoria and
McMillan areas and how uses might interact as changes occur over time. Task Force
members expressed desire to protect existing business uses in the area.
Chuck Crotser motions to explore land-use proposals from Draft Broad Street Plan that
protect existing businesses, Matt Quaglino seconds.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment
On motion by Chuck Crotser, seconded by Matt Quaglino, to forward an alternative that
supports the land uses and form-based codes as expressed in the Draft South Broad
Street Area Plan with provisions to protect existing businesses and excluding the
McMillan area from the plan.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris
Richardson, Rob Rossi, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, and Vice-
Chairperson Pierre Rademaker
NOES: None
RECUSED: Eric Meyer
ABSENT: Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote (Meyer recused).
L. Dalidio / Madonna Area
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presented a brief history of the development
proposals for the Dalidio property.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members discussed the development entitled under County jurisdiction and
whether the development is feasible given the need to provide on-site utilities. Several
members expressed a desire to see the property annexed and developed within the City
so that the City could have some influence over what gets developed on the property.
PH1 - 150
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 7
The Task Force discussed the types of uses that might be viable given the development
that has occurred on Los Osos Valley Road. Members also discussed the current Land
Use Element policies that direct 50% of the site to be retained in open space, and the
possibility that some flexibility regarding the 50% requirement might be appropriate if
open space could be obtained in other locations in addition to the Dalidio property.
Task Force members expressed that the property is a key visual gateway to the City
with a valued agricultural character. Some members provided input that some
development needed to be included in the alternative because a developer would not
seek annexation of a property to be designated solely for agricultural uses.
Rob Rossi left the meeting at 8:10 pm.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment
On motion by Chuck Crotser, seconded by Russ Brown, to forward an alternative with a
mix of uses with a significant open space/agricultural (at least 50%) component
(alternative L-5 without the specific direction of particular sizes/shapes of uses).
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser,
Hema Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris
Richardson, Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre
Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Rob Rossi and Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
N. Calle Joaquin
Kim Murry Deputy Director of Long Range presented options for property on Calle
Joaquin along Highway 101.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Task Force members discussed ideas related to reconfiguration of development areas
to bring agricultural uses closer to freeway. This would involve re-alignment of Calle
Joaquin potentially to connect to other circulation links. Members discussed whether
uses were more appropriate as Commercial Tourism or General Retail but did note that
auto sales bring in tax revenue
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director, comments that the City has
engaged a consultant to conduct an economic analysis to in order to understand
whether the lots are needed for future auto sales.
PH1 - 151
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 1, 2013
Page 8
Walter Bremer motions for mixed-use with swap of open space and agriculture land
closer to the freeway, Chuck Crotser seconds.
Public Comment:
No public comment
On motion by Walt Bremer, seconded by Chuck Crotser, to forward an alternative to
consider mixed use (in context with the Dalidio property and the City’s agricultural
parcel) and focusing on connectivity to the neighborhoods to the north.
AYES: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Hema
Dandekar, Jon Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson,
Sandra Rowley, Carla Saunders, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker, and
Chairperson Eric Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Rob Rossi and Sharon Whitney
The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
SET TIME FOR NEXT TF-LUCE MEETING:
July 9, 2013 at 5:30 pm in the Council Hearing Room.
Task Force requested staff also seek an additional meeting date/time in the event they
do not complete the alternatives discussion on July 9th.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm.
Respectfully submitted by,
William Kavadas
Recording Secretary
PH1 - 152
Attachment 9
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TF-LUCE MINUTES
July 9, 2013
ROLL CALL
Present: Task Force Members Walter Bremer, Russell Brown, Chuck Crotser, Jon
Goetz, Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Chris Richardson, Sandra Rowley,
Carla Saunders, Sharon Whitney, and Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Hema Dandekar, Rob Rossi, Vice-Chairperson Pierre Rademaker
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director of
Community Development Kim Murry, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, and Recording Secretary William Kavadas
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of June 27th and July 1st were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
Chair Meyer requests the Task Force consider item #14 out of order so that a member
of the public can provide testimony.
14. Oceanaire Neighborhood connection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the options presented at the Future
Fair 2 and results for Task Force discussion.
Committee Comments:
Task Force members discussed the input received from area residents that supports
leaving the neighborhood connections as they exist today.
Public Comments:
Theo Jones, Oceanaire neighborhood, indicated that the neighbors in the area do not
want a connection to Froom Ranch. Any connection to the neighborhood creates
concerns about cut-through traffic. She acknowledged that Froom Ranch will go
through to the northeast and expressed concerns about crossing the creek.
PH1 - 153
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 2
On motion to by Goetz, seconded by Saunders, to withdraw alternative #14 from further
consideration and leaving the Oceanaire neighborhood with the connections that
currently exist.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
1. Pedestrian Access near Foothill/Boysen/Santa Rosa
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, described the options presented at the Future
Fair 2 and results for Task Force discussion. He described how closure of Boysen
would allow more right-of-way to accommodate the bike and pedestrian crossing of
Highway 1 and provide a better trailhead.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed the potential circulation impacts if Boysen is closed.
Dave Juhnke observed that if Boysen is closed, traffic from development on Boysen will
be pushed to the Chorro/Highland intersection which is already impacted. He indicated
consideration of a Boysen closure in alternative #1 needs to be linked to realignment
alternatives listed in #2.
Jon Goetz questioned whether re-aligning Boysen to connect to Foothill would have an
acceptable distance from the Foothill/Santa Rosa intersection.
Chuck Crotser expressed the desire to keep some flexibility in the location of the
over/underpass across Santa Rosa.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Brown to
forward for consideration alternative 1-3 with flexibility in location of over/underpass and
with consideration of all alternatives for Boysen including full closure, access
restrictions, and retaining its current configuration.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
PH1 - 154
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 3
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
2. Chorro and Broad Streets Realignment
Committee Comments:
Matt Quaglino questions the feasibility of realigning Chorro and Broad.
Russ Brown wants to make sure the alternative is evaluated with consideration of
protecting residential streets from further traffic as the primary criteria.
Sandra Rowley expressed concerns about pulling traffic from higher-density housing in
the area from Santa Rosa Street to neighborhood streets of Broad and Chorro. She
also expressed concerns about late night bar traffic coming back through those
neighborhoods to the Boysen developments.
Carla Saunders expressed concerns about a tourist gateway at Santa Rosa and Foothill
that will funnel traffic down Chorro and Broad Streets. She supports an overpass to
connect across Santa Rosa but has concerns about re-aligning or closing Boysen.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Bremer, to
forward alternative 2-3 (Chorro and Broad re-alignment) for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 9:2 vote.
3. CA 1 and US 101 intersection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, presented a description of the current
alignment of hook ramps to Highway 101 in existing neighborhoods and the option of
redesigning a Hwy 1/101 interchange and closing the smaller ramps. He also clarified
Caltrans role in the process and indicated that the state agency would not be able to
force the City to close the smaller ramps.
Committee Comments:
Committee members questioned the impact of the larger interchange on Olive Street
businesses and the changes to circulation patterns created by closing and consolidating
on/off ramps.
PH1 - 155
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 4
Committee Member Juhnke commented on the importance of the Route 1/Hwy 101
intersection from a tourism standpoint.
Committee Member Crotser indicated that there may be unanticipated impacts to
tourism due to closure of smaller ramps in that the current configuration brings travelers
directly to the Mission and the downtown area. He observed that a way-finding signage
program would be a key component of a new interchange.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Quaglino
to forward alternative 3-2 for further evaluation, including impacts to residential streets
and the need for a signage program.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
4. Broad Street and 101 ramps
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the option to close the ramps to Hwy
101 from both sides of Broad Street. This option is only available if the interchange
discussed in alternative #3 occurs.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Juhnke indicated a desire to see a connection across Hwy 101 at
Broad for pedestrians and bikes.
Hudson says bike plan shows a connection further to the south.
Member Rowley questions whether a bike connection is needed at Broad when Chorro
connection is available one block to the east.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson to forward alternative 4-2 for evaluation with the addition of a bike and
pedestrian overpass at this location.
PH1 - 156
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 5
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
6. Transit Center Location
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson presented the transit center alternative as a
question of whether this is the appropriate location for this facility and indicated that the
graphics showed that the center works regardless of whether the traffic is one way or
two way on Higuera Street.
Public Comment:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, reminded the Task Force of the students’ design for the
transit center which he presented on July 1st. Mr. Jud expressed a preference to locate
the transit center on the Shell Station property and to close the surrounding streets to
vehicular traffic other than buses. He prefers to retain valuable land development and
use the public right-of-way for buses, bicycles and pedestrians.
Committee Comments:
Chair Meyer expressed a preference for two-way traffic on Higuera Street to create
different circulation downtown.
Committee Member Juhnke questioned whether the slide showing the existing condition
should also include the current location of the transit center adjacent to City Hall and the
County building.
Staff Member Hudson acknowledged that the existing condition should include both
sites – the current development on Higuera as well as the existing transit center
location.
Chair Meyer expressed a strong desire to study location of the transit center within the
public right of way.
Committee Member Crotser indicated the Downtown Concept Plan shows strong
pedestrian connections across Santa Rosa.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Brown to
forward an alternative that looks at this site/block of Higuera/Santa Rosa/Monterey for
the location for the transit center and consider use of both public and private property.
PH1 - 157
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 6
The evaluation is to consider ideas from student projects and the Downtown Concept
Plan.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
7. Broad Street “Dogleg”
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson discussed the options for the area.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed circulation impacts of full street closures and whether
temporary closures associated with events was more appropriate. The Committee
discussed with staff the description of a “woonerf” and noticing and comments from
those potentially impacted by street changes.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comment:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, indicated that street closures should occur where people
are. He recommends closing a two-block area of Higuera Street for a trial period.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Bremer to
forward alternatives 7-2 and 7-3 using a woonerf concept and not full closure of the
streets for further evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
8. High/Pismo and Higuera Intersection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the circulation challenges associated
with the current configuration of the streets
PH1 - 158
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 7
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Rowley suggested elongating the signal cones and new or longer
crosswalk signals where needed to address circulation issues.
Staff Member Hudson indicated that the signal housings were being modified but that it
didn’t address the issue of awkward intersections and impacts to pedestrians and
bicycles.
Committee members clarified that option 8-3 would retain Pismo as a one-way street
and not convert a portion to two-way traffic. They also confirmed that Walker Street
would remain a two-way street.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson to forward alternative 8-3 for further evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Saunders, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Whitney
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 9:2 vote.
9. Madonna and Higuera Intersection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the option of aligning Madonna to
Bridge Street.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Juhnke expressed support for evaluating the alternative connection
but without using roundabouts.
Committee Member Rowley described support for the current configuration because it
facilitates traffic movement turning from Higuera to Madonna without the need to stop at
a signal.
Committee Member Bremer indicated the more square intersection alignment assists
bicycle and pedestrian movement across Higuera and Madonna.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
PH1 - 159
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 8
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Quaglino,
to forward alternative 9-2 for further evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Saunders, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Whitney
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 9:2 vote.
10. Bishop Street Extension
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, explained that the current Circulation Element
contains a bridge across the train tracks at Bishop Street to accommodate all modes of
traffic. The alternative to the current condition is to evaluate the impact of eliminating
the connection.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Rowley expressed concern about impacts of a vehicular connection
to the existing neighborhoods and supports a connection for pedestrians and bikes only.
Committee Member Crotser expressed an interest in seeing reconstruction of the
roundhouse incorporated into the design of the structure that is built.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comment:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, introduced the idea of induced demand where building
the vehicular bridge will bring traffic into the neighborhoods.
On motion by Committee Member Quaglino, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson, to evaluate three options: 1. A bridge for all modes of traffic; 2. A bridge for
bicycles and pedestrians only; and 3. Elimination of any connection at Bishop Street.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
11. 11 & 12 Victoria Avenue Connection and Broad Street circulation
PH1 - 160
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 9
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson discussed the potential circulation connections
and changes in the area. Staff Member Murry clarified that options 11-2 and 11-3 are
not mutually exclusive and that input from the workshop should be considered in light of
how the options were presented.
Committee Comments:
Committee members questioned connectivity across Broad Street and potential access
restrictions.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Goetz, seconded by Committee Member Whitney, to
forward alternatives 12-2 and 12-3 for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney
NOES: None
RECUSED: Chairperson Meyer
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 10:0 vote (Meyer recused).
13. Orcutt Road Overpass
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson, described the alternative to evaluate removal
of the grade separated crossing currently included in the Circulation Element. He noted
that train traffic is currently about seven trains/day which represents a decrease since
the Circulation Element was adopted. Staff is still seeking information from the
Railroads regarding anticipated future train traffic.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed how grade separation would affect local streets and
bicycle connectivity.
Committee Member Richardson reminded the Task Force that future traffic will grow in
this area due to planned development in the Orcutt Area, additional development at
Laurel Creek, and build-out of community.
Public Comments:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, indicated that another east-west connection exists at
Tank Farm Road.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
PH1 - 161
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 10
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Whitney to
forward alternative 13-1 eliminating the overpass on Orcutt Road for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
15. Prado Overpass/Interchange
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson presented circulation information regarding
current need for an east-west connection and impacts to existing interchanges at Los
Osos Valley and Madonna Roads.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Quaglino indicated that if an interchange is needed now, there is no
doubt that it will be required in the future as more development occurs over time and
recommends keeping the full interchange as the preferred alternative.
Chair Meyer questioned whether the upcoming upgrade to the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange affects the need for a full interchange at Prado.
Task Force Member Juhnke wants to keep the focus on the alternative of a full
interchange.
Community Development Director Johnson indicates a desire to see modeling of traffic
impacts with both an overpass and full interchange options.
Committee Member Bremer indicated that connectivity options associated with
alternative 16 may impact whether the Task Force supports an overpass versus an
interchange.
Chair Meyer would like to see an overpass reserved for non-vehicular traffic to see how
it will affect the transit model.
Committee Member Juhnke will not support an overpass alternative that doesn’t
accommodate cars.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments:
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, expressed a desire for an overpass that serves
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes only. He offered that this facility would serve as
PH1 - 162
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 11
a gateway to city and would represent a forward-thinking community. Mr. Jud shared
that traffic activity is staying level because the younger generation is not as car-centric.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Rowley to
forward alternatives 15-2 (current plan) and 15-3 (overpass only) for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, and Whitney
NOES: Chairperson Meyer and Committee Members Brown and Saunders
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 8:3 vote.
16. Froom Ranch/Calle Joaquin
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson discussed the connections from Froom Ranch
Way extension and Calle Joaquin. Since development on the Dalidio property is
unknown at this moment, it isn’t possible to describe specific locations of potential
facilities. Input from Task Force can be general as to needed circulation connections.
Committee Comments:
Committee members discussed difficulty of making recommendations on circulation
without knowing what development proposal may be coming forward.
Chair Meyer prefers to move Calle Joaquin away from Hwy 101 frontage to preserve
visual open space/agriculture corridor to be more consistent with character of
community.
Committee Member Saunders expressed concern about moving open space and
agriculture.
Committee Member Crotser favors limiting the amount of roads taking up space on
property.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member
Richardson to forward alternatives that evaluate whether one or more connections are
needed to provide an additional north-south connection between Los Osos Valley Road
and Prado/Dalidio; and whether an internal east-west or loop road is needed to connect
those roads on the Dalidio property.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
PH1 - 163
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 12
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on an 11:0 vote.
17. Vachell Road to Higuera
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the challenges and options for
Vachell Road.
Committee Comments:
Committee members clarified interaction between this alternative and the Buckley Road
connection to Higuera. Staff indicated that closing Vachell is not a viable option if
Buckley does not connect to S. Higuera.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Rowley, seconded by Committee Member Juhnke, to
evaluate 17-2 as a “back up” alternative in the event Buckley Road does not connect to
S. Higuera.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Richardson
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 10:0 vote (Richardson recused).
18. Tank farm Road to Buckley
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson presented the concept of an additional north-
south connection between Tank Farm Road and Buckley which may be beneficial in the
future to address connectivity for future development.
Committee Comments:
Committee Member Saunders favors alternative 18-2 over 18-3 due to creek crossing
issues and wildlife corridors.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Goetz, seconded by Committee Member Juhnke, to
forward alternative 18-2 for evaluation.
PH1 - 164
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 13
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Richardson
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 10:0 vote (Richardson recused).
19. LOVR to Buckley Road and Bypass connection
Traffic Programs Manager Jake Hudson described the alternatives and clarified that
alternatives 19-2 and 19-3 were not mutually exclusive. The workshop input reflected
this by identifying a third alternative to combine both alternatives as the preferred one.
Committee Comments:
Committee members had a brief discussion regarding benefits of both alternatives.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Public Comments: None.
On motion by Committee Member Crotser, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to
forward alternative 19-2 and 19-3 for evaluation.
AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino,
Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Chairperson Meyer
NOES: None
RECUSED: Committee Member Richardson
ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Vice-Chair Rademaker
The motion passed on a 10:0 vote (Richardson recused).
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Eugene Jud presented a two-page handout to the Task Force showing an alternative
alignment and design width for Prado Road. He questioned the need of a four-lane
Prado Road because of the anticipated size and capacity of Tank Farm and Buckley
Roads.
Committee Member Juhnke requested information regarding future Task Force
composition given Chairperson Meyer’s impending resignation from the City Planning
Commission and his role as the Planning Commission member participating on the TF-
LUCE.
Community Development Director Johnson explained that the item was not advertised
as part of the Task Force agenda for the evening and hence the Task Force could not
take any formal action. He explained that the Council would be providing policy
PH1 - 165
TF-LUCE Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 14
direction on August 20th regarding the future composition of the task force. Committee
members expressed their strong desire to not have new members added to the Task
Force and asked Director Johnson to communicate that desire to the Council.
SET TIME FOR NEXT TF-LUCE MEETING:
September 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
William Kavadas
Recording Secretary
PH1 - 166
Attachment 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 24, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Charles
Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, and Vice-Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Chairperson Michael Draze
Staff: Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director Kim Murry, Senior Planner
Phil Dunsmore, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Natural
Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Andrea
Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of June 26, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Eugene Judd, SLO, presented a gift to Vice-Chair Meyer for his work with the City and
for all he has done for Cal Poly.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 276 Tank Farm Road. ER 92-08: Introduction and review of the Draft EIR for the
Chevron Tank Farm remediation and development project: Chevron Corporation,
applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission receive a presentation and public testimony and provide feedback on the
Chevron project Draft EIR. He noted that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce had
been received and was distributed to the Commission just prior to the meeting.
Commr. Multari clarified with staff that the development agreement is a part of the
project.
Commr. Multari asked if all open areas will be restored and whether non-native species
in areas not proposed for remediation will be removed.
Mr. Dunsmore noted that the project description does not include addressing areas of
the site that are not proposed for remediation or development.
Commr. Fowler asked why no homes are planned in the project area.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the project area is in an airport safety zone. PH1 - 167
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Sutton, San Luis Obispo, stated the project provides an opportunity for inclusion of
recreation for youth.
John Spatafore, San Luis Obispo, noted the opportunity for recreation, biking, and
development of a commercial area that would attract light manufacturing. He stated
that completion of Prado Road will improve emergency response times and provide
better transportation flow.
Doug Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, owner of a business at Tank Farm and Santa Fe,
reconsidered his opposition to the roundabout, viewing it as one of several workable
possibilities. He stated that the traffic flow all along Tank Farm Road should be
considered as a whole.
Dan Rivoire, Executive Director of the San Luis Bike Coalition, supports bike path
development but stated that he does not think a class 1 and class 2 bike lane need to
be parallel to each other on Tank Farm and that a protected class 2 would be preferred.
Connectivity issues within the project and throughout the city need to be examined,
especially the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and the roundabout. He said
the Bike Coalition is concerned but supports going forward.
Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about the beneficial economic impact
for the community and found nothing in the environmental impact report on that subject.
He noted the opportunity to generate more head-of-household jobs.
Ken Kienow, San Luis Obispo, supported bike lanes protected from traffic. He supports
development of the project under City jurisdiction.
Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, commended Chevron for taking on the project but
expressed concern that the draft EIR is deficient. She noted the need to emphasize
alternative modes of transportation and connectivity between Los Osos Valley Road
and Broad Street for bicycles. She pointed out that there was no mention of how
bicyclists will be affected by intersections and additional lanes on Tank Farm Road.
She stated that the plan has a motor vehicle bias.
Myron “Skip” Amerine, San Luis Obispo, supports bike lanes totally separated from
traffic and addressing complete streets. He stated that adding lanes to Tank Farm will
only cause higher speeds. He also expressed concern about concrete oil reservoir
floors and soil that will be brought in.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, was concerned about bike safety with the roundabout,
and about the potential for creating a “little Los Angeles.” He stated that Broad Street to
the airport is a totally car-oriented route with no public transportation to the airport. He
asked if bicycle parking is addressed in the draft EIR.
Ty Safreno, owner of a property next to the project; was concerned about infrastructure
needs vs wants. He requested the source of data presented in support of roundabouts.
He stated that San Luis Obispo has an aging population that may not deal well with PH1 - 168
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 3
roundabouts which he described as being contradictory for traffic flow in an industrial
area. He supports the development of a business park to cluster industrial businesses.
Tim Walters, principal with RRM Design Group, stated that AASP identifies a signal as
the ultimate solution with a roundabout only an interim solution. He noted that the
AASP breakdown of costs indicated that signalization was less expensive by about one
million dollars. He noted that bicyclists and pedestrians would be negatively impacted
by a roundabout in this particular location.
Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the Chamber’s
support for annexation because it is critical for this corridor to be a part of the City. She
urged the City to enter into a suitable agreement with Chevron.
Deborah Hoffman, co-owner of a business at Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe with her
husband expressed concern with the roundabout the handling of traffic from Broad
Street to South Higuera. She stated that calming traffic to 15 mph will result in gridlock.
She noted a need for careful traffic study. She supported the proposed bike lanes but
saw a need to address bicycle traffic moving north and south.
Dawn Legg, San Luis Obispo, encouraged quick action for economic feasibility.
Neal Havlik, former city employee who worked on open space, supported the project,
and the deletion of the Unocal collector road. He stated that the open spaces make up
a majority of the project but are not clearly dealt with in terms of dedication. He
supported a conservation easement to preserve these open spaces.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about the appropriateness of the roundabout
and how it would work in this location.
Commr. Multari was concerned about accurate project description (including the
development agreement), in order to have a complete evaluation of potential
environmental impacts, and noted that an addendum or supplement may be required
later. He commended the draft EIR as a very good basis for the project. He stated
there is a need to analyze different forms of transportation. He asked Senior Planner
Dunsmore to elaborate on the presence of asbestos.
Mr. Dunsmore stated there is a potential for naturally-occurring asbestos in serpentine
rock on a hill in the project area, and mitigation is designed to minimize health risks.
Commr. Fowler commended the project as part of the city. He expressed concern
about well contamination if the project were to be developed in the county. He was also
concerned about cultural impacts and the open space issue.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the goal is to have it become public open space.
He noted that some areas need no remediation, but it would be appropriate to address
the non-native invasive plant species. PH1 - 169
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 4
Director Derek Johnson stated that the final project EIR will be clear on this issue.
Diane Kukol, Regional Water Quality Control Board, stated that it is highly unlikely that
there would be any drawing down of oily material into the water supply. She stated that
connection to the sewer line along Tank Farm Road for waste water disposal is
dependent on annexation.
Commr. Fowler stated that while there is no housing proposed, there is a nexus
between job creation and housing. He agreed with the need for a buffer for bicyclists.
He commended the draft EIR.
Commr. Stevenson gave compliments to staff on an excellent draft EIR. He
appreciated public comments about bike trails.
Commr. Larson stated a need to revisit the wetlands issue about whether environmental
impacts are Class 1 or 2.
Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, stated that many state agencies will be involved
in the future but the draft EIR comes first.
Vice-Chair Meyer, in general, expressed support for the future positive outcomes. He
pointed out that the draft EIR is inconsistent with the city bicycle plan and treats
bicycling only as recreation. He noted that Class 1 bike paths are dealt with by Parks &
Recreation while Public Works deals with Class 2 paths although, in San Luis Obispo,
bicycle journeys often combine business and recreation. He stated protected bike lanes
along Tank Farm should be a hybrid of Class 1 and 2. He stated there is a need to
address how to get across Tank Farm Road at points between Broad and Higuera. He
expressed concern about excess traffic capacity and excessive maintenance costs
when the Buckley Road and Prado Road extensions are added to lane expansion on
Tank Farm Road. He noted the need to consider all modes of transportation and ways
for pedestrians and bicycles to cross Tank Farm Road. He supports the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan and indicated that Chevron’s project will need some adjustment.
Commr. Multari noted that the EIR process allows changes if the City makes findings
that there are community values that outweigh impacts. He gave the example of the
community deciding to not add lanes to Tank Farm Road and accepting the impact of
heavier traffic.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
2. City-Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Study session
to review and discuss Task Force recommended Land Use and Circulation
alternatives for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; City of San Luis
Obispo - Community Development Dept., applicant (Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further evaluation by the
Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and provide input and
revisions as appropriate.
PH1 - 170
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 5
Commissioners discussed how to handle Vice-Chair Meyer’s need to be recused on
one item concerning the Johnson/Broad area.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Larson, that the item of
Johnson/Broad area be taken as the last discussion item of the meeting.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Meyer
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Multari clarified the nature of alternatives.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendations will
receive high-level review and be presented to Council in October. The City Council will
select a “preferred alternative” to the current general plan that will subsequently proceed
through full environmental review.
Slide 1 Foothill area: TF-LUCE recommendations include University Square transition
from general retail to mixed use. Properties on the southeast side of Foothill are also
included for mixed uses. Two sites owned by the Diocese of Monterey were not
recommended for changes to their current land-use designations. The Old Pacheco
School site was recommended by the TF-LUCE to consider for residential and park use.
Circulation recommendations include consideration of realignment of Chorro, Broad,
and Boysen as well as a separated bike and pedestrian connection across Santa Rosa
Street.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Sharon Whitney, resident of Pacheco School neighborhood, requested removing the old
Pacheco School site from consideration and was opposed to medium to high-density
residential development for that site. She would have supported an alternative for use
of the site as a park.
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, supported increasing building heights in the
Santa Rosa/Foothill area and thought the area might be appropriate for a research park.
She stated that the Santa Rosa corridor is a gateway to the City and is an appropriate
location for tourism-supporting commercial uses. She spoke in favor of designating
Chorro as the alternative bike route to downtown and new, medium-density apartments
with a transition to low-density residential for the Old Pacheco School site.
Geoff Straw, Director of San Luis Obispo RTA, cyclist, spoke in support of a
pedestrian/bicycle over/underpass for Santa Rosa Street. He advocated considering all
forms of transportation.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, commended the work done by staff with some
reservations.
PH1 - 171
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 6
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Multari thought that B-4 was the most sensible and wanted the whole area
considered for mixed use. He supports policy discussions about parking and height
requirements. He was not in favor of a research park in this area. He noted that
planning for the Pacheco School site may be impacted by Cal Poly’s master plan. He
stated that the shape and size of the park at this site should be flexible and that a policy
discussion was needed. He supported TF-LUCE recommendations for potential land
use and circulation changes in the area.
Commr. Stevenson spoke about B-4 and expressed a desire to see flexibility in mixed
use that could accommodate horizontal or other types of mixed use. He supported
serving student needs in this area. He emphasized the importance of understanding
the parks needs of the neighborhood around the Old Pacheco site. He expressed
opposition to the Chamber position for this site.
Commr. Multari stated that Cal Poly is considering building more housing with
commercial businesses included across the street. He suggested that perhaps a policy
decision, not a land use decision, is needed for the Old Pacheco site.
Commr. Fowler commended the work done by the Land Use Committee. He supported
the pedestrian/bicycle alternative and residential development for the Pacheco School
site.
Commr. Meyer expressed concern about losing school sites. He agreed that the shape
of the park is only an approximation at this point.
Deputy Director Murry stated that Cal Poly is planning a 1400-bed housing expansion
on a campus parking lot across the street from the Old Pacheco site. She stated that
the City is looking forward 20-35 years to anticipate future community needs, however,
the school district may have more immediate needs even though they have yet to
formulate plans for the property.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations with consideration of the policy direction noted in the Commission’s
discussion.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Slide 2: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives shown
on slide 2. These involve exploring full or event-related closure of Broad and Monterey PH1 - 172
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 7
streets near Mission Plaza; potential freeway ramp closures in neighborhoods and
expansion on interchange at US 101 and SR 1; location of the Transit Center on
Higuera near Santa Rosa; conversion of Marsh and Higuera to two-way streets between
Santa Rosa and Johnson; and re-alignment of Bianchi Lane to Pismo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION:
David Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, indicated that on Pismo and Buchon Streets, much
of the traffic is cut-through and not local. He supports shifting traffic from residential
area to arterial streets. He expressed concern about the Johnson Avenue Housing
Project’s traffic impacts to Johnson, Pismo, and Buchon and supports better utilization
of Marsh Street.
Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, asked if there would be a right-hand turn lane on Higuera
Street onto High Street. He supported two-way traffic on Higuera Street and Marsh
Street.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, stated he had mixed feelings about the process. He
indicated the June workshop had a carnival atmosphere and that people didn’t
understand what they were voting on. Problems aren’t defined and there hasn’t been
criteria listed for how to evaluate alternatives. He opposes one-way streets in
residential areas, a large interchange, and feels that Higuera Street should be
pedestrian only.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Larson stated that it is convenient to have local ramps to get on and off
freeways.
Commr. Stevenson supported the alternatives with the caveat that he is not entirely in
support of 7-3 – the larger closing of Monterey and Broad Streets.
.
Commr. Multari noted advantages of reducing traffic on Broad Street near Mission
Plaza. He stated that neighborhood on/off freeway ramps are inadequate but that he
has concerns about creating one large freeway interchange. He noted that 7-3 has
issues concerning access to businesses and to the parking structure. He supported a
policy discussion of what type of closure may be appropriate for this area.
Commr. Fowler stated that closing the off-ramp at Broad Street, is troubling as it is a
direct route to the airport, the Mission, and Downtown.
Commr. Meyer supported one-way traffic on Broad Street, diagonal parking, and closing
the street for events, options that did not get into the TF-LUCE recommendation and
were recommended by Ken Schwartz.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to forward the
LUCE recommendations to the City Council but with a policy discussion about the
nature and phasing of closure in 7-3
PH1 - 173
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 8
AYES: Commrs. Multari and Stevenson
NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion failed on a 2-3 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Fowler, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternatives 3-2, 4-2, 5-3, 6-2, and 8-3 (without alternatives 7-2
and 7-3).
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternative 7-3 with inclusion of policy discussion regarding
desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment of the streets.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Slide 3: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area (continued)
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives for
potential re-alignment of Madonna to form an intersection at Bridge Street across
Higuera. Deputy Director Murry described the Task Force recommendations for policy
discussions to address Upper Monterey, Downtown, and Mid-Higuera areas but that the
Task Force did not recommend land use designation changes for these areas. She
also explained the TF-LUCE recommendation to explore both Tourist Commercial and
some form of Mixed use for the Caltrans site at Higuera and Madonna.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Stevenson supports a large-scale conference center at the Cal Trans site. He
indicated that the re-alignment of Madonna may be OK but that Mixed Use is probably
not appropriate for this location.
PH1 - 174
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 9
Commr. Meyer expressed a need to study the options of a conference center or
commercial use.
Commr. Fowler agreed with Commr. Stevenson and asked if the Chamber had any
comments.
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber has been an advocate
for a conference center for a long time and agreed with the Task Force findings
regarding mixed use.
Commr. Larson stated that the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street is
awkward but does work. He added that this is a great location for a conference center
but asked if realignment of Madonna Road would reduce the size of the Cal Trans
property. He stated that use and circulation are linked closely. He thought the City
could do without the realignment.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the alignment concept was offered by a participant at
the December workshop. She further noted that the Cal Trans site is 13 acres in size
and that conference centers usually require approximately 4-6 acres.
Commr. Multari agreed with Commr. Larson about the intersection and was inclined
more to support H-3 but would like a policy discussion.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternatives E, F and G; and H-3 with a policy discussion that
would address circulation options and the possibility of incorporating more public open
space. Land uses to serve as gateway uses on the Caltrans site should include a
conference center and other uses compatible with a conference center.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, and seconded by Commr. Multari, to continue to
August 14.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
PH1 - 175
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 10
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast – Deputy Director Murry highlighted the August 14th and 28th
meetings to include the continued review of TF-LUCE recommended
alternatives, an update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and a Tentative
Parcel Map proposed for 323-353 Grand Ave.
b. Deputy Director Murry stated that the City Council will consider vacancies on
the Task Force on August 20th and asked the Planning Commission to appoint
a member in the event the Council opts to replace Commissioner Meyer as the
Planning Commissioner on the Task Force.
4. Commission
a. Commr. Multari agreed to serve on the TF-LUCE in the event the Council
wishes to appoint a Commissioner to fill a Task Force vacancy.
b. Commr. Meyer noted his resignation from the Planning Commission and his
desire to continue serving on the TF-LUCE as a resident.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, 2013.
Ted Green
Interim Supervising Administrative Assistant
PH1 - 176
Attachment 11
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson, 1 Position
Vacant, Vice-Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael
Draze
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Community
Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, Assistant
Planner Marcus Carloni, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson,
Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum, Assistant City Attorney
Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Approval/amendment of the minutes of July 24, 2013, was continued due to a lack of
four members in attendance that were present on July 24, 2013.
ELECTION: Commr. Larson was unanimously elected as Vice-Chairperson.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 323 Grand Avenue. MS/ER 25-13: Review of minor subdivision of 323 and 353
Grand Avenue to create four parcels with exceptions to the minimum lot depth and
area requirement and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;
R-1 zone; Ryan Petetit/John Belsher, applicants. (Marcus Carloni)
Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara recused herself based on a conflict of
interest. She stated that she has not had any communication with the Commission on
this item.
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of the Draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, based on findings and
subject to conditions which he outlined.
PH1 - 177
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Belsher, applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Steve Delmartini, SLO, supported the project and infill development in general, praised
the parking provided, and stated it would upgrade the neighborhood.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chair Draze was concerned about setbacks and the amount of parking.
Commr. Stevenson noted that lots 2 and 3 adjoin a shallow drainage basin and
wondered if this would be usable outdoor space.
Commr. Larson discussed the project’s density.
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, stated that, when a lot is substandard, the main
issue is compatibility with the neighborhood. He noted there are many substandard R-1
lots in the area.
Commr. Stevenson supported the project as a well-designed, efficient use of land. He
expressed concern about the cost to the subdivider language in finding #6.
Commr. Multari discussed the neighborhood density and lot sizes in terms of
compatibility. He supported prohibiting secondary dwelling units.
Commr. Larson supported this project over individual development of the lots due to
better access and parking and the elimination of secondary dwelling units.
Commr. Multari discussed the project’s density and questioned the number of bedrooms
that would be allowed if the lot sizes were proposed in the R-2 zone.
Commr. Draze supported the project as a better option than three residences with five
bedrooms and secondary dwelling units that might result in higher density. He stated
that the project is consistent with a single-family neighborhood.
Commr. Multari stated that this property is 1.5 blocks from Cal Poly and thus it is likely
to be rented to students. He noted that the General Plan encourages student housing
close to Cal Poly.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern with the unit size.
Mr. Carloni, in response to a question about R-2 density, stated three-bedroom
residences would be allowed per lot if the proposed lot sizes were in the R-2 zone.
PH1 - 178
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 3
Commr. Larson commended the design of the project and stated that this development
will be compatible with residences in this area.
Commr. Multari expressed concern about vehicles backing out onto Grand Avenue and
wanted the applicant to consider one driveway for the project.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Vice-Chair Larson to approve the
project per staff recommendation with the following modifications:
1. Modify finding #5 to read as follows “…standards codified in the Subdivision
Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land, and
the property…”
2. Add condition #5 which reads “Secondary Dwelling Units shall not be allowed.”
3. Add condition #6 which reads “The Architectural Review Commission shall
consider one driveway accessing all parcels on the project site resulting in
elimination of backing out onto Grand Avenue.”
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
2. City-Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Continued
review of Task Force-recommended alternatives to the Land Use Element update;
City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
continue to review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further
evaluation by the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and
provide input and revisions as appropriate.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 4 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR
AREA):
Steve Devencenzi, SLOCOG, stated that the Prado Road interchange does impact
SLOCOG. He can see justification for some regional funds for access to the airport via
Prado Road to Broad. He noted that SLOCOG is currently conducting a mobility study
in the county. He stated that closure of ramps and going to one access point for 101
will be very expensive and, rather than stating that ramps are to be closed, it may be
preferable to plan a complete analysis of all the ramps, with the possibility that ramps in
existence may be redesigned. He noted that going to one access point may require
widening Santa Rosa.
PH1 - 179
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 4
Jenna Smith, SLO, Executive Director of Central Coast Grown, noted that the general
plan calls for preserving agricultural properties. Central Coast Grown supported
retaining fifty percent of the Dalidio property as agricultural land.
Brian Engleton, City Farm, supported option L-5 as it preserves fifty percent of the land
as agricultural. He stated that the planned medium and high-density housing will serve
the purpose of connecting people to their local food supply. He supported considering
the impact on agricultural lands when planning new roads.
Amy Sinsheimer, SLO, member of Central Coast Grown, supports L-5 over options that
might preserve even more open space because the adjacent housing would connect
residents to agriculture. She noted the need to optimally use the agricultural land.
Rosemary Wilvert SLO, member of the City Farm group, emphasized the need for
sustainable farmland in light of climate change. She noted that the land use plan and
the master plan for the Calle Joaquin Preserve require that fifty percent be reserved for
agriculture. She stated that the City Farm working group advocates extending Calle
Joaquin to Dalidio Road but understands that either 15-3 or 15-2 will be passed and
therefore prefers 15-3.
Karen Newman, representative for the City Farm working group, opposed the extension
of Froom Ranch Way because it would cut off access to City Farm. She stated that the
extension of the Bob Jones Bike Trail would preserve access. She supported
contiguous open spaces that would bring people to, not through, them. She stated that
the extension of Calle Joaquin should be parallel to 101.
Eugene Jud, SLO, suggested the Prado overpass be just a bicycle/pedestrian bridge.
He noted the need for planning for people who will be 45 in 2035. He maintained that
vehicular traffic is not growing in many locations and that fewer young people have
driver licenses today.
Peter Schwartz, SLO, Cal Poly physics professor, supported high-density housing and
safety for bicycles and pedestrians. He supported a bicycle and pedestrian-only
overpass for Prado Road.
Grace Morgan, SLO, supported a bicycle/pedestrian-only overpass and making the city
safe for bicycles and pedestrians. She stated that people will adjust to what is built.
Shahram Shariati, SLO, former student, noted the need for more housing, especially
affordable housing. He maintained that increases in traffic volume come from people
being forced to live outside the city due to high prices. He stated that people are turning
against transportation by car.
Marshall Ochylski, representative of the developer who has the Dalidio property in
escrow, supported mixed use with primary emphasis on residential, especially entry and
workforce housing. He clarified the definition of preserving fifty percent of the land as
meaning open space and/or agricultural. He supported the mitigation of that fifty
PH1 - 180
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 5
percent with offsite property exchanges if there is an opportunity. He supported
continued consideration of circulation options.
Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated he does not know what entry and workforce housing
actually means. He expressed concern about airport flight paths in relation to housing
planned.
Linda Sealy, SLO, noted that there will never be more class 1 soil on earth and thus
there is a need to preserve this land for agriculture over building shopping malls or
housing. She opposed the concept of off-site mitigation to meet the fifty percent
requirement.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported the Prado Road interchange
for current needs and future development. She stated the area is ideal for mixed use,
medium and high-density housing, hospitality space, bicycle access, and parks.
.
Erik Justesen, business owner, supported mixed use and a move away from large
commercial. He noted that with a limited amount of space within the city limits, trying to
set aside a sizeable amount of open space would be problematic. He stated that cross
circulation, such as the extension of Calle Joaquin, etc., is needed to get to shopping.
Eric Meyer, SLO, left his bicycle at the front of the Council Chamber as an exhibit.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 4 OF THE PRESENTATION
(MADONNA/LOVR AREA):
Commr. Larson stated that the Prado interchange would serve an important east/west
traffic flow function and facilitate moving traffic on and off 101. He noted that if this
interchange is eliminated, there must be a demonstration of where that traffic will go and
what impacts it will have.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about how CalTrans would view a Prado Road
overpass vs. an interchange and whether the city would be required to design a full
interchange even if the City opted to pursue the overpass instead of the interchange.
Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum indicated that design of the facility is also
impacted by underlying issues of access and space. He noted that grading for an
overpass might result in flood waters on Hwy 101.
Commr. Multari thanked Eugene Jud for his report. He noted that medium/high-density
residential on the Dalidio property may not fit with the current Airport Land Use Plan.
He stated the City should not be constrained by existing land use categories, but
consider designations such as mixed-use plan 1 or 2, etc., with a focus on policy. He
supported consideration of offsite mitigation of open space as part of the policy
discussions.
PH1 - 181
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 6
Commr. Draze agreed that the Commission should not get too detailed at the general
plan level and that new designations may be helpful. He stated that he is hesitant to
remove circulation options for the future whether car, bicycle, or pedestrian.
Commr. Stevenson agreed that discussion of details needs to be at the policy level.
Community Development Director Derek Johnson stated that the alternatives will be
modeled and can be in the general plan for many years without immediate action.
Commr. Draze noted that if an alternative is not in the plan, then it is precluded from
being implemented.
Commr. Larson stated that modeling and understanding what deletion of the Prado
interchange would mean is important and that east/west circulation is a regional issue.
Commr. Draze supported the Task Force and Commission on residential development.
He noted that in one or two generations, transportation preferences will change.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that the L5 area (Dalidio) be designated
as a mixed-use planning area with policies to evaluate the appropriate mix of uses,
including agricultural open space at fifty percent and a residential component that is
consistent with applicable airport policies. The Commission further recommended that
circulation connections between Los Osos Valley Road and Dalidio be evaluated.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Commission
recommended to the City Council that both 15-2 and 15-3 (Prado overpass and
interchange) alternatives be evaluated.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 5 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR 2):
Shahram Shariati, SLO, suggested that areas already developed but empty, such as the
old New Frontiers site, be developed instead of open areas.
PH1 - 182
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 7
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 5 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Draze stated that some portion of the Madonna property would be designated
mixed use, to be decided at the policy level, but not the entire property. He noted that
the hillsides are not being considered for active uses. He noted the need for a bicycle
connection to Target and onto Froom Ranch. He questioned the inclusion of office
space on K-3/the Sunset Drive-in to Prado area.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that Site 14 (Oceanaire connection to
Froom Ranch) be enhanced for bike and pedestrian connections but that no vehicular
connections be made; that K-3 (Sunset Drive-in to Prado Site) be designated for a mix
of uses with policy direction to guide appropriate mix; that M-3 and M-4 (Froom Ranch
and LOVR) be considered through policy discussion to support a non-residential buffer
along roads but to consider Medium-High Density residential development and park at
this location; that Task Force directional items for O-3 (Madonna) be included in the
policy discussion but not require a Planned Development overlay; and that N-4 (Calle
Joaquin) be addressed through policies that will call out the appropriate mix of uses.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 6 OF THE PRESENTATION (SOUTH HIGUERA/
AIRPORT AREA):
Stephen Peck, SLO, project manager for the Avila Ranch property, discussed their
efforts to review the Buckley Road connection to Higuera. He indicated they are
working with the County, the City, and Caltrans to determine connections for pedestrian
and bike connections to the Octagon Barn and alignment of Buckley Road.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber is in
agreement with LUCE Task Force recommendations.
Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated that the Tank Farm/Broad area needs residential
development and that Avila Ranch is a circulation nightmare that needs evaluating.
Erik Justesen, business owner, indicated that Avila Ranch is isolated and connections
to the retail sites to the north is important. He supports the Buckley connection to
Higuera and stated that longer term, the City should look at options to expand outside of
the current city limits – perhaps south of Buckley Road.
PH1 - 183
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 8
Eugene Jud, SLO, supported the Buckley Road connection to LOVR. He stated that the
Marigold Center/Broad/Tank Farm area could be much denser. He suggested a
roundabout at Tank Farm and Broad and developing pedestrian connections above
streets.
Eric Meyer, SLO, indicated that the Avila Ranch concepts require Chevron’s
participation to connect the bike network to that area. He emphasized the need to
improve pedestrian and bike circulation in the Tank Farm/Broad area.
There were no further comments made from the public.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr Stevenson, the Planning
Commission recommends the TF-LUCE recommendations for 17-2 (Vachel), 18-2
(north-south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley), 19-4 (Bypass and Buckley
connection to Higuera), P-5 (Residential/open-space mix near Los Verdes condos), Q-2
(policy to review MASP density), R-3 (mixed use at Broad/Tank Farm), and S-3 (Avila
Ranch concept) as a planning area with policy direction that will guide future
development.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 7 (JOHNSON/BROAD AREA) OF THE
PRESENTATION:
Steve Delmartini, SLO, supported upzoning the area between Lawrence and Mitchell on
the west side, previously changed from R-2 to R-1, R-2 again. He stated this area could
accommodate secondary dwellings behind existing dwellings.
Erik Justesen, business owner, supported the inclusion of the Broad Street plan. He
noted a need to connect the east and west sides of the city. He stated that more
railroad overcrossings were needed all the way to Orcutt Road but do not need to be
vehicular. He supported slowing Broad Street traffic.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported including the Broad Street
Area plan as part of the update. She stated that the Chamber is supportive of senior
housing and facilities in the area behind General Hospital.
Eugene Jud, SLO, commended the Broad Street plan and noted the need for more
pedestrian bridges over the railroad tracks. He stated that Bishop Street is very steep,
which makes it difficult to integrate with Santa Barbara Road with the Fire Department
facility there. He stated that the neighborhood would probably not support it.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PH1 - 184
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 9
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 7 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Stevenson supported keeping the railroad overpass at Orcutt due to concerns
of rail activity. He agreed that Bishop Street connection is steep and getting over the
railroad tracks and down would be difficult. He supported consideration of bikes and
pedestrian crossings, but not vehicles.
Commr. Draze supported keeping the Bishop Street connection in for consideration
along with the railroad overpass. He stated that the Commission needs to recommend
strongly that the City Council consider inclusion of the Broad Street plan.
Commr. Larson agreed with Commr. Stevenson in supporting the Orcutt road overpass
and predicted that more oil will be transported by train in the future. He agreed that the
Broad Street plan should be looked at again.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Larson, the Planning
Commission recommended the Council include evaluation of the consequences of
eliminating the Bishop Street bridge, withdraw the alternative of eliminating the Orcutt
Road overpass, provide policy direction for I-3 (area behind General Hospital), and
strongly endorsed the inclusion of the Broad Street Area plan with changes to address
removal of the McMillan/Duncan area and provisions for non-conforming uses as part of
the update.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
SLIDE 8 (PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS RECEIVED):
There were no comments made from the public.
There were no comments made from the Commission.
Planning Commission direction agreed with staff recommendation to develop policies to
guide evaluation of individual up-zoning requests.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Murry provided a forecast of items
scheduled for the August 28th and September 11th meetings.
PH1 - 185
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2013
Page 10
4. Commission
a. Commr. Draze will miss the August 28, 2013, meeting.
b. The City Council will be appointing new Commissioners on September 3, 2013.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, 2013.
Ted Green
Interim Supervising Administrative Assistant
PH1 - 186
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
01 October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“LUCE”) UPDATE –
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm proudly represents the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (“School District”). As you
know, on their behalf, we have provided input to the Planning Commission as they reviewed the Task
Force recommendations for the School District’s properties – Site C. “Old” Pacheco Elementary and
Site M. Pacific Beach High School. We are in receipt of the Mayor’s recent correspondence and
appreciate her acknowledgement that the School District is a key partner in the community and accept
her request to provide additional feedback with regards to whether the proposed land use alternatives
further or hinder the District’s goals.
Pursuant to our recent meeting with you and Business Superintendent Pinkerton, and in light of the
upcoming Council hearing to determine the scope of the environmental document for the LUCE
process, please be advised of the following comments. While we clearly appreciate that the LUCE is a
long-range planning effort, we hope that this information will provide you and the Council with the
clear direction as to the disposition of the School District properties.
Site C – “Old” Pacheco Elementary
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended four different land use
scenarios for this property: 1) existing General Plan designation – Public Facilities; 2) Low-density
residential; 3) a combination of low-density and medium-density residential; and 4) Medium-density
residential with a fair portion of the property designated as park.
While the School District will soon embark upon a new student demographic statistical forecast, they
know that enrollment has increased by three percent over the past three years following a ten-year
steady decline in enrollment. Given this trend, it would be prudent to retain Pacheco Elementary at its
current General Plan designation, until such a determination has been made to convert it to another
use. While an even higher density residential land use than currently proposed in the LUCE
alternatives would seem appropriate, at this time it is the School District’s desire to eliminate
consideration of Site C from the LUCE and related environmental process.
PH1 - 187
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
01 October 2013
SLCUSD PROPERTIES – LUCE PROCESS
Page 2 of 2
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
Site M – Pacific Beach High School
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended four different land use
scenarios for this property: 1) existing General Plan designation – Public Facilities; 2) a combination
of low-density residential, commercial retail, office and a park; 3) Mixed-use (housing and
commercial) and a park; and 4) Medium high density residential and a park.
Based upon the age and condition of the existing structures, and the substantial increase in
incompatible commercial development along the Los Osos Valley Road corridor, the School District is
interested in placing this property in its Master Plan for Surplus Property and Revenue Enhancement
Program. Guidance to accomplish this is provided by the Education Code1 that codifies the procedures
for the disposition of real property.
Our analysis of the “best and highest use” for the property revealed that the Commercial Retail (CR)
land use category, that also allows for a maximum residential density of 36 units/acre (note that this
property is in the Airport Land Use Plan/Airport Safety Area S-2 that limits residential density to 12
units/acre), may be an appropriate land use designation given the context of the mix of uses in the
neighborhood. The School District would agree to changing the zoning to CR as part of the LUCE
process, as long as there is an acknowledgement that there is absolutely no interest on the School
District’s part to include a public park2 on the subject property.
We hope that this clarifies the School District’s position on the above-mentioned properties and will
allow you to complete your recommendation to the City Council. We will continue to monitor the
LUCE planning process. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to
contact us should you need any additional information.
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
c: Dr. Eric Prater, Superintendent SLCUSD
R. Pinkerton/Superintendent Business SLCUSD
T. Green, Esq.
12-0006/13-0031
1 See Education Code §17387‐17391 and §17455 – 17484.
2Through the negotiated agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo, all of the School District’s currently used
and unused school sites, as well as Sinsheimer Park, are operated as publicly accessible parks and recreational
facilities.
PH1 - 188
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
02 October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“LUCE”) UPDATE –
UNIVERSITY SQUARE, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD @ SANTA ROSA STREET
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm proudly represents Mr. Nicholas Tompkins/NKT Real Properties, LLC (“NKT”). NKT owns
the property known as University Square. While we have not provided public input to the Planning
Commission as they reviewed the Task Force recommendations for the subject properties – LUCE
Update Site B. Foothill Boulevard @ Santa Rosa Street or the Complete Streets 1. Pedestrian Access
Near Foothill Boulevard and 2. Vehicular Access Near Foothill Boulevard, we have conducted an
extensive search for a residential mixed-use development partner1 and with that search, completed a
fairly exhaustive and comprehensive economic feasibility analysis to design, permit and construct a
mixed-use (residential/commercial) project. The results were certainly enlightening, but at the same
time, extremely disappointing. Many factors contributed to the conclusion of infeasibility: land cost,
entitlement and permit fees; construction costs; and lastly, the ability to generate revenues to
compensate for the initial capital outlay.
At this juncture, NKT is poised to pursue a project reflective of the current zoning (Commercial
Retail/“CR”) and the zone’s allowable uses, that are very similar to the LUCE Update alternative B-2.
Redevelopment of the Commercial Center. We are currently in the planning phase of that effort and
anticipate lodging an application in a matter of months. Based upon our client’s intentions, it would
seem unnecessary to include the subject property and the various LUCE Update iterations in the
Council’s deliberation about the scope of work for the environmental document. With regards to the
traffic and circulation alternatives, we would of course continue to have an interest in how the City
intends to move forward with the noted improvements.
As planners, we appreciate that the LUCE Update is a long-range planning effort, one that the City
must revisit now and again to refresh the community vision and hopefully, be responsive to the
financial realities of the marketplace. We hope that this information will provide you and the Council
with the clear direction as to the University Square properties. Thank you in advance for your
consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any additional information.
1 We interviewed/reviewed a total of six (6) proposals, two from the nation’s top multi‐family residential
development companies.
PH1 - 189
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
2 October 2013
UNIVERSITY SQUARE – LUCE UPDATE PROCESS
Page 2 of 2
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
NKT REAL PROPERTIES, LLC
c: N. Tompkins/NKT
12-0059
PH1 - 190
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc .com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
02 October 2013
Mr. Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Ms. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“LUCE”) UPDATE –
APNs 053-141-013 & 053-161-014, LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD, SLO, CA
Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Murry,
Our firm represents Mr. Wayne Longcrier, the Trustee of the Karl Jr. Trust, the Karen Trust and the
Kathryn Trust, collectively known as the KFK Family Trusts (Trust). The Trust owns property on the
north and south sides of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), adjacent to and west of Los Verdes Park.
These properties are collectively known as Site P. LOVR Creekside Area in the City’s LUCE process.
The intent of this letter is to provide you with the Trust’s opinion with regards to the alternative land
use scenarios recommended by the Task Force and Planning Commission.
The LUCE Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended five different land use
alternatives for these properties: 1) existing General Plan designation – Interim Open Space and Open
Space; 2) Medium high residential, agriculture and open space; 3) Low density residential, agriculture
and open space; 4) Agriculture and open space; and 5) Medium high density, low density residential
and open space. In addition, the property located south of LOVR, is noted on Circulation 19. LOVR
Buckley Road Connection – 19.2 LOVR Bypass Alignment.
While the properties are constrained by a number of factors, we believe that the “best and highest use”
for both parcels would be medium high density residential (“RMHD”). This greater density would
help to mitigate for the City’s desire to take a portion of the southerly parcel to accommodate the
LOVR bypass to Buckley Road and the additional open space, which effectively reduces the
developable area.
We hope that this clarifies the Trust’s position on the above-mentioned properties and, in turn, will
allow you to complete your recommendation to the City Council. We will continue to monitor the
LUCE planning process. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please contact us should you
have any questions or require any additional information.
Respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
KFK FAMILY TRUST
c: W. Longcrier, Trustee
K. Kundert/KFK Family Trusts
13-0017
PH1 - 191
Planning Commission
Recommendations
Preliminary
Land Use &
Circulation
Alternatives
October 15, 2013 PH1 - 192
Foothill
Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 1 – 2
Land Use
Alternatives: A – D
Page 2
Ped/bike connection
across Santa Rosa.
Consider all access options
for Boysen/Santa Rosa (i.e.
full access, no access,
right-turn only, etc.)
Site A: PC recommends no change
Site D: PC recommends no change
Boysen Access – evaluate options
Be flexible about site
layout (i.e. park
shouldn’t look like an
“L”)
PH1 - 193
Monterey /
Downtown
Mid-Higuera
Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 3 – 9
Land Use
Alternatives: E – H
Page 3 PH1 - 194
Monterey /
Downtown
Mid-Higuera
Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 3 – 9
Land Use
Alternatives: E – H
Page 4
Site E: PC recommends no LU change Site PC recommends no LU change Site G: PC recommends no LU change
PH1 - 195
Johnson /
Broad Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 10 – 13
Land Use
Alternatives: I – J
Woodbridge
Mitchell
Caudill
J. Modified Broad St. Plan
Page 5
Site 13: PC did not support evaluating option to remove
overpass from General Plan for Orcutt Rd.
Evaluate bridge for vehicles, bikes and
pedestrians
Evaluate bridge for bikes and pedestrians only
Eliminate Bishop Street connection from GP
Council Resolution on
September 17th included South
Broad Street Plan in physical
alternatives to be evaluated
through EIR
PH1 - 196
Madonna /
LOVR Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 14-16
Land Use
Alternatives: K-O
Page 6
Evaluate whether one or more
connections are needed to provide an
additional North/South connection
between LOVR & Prado / Dalidio and
whether an interior east / west
connector is needed.
PC supported policy direction to identify appropriate range of uses. Area to be designated as special planning area.
No LU designations assigned.
PH1 - 197
Madonna /
LOVR Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 14 – 16
Land Use
Alternatives: K-O
Page 7
Site 14: PC recommends no vehicle connections from
Froom to Oceanaire neighborhood
Special Planning overlay proposed to
identify mix of neighborhood
commercial and residential uses.
Address sensitive resources, utilities,
and open space.
PH1 - 198
South
Higuera /
Airport Area
Circulation
Alternatives: 17-19
Land Use
Alternatives: P-S
Only supported if changes
to Site 19 do not happen.
PC supports policy/program to review for potential to
accommodate additional density on eastern part of MASP.
PH1 - 199
Attachment 16
RESOLUTION NO. (2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENDORSING THE PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES SET FOR THE LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR
PROCESS (GPI 15-12)
WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of
$880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City’s Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and
WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011-2013 Financial
Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and
WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City
of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and
Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, four
community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 18 Task Force meetings, five Planning
Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey
returned by over 2,000 respondents; and
WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and
Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones,
provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant’s circle
of influence; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended physical
alternatives based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, endorsing a set of physical alternatives to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City’s
Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and
WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the physical
set of alternatives as part of the project description for the environmental review process of the
Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning
Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will review policy alternatives recommended by the TF-
LUCE and Planning Commission prior to beginning the Environmental Impact Report.
PH1 - 200
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series) Attachment 16
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the set of physical alternatives presented at the hearing on October 15, 2013 and
shown attached to this resolution shall be considered through the environmental review process
as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update.
SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVES. The physical alternatives to be considered as part of
the EIR process include the land use and circulation options shown as Exhibit A to this
resolution.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2013.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1 - 201
Attachment 16
EXHIBIT A
LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
A
Nativity
Church Site
Remove from consideration
Deed restriction
prohibits anything
but church-related
uses.
B
Santa Rosa
and Foothill
Area
Consider mixed use for the area on both sides
of Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa.
Consider both horizontal and vertical mixed
use. Emphasis on retail and housing near
campus. Policies to support parking and
height changes to facilitate mixed use.
C
Old Pacheco
School Site
Cluster medium high density housing adjacent
to streets with park buffer near existing
residential uses. Be flexible about site
development / layout (i.e. park shouldn’t look
like an “L”).
D
Diocese
property
along Bressi
Remove from consideration
Steeper hillsides
and wildlife corridor
in COSE. Keep
RSF and OS
designations.
E
Upper
Monterey
Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
Consider policies to support more pedestrian -
friendly development. Consider policies for
area that include conference center, parking
options, lot assembly, addressing appearance
of properties in public ownership, and
addressing the transit center location.
Added potential to explore Form-based codes
for the area.
F
Downtown
Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
Consider policies and desirability of plazas
and public views.
PH1 - 202
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 4
LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
G
Mid-Higuera
Area
No changes proposed.
H
Cal Trans Site
Mixed use to include tourist commercial, office
and some residential as shown in H-2 and H-
4. Site may be appropriate to review height
limit changes to accommodate desired
development.
Consider more public open space uses to
serve as gateway and supporting uses
compatible with conference center.
I
General
Hospital Site
Support additional residential development on
the site behind existing structure but delete
the residential development proposed
between the URL and the City limit line
currently designated OS.
Policies should support flexibility so that a
range of residential uses can be considered
(i.e. residential care, adjunct to transitional
care use, other residential uses consistent
with area).
J
Broad Street
Area Plan
Incorporate physical alternative described in
South Broad Street Area Plan endorsed by
September 17, 2013 by City Council.
K
Sunset Drive
in Area
Support mixed use. Develop policies to
address appropriate mix of uses.
L
Dalidio
Support a mix of uses through LUE policies
with significant open space/agricultural (at
least 50%) component. Alt. L5 without specific
direction of particular sizes or shapes.
Residential component to be consistent with
applicable airport policies.
M
PH1 - 203
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 5
LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
Pacific Beach
School Site
Policy development to support a non-
residential buffer along LOVR and Froom
Ranch. Consider medium high density
residential development and park.
N
Calle Joaquin
Auto Sales
Support mixed use in the context with the
Dalidio property and the City’s agricultural
parcel and focus on connectivity to the
neighborhoods to the north. Develop policies
to address appropriate mix of uses.
O
Madonna
Property
Support policies to address future
development. These should include
viewshed, hillside and open space protection,
potential height limits, wetland protection,
access to other connections, historic farm
buildings, mixed use to accommodate
workforce housing, and neighborhood
commercial type uses. Develop policies to
address appropriate mix of uses.
P
LOVR near
overpass
Area
Support a modified Alternative P-5 reflecting
infill housing with open space.
Q
MASP
Policy will support consideration of changes to
MASP.
R
Tank Farm @
Broad
Support a mix of commercial uses with limited
residential on upper floors. Commercial uses
should serve the surrounding businesses and
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity must be
addressed.
S
Avila Ranch
Area
Support a mix of residential densities,
connection to shops to the north, connection
to S. Higuera and a mix of uses similar to
what is shown in owners’ concept.
Respect creek/wildlife corridor. Develop
policies to direct future development.
PH1 - 204
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 6
CIRCULATION
ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES
1
Boysen &
Santa Rosa
Support separated crossing for bikes/peds of
Santa Rosa at Boysen. Consider all vehicular
alternatives for Boysen intersection at SR 1
including full closure, access restrictions, and
retaining its current configuration.
2
Realign
Chorro,
Boysen, and
Broad
Support alternative 2-3 realignment of Chorro
and Broad and Boysen.
3
Potential
Ramp
closures at
HWY 101 and
SR 1
Support alternative 3-2 ramp closures and
consolidated SR1/HWY 101 interchange for
further evaluation including impacts to
residential streets and the need for a
signage/way-finding program.
4
Broad & HWY
101 Ramp
closure
Support alternative 4-2 ramp closures at
Broad with the addition of bike and pedestrian
overpass.
Bike and pedestrian
overpass at this
location is currently
in the BTP.
5
Convert
Marsh &
Higuera to 2
Way
(Santa Rosa
to California)
Support two way vehicular circulation of
Marsh and Higuera between Santa Rosa and
California.
6
Transit Center
location on
Santa Rosa
and Higuera
Support site/block of Higuera/Santa
Rosa/Monterey for the transit center location
and consider use of both public and private
property. Include ideas from student projects
and the Downtown Concept Plan.
7
Mission Plaza
“dog leg”
Support alternatives 7-2 and 7-3 (varying
degrees of streets affected) using a woonerf
concept instead of full closure of the streets.
Develop policy direction regarding desired
outcomes and nature and phasing of
treatment for the area.
PH1 - 205
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 7
8
Realign
Bianchi and
Pismo
Support alternative 8-3 realignment of street
intersection (Pismo to Bianchi).
9
Realign
Madonna to
Bridge St
instead of
Higuera
Consider appropriate connection from
Madonna to S. Higuera in concert with
redevelopment of Caltrans site. Potential to
realign Madonna to connect with Bridge Street
may better address some pedestrian and bike
connections.
10
Bishop St.
Extension
Support evaluation of three options: a bridge
over the Railroad tracks for all modes of
traffic; one for bicycles and peds only; and
complete elimination of bridge facility.
Current Circulation
Element has Bishop
Street extending
over railroad tracks
via bridge.
11
Victoria
connection to
Emily
Support Victoria connection to Emily.
12
Broad Street-
consolidate
access
Support Broad Street consolidation of access
points.
13
Orcutt Road
Overpass
Keep facility as part of Circulation Element.
Do not consider removing facility due to
concerns about increasing rail traffic.
Overpass is
currently part of
Circulation Element
14
Froom
connect to
Oceanaire
neighborhood
Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
only.
Neighborhood input
opposed to
vehicular
connections and is
concerned about
cut-through traffic
15
Prado Road
interchange
vs overpass
Evaluate both interchange and overpass
Interchange is part
of existing
Circulation Element.
PH1 - 206
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 8
16
Connections
to Dalidio
from Froom
and/or Calle
Joaquin
Evaluate whether one or more connections
are needed to provide an additional
connection between LOVR and Prado/Dalidio;
and whether an internal east-west or loop
road is needed to connect these roads on the
Dalidio property.
17
Realign
Vachel Lane
Support alternative 17-2 Vachel to Higuera
connection as a “back up” alternative in the
event Buckley Road does not connect to S.
Higuera.
18
N-S
connection
between Tank
Farm and
Buckley
Support alternative 18-2 creating a north-
south connection between Tank Farm and
Buckley for future connectivity.
19
Buckley to
LOVR
connections
Support alternatives 19-2 (Buckley to Higuera)
and 19-3 (Higuera to LOVR behind Los
Verdes – 101 bypass)
PH1 - 207
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH1 - 208
ft.nC[f vËL)
OcT I 5 2013
S IT
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Murry, Kim
Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:09 PM
Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather
Johnson, Derek; Mandeville, Peggy; Hudson, Jake
FW: TF-PC LUCE recommendations to City Council
AGENDA
CORRESPO NDENCESubject:
Importance:High
Please distribute as Council correspondence
Kim Murry
Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Ph: 805-781-7274 FAX: 805-781-7173
Web: www.slocity.orq
Email: kmurrv@slocity.org
From: James Lopes [mailto:jameslopes@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:07 PM
To: Murry, Kim
Cc: Mandeville, Peggy; Lichtig, Katie
Subject: TF-PC LUCE recommendations to City Council
Kim,
I caught the cold that's going around, so I'm sending you my comments for tonight's City Council meeting at the
last minute.
I'll try to go and speak but may not have the voice.
If you would like to just forward this message, here is my short version:
Policy Groundwork:
1. The City Council's direction to rely on our reputation and not consider major policy changes may not be
wise. The city has grown into a commuter hub, with umpteen trips generated on Highway 101 daily. It
is not sustainable to continue to happily grow economically without building the housing that employees
here could afford, or congest the principal highway serving the region.
2. The second major problem is that transportation policies, as shown in street designs, have not kept up
with land use innovations. Major changes in emphasis are needed to become a "walkable" community,
throughout the LUCE. Traffic speeds and congestion are readily increasing while almost no housing is
being built to serve the burgeoning employment growth. Pedestrians and bicyclists are in danger
practically everywhere, especially near or at major intersections.
3. V/hat are the capacities of the water supply, sewage treatment system and San Luis Obispo Creek, waste
disposal, and the highways and roads outside the city? These capacities have not been mentioned as
constraints, which is odd since this is a project to develop a sustainable plan.
1
4. The City needs an overall "shopping center" policy framework, to direct new and re-modeled center
development to be mixed use, pedestrian based, street oriented and land-efhcient.
Physical Alternatives:
1. What is going to be planned for the properties within the Sphere of Influence? These are large
properties in the Edna and Los Osos Valleys that have not been mentioned. How will they affect the
sustainability of the community and environment?
2. Change the land use plan concept for the Dalidio property, in the list of sites in Attachment 3,
Table l: Plan for a corridor of major anchor stores and smal¡er pedestrian-friendly stores, along
a future Dalidio Boulevard. The boulevard would be faced with buildings and wide sidewalks;
parking would be structured behind the buildings. A development limit line would be extended
from the rear of the Post Office property, behind which prime-land local agriculture should
continue. A similar plan for the opposite side of Dalidio Drive would balance the street.
Transportation Alternatives
l. Add Tank Farm Road between the west and east city limits on Orcutt Road, as a major hazard
to local residential and employment traffic. lt should be planned as a Residential (not
Parkway) Arterial, to be consistent with the pedestrian-oriented land uses and subdivisions that
were planned in the lslay Hill Specific Plan. lt was a transit oriented plan for higher densities
near a neighborhood center, with well-landscaped pedestrian and bike paths, At that time,
however, transportation planning was not in sync with land use planning, and you see the
incongruity today in the emphasis on fast vehicle traffic. Tank Farm Road is built and
managed to encourage rapid vehicle traffic through the entire residential corridor. There is no
reason for this approach, and plenty of reasons to reduce speeds on the street to 35 mph (
1. a. The retail center should be treated as a pedestrian zone, with stop signs or lights, street
markings, low speed limits, speed humps, etc. so that drivers entering the zone slow down
before Poinsettia (coming from the East) and before the large west side properties coming
from the West. Vehicle traffic lanes should be reduced from four to two east of Broad at least
past Poinsettia. This pedestrian zone should be the kind of "road diet" that all arterials within
neighborhood centers should engage in, The concept is to treat the area's residents and the
users of this retail center with respect,
l. b. Stop signs should be located at Poinsettia, and street lights should be installed to highlight
the crosswalk. Similarly, the other intersections further east should also have stop
signs. Otherwise, crossing tables should be located before these intersections, so that drivers
will lower speeds in order to perceive crossing traffic and pedestrians.
1. c. The entry to San Luis Obispo on Orcutt Road, east of Spanish Oaks Drive, should be
posted with a lower speed limit than the current 55 mph. The first lower speed sígn of 45 mph
is actually west of the Orcutt Road intersection. By the time drivers see this sign, if at all, and
start to slow down a bit, if at all, is when they ascend the hill to Brook Pine Street. The entry
should announce the first in a series of 35 mph signs east of ,and before Spanish Oaks
Drive, lt is physically impossible to cross traffic coming at 50 - 60 mph along this corridor,
without "gunning" it. Only one or two seconds are available to make a decision whether to go
for it, given the sight distance problems. This is particularly true on Brook Pine Street and
Wavertree Streets, crossing left onto Tank Farm Road.
2
b. The bus stop at Tank Farm and Poinsettia Street should be upgraded to a structured
shelter/kiosk/coffee corner. lt is the central transit hub for the neighborhood, but it has been
ignored as such by one transit official after another. lf it upgraded to a middle-class status, it
will attract middle class riders to transit.
3
Goodwin, Heather
From: Murry, Kim
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:19 PM
To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather
Cc: Johnson, Derek
Subject: FW: City of SLO General Plan and Circulation Plan
=RECEIVED
This should be treated as agenda correspondence for the October 15`h Council Hearing on the LUCE agenda
item please. Thank you!
Kim Murry AGENDA
Deputy Director, Long Range Planning CORRESPONDENCE
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
919 Palm Street Date �� Item*
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Ph: 805 - 781 -7274 FAX: 805 - 781 -7173
Web: www.slocity.org
Email: kmurry�a slocity.org
From: Pearltrans @aol.com [mailto:Pearltrans @ aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:05 PM
To: Murry, Kim
Subject: City of SLO General Plan and Circulation Plan
I would like to comment on your proposed changes to the City General Plan and Circulation Plan. First, you have
followed some excellent procedures to obtain input, and have written an excellent plan.
I submit the following comments to the staff and City Council. I will probably not be able to attend the hearing.
The Transportation Goals are good, as they accommodate those persons who do not have cars and must ride the
bus. The disabled may not be able to walk or ride bicycles, and depend on the bus.
Full disclosure: I am president of an organization of volunteers helping the disabled with shelter.
Regarding the Society and Economy Goals: They are excellent. Would suggest, however:
Background: In view of the fact that the County has been sanctioned with reduced appropriations for not doing enough to
end homelessness, the HSOC has made a recommendation that an emphasis be made on serving the VERY LOW
income population. The low and moderate income population has shockingly high income for a subsidy, and they always
seems to get priority. The very low income group is the group containing the homeless, and they are homeless because
they have very low incomes and the rents in this county are some of the highest in the state, even in the country. Of
particular note are the disabled receiving SSI, who have an income of about $850 /mo. If one looked very hard, he might,
in time, find rent for that amount, but the tenant would have no money left for food or transportation to the doctor. SSI
recipients are ineligible for Food Stamps, because there is an amount in the SSI budget which is supposed to be for food,
but is eaten up by rent every time. Very Low income should have first priority. The disabled in this group cannot increase
their income by working. They are too ill or too badly injured, or suffering from a disorder. Seniors, including those of very
advanced age, also receive SSI, and often are unable to work. For better housing for this group, HSOC recommends
SRO (Single Room Occupancy) housing for one or two persons per unit. Atascadero recently adopted an ordinance
allowing for SRO, with up to 2 persons per unit. This is small, but a lot better than homelessness, and can be more
affordable because it is cheaper to build.
Disabled on SSI have been left out and forgotten. I am talking about the non - seniors in the group. It is very common
for people in this county and elsewhere to develop degenerative diseases before becoming seniors. They
have emphysema, cardiovascular disease, nephritis, etc. Many have cancer in advanced stages. Many have spinal
disorders, or are disabled as the result of injuries. We are not just talking about people in wheelchairs. Where can they
live, to avoid being homeless? Many are free of social dysfunction, but some need casework. Many subsidized
apartment buildings are for seniors only. Some senior buildings also accept disabled. Most subsidized housing is either
for seniors or for families. Some of the disabled have minor children, but many are in middle age, with no minor children
in the home. Such persons can apply to family housing only if they can find a vacancy for a one - bedroom unit. Many
family apartment buildings have no one - bedroom units, but start with 2 bedroom and go to 3 and 4- bedroom. No one is
planning for housing for the disabled, but they are numerous in the city and the county. They are the group with the
greatest need, as their physical condition results in a great need for shelter. They need shelter in the daytime as well as
at night, so an overnight shelter does not meet their needs. Without daytime shelter, they could collapse on the street and
be taken to a hospital in an ambulance. With the proper rest, they will be as well as their physical condition
allows. Without rest, they will get a lot worse unnecessarily, just because of lack of shelter. Ask any hospital social
worker.
Thank you very much.
Pearl Munak, President
Transitional Food and Shelter, Inc.
Goodwi Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
st ft LFR KMejia, Anthony
Tuesday, October L5, 2013 5:34 PM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: PHL- LUCE Alternatives
Att L6v2_Resolution.pdf
AGENDA
CORRESPONDE
i0
NCEwt
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
cu.v irI s¿n lurs $nlspc]
<-¡qc Palrn Sllcctl
$;:¡r Luis Obispo, CÂ q.14or
lei | 8c5.7Br.7ro3
From: Murry, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:50 AM
Cc: Johnson, Derek; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: PH1- LUCE Alternatives
Mayor and Council:
Attached please find a revised Resolution for tonight's public hearing regarding physical alternatives for the
Land Use and Circulation Elements update. There have been no material changes to the Resolution, however,
page numbers have been added to the exhibit to assist the Council in locating each alternative. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
BCC: City Council members
Kim Murry
Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Ph: 805-781-7274 FAX: 805-781-7173
Web: www.slocity.orq
Email: kmurry@slocity.org
Ocr I 5 2013
RFC EiVËD
1
Attachment 16
RESOLUTION NO. (2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENDORSING THE PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES SET FOR THE LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR
PROCESS (GPr 1s-12)
WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of
$880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City's Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and
\ryHEREAS, in June 201 l, the City Council approved goals for the 2011-2013 Financial
Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and
WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City
of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and
Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, four
community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 18 Task Force meetings, five Planning
Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey
retumed by over 2,000 respondents; and
\ryHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and
Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones,
provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant's circle
ofinfluence; and
\ryHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended physical
alternatives based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, endorsing a set of physical alternatives to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City's
Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and
\ryHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the physical
set of alternatives as part of the project description for the environmental review process of the
Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning
Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will review policy alternatives recommended by the TF-
LUCE and Planning Commission prior to beginning the Environmental Impact Report.
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 2
Attachment 16
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the set of physical alternatives presented at the hearing on October 15,2013 and
shown attached to this resolution shall be considered through the environmental review process
as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update.
SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVES. The physical alternatives to be considered as part of
the EIR process include the land use and circulation options shown as Exhibit A to this
resolution.
Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2013
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
/s/ J.Christine Dietrick
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Attachment 16
EXHIBIT A
PAGE #LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
PH1-193
A
Nativity
Church Site Remove from consideration
Deed restriction
prohibits anything
but church-related
USES.
PH1-193
B
Santa Rosa
and Foothill
Area
Consider mixed use for the area on
both sides of Foothill between Chorro
and Santa Rosa. Consider both
horizontal and vertical mixed use.
Emphasis on retail and housing near
campus. Policies to support parking
and height changes to facilitate mixed
use.
PHI -193
c
Old Pacheco
School Site
Cluster medium high density housing
adjacent to streets with park buffer
near existing residential uses. Be
flexible about site development /
layout (i.e. park shouldn't look like an
"L').
PHt -193
D
Diocese
property
along Bressi
Remove from consideration
Steeper hillsides
and wildlife
corridor in COSE
Keep RSF and
OS designations.
PH1-195
E
Upper
Monterey
Area
No physical land use changes
proposed. Consider policies to
support more pedestrian -friendly
development. Consider policies for
area that include conference center,
parking options, lot assembly,
addressing appearance of properties
in public ownership, and addressing
the transit center location.
Added potentialto explore Form-
based codes for the area.
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 4
Attachment 16
PAGE #LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
PHl -195
F
Downtown
Area
No physical land use changes
proposed. Consider policies and
desirability of plazas and public views
PHl -195
G
Mid-Higuera
Area
No changes proposed
PH1-195
H
Cal Trans
Site
Mixed use to include tourist
commercial, office and some
residential as shown in H-2 and H-4.
Site may be appropriate to review
height limit changes to accommodate
desired development.
Consider more public open space
uses to serve as gateway and
supporting uses compatible with
conference center.
PH1-196
General
Hospital Site
Support additional residential
development on the site behind
existing structure but delete the
residential development proposed
between the URL and the City limit
line currently designated OS.
Policies should support flexibility so
that a range of residential uses can be
considered (i.e. residential care,
adjunct to transitional care use, other
residential uses consistent with area).
PH1-196
J
Broad Street
Area Plan
lncorporate physical alternative
described in South Broad Street Area
Plan endorsed by September 17,
2013 by City Council.
Council
Resolution 10460
PHl -198
K
Sunset Drive
in Area
Support mixed use, Develop policies
to address appropriate mix of uses.
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 5
Attachment 16
PAGE #LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
PHl -197
L
Dalidio
Support a mix of uses through LUE
pol¡cies with significant open
space/agricultural (at least 50o/o)
component. Alt. L5 without specific
direction of particular sizes or shapes
Residential component to be
cons¡stent with applicable airport
policies.
PHr -198
M
Pacific
Beach
School Site
Policy development to support a non-
residential buffer along LOVR and
Froom Ranch. Consider medium high
density residential development and
park.
PH1-198
N
Galle
Joaquin
Auto Sales
Support mixed use in the context with
the Dalidio property and the City's
agricultural parcel and focus on
connectivity to the neighborhoods to
the north. Develop policies to address
appropriate mix of uses.
PH1-198
o
Madonna
Property
Support policies to address future
development. These should include
viewshed, hillside and open space
protection, potential height limits,
wetland protection, access to other
connections, historic farm buildings,
mixed use to accommodate workforce
housing, and neighborhood
commercial type uses. Develop
policies to address appropriate mix of
USES.
PH1-199
P
LOVR near
overpass
Area
Support a modified Alternative P-5
reflecting infill housing with open
space.
PH1-199
a
MASP
Policy will support consideration of
chanqes to MASP.
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 6
Attachment 16
PAGE #LAND USE
ITEM
CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES
PH1-199
R
Tank Farm
@ Broad
Support a mix of commercial uses
with limited residential on upper floors.
Commercial uses should serve the
surrounding businesses and bicycle
and pedestrian connectivity must be
addressed.
PHl -199
s
Avila Ranch
Area
Support a mix of residential densities,
connection to shops to the north,
connection to S. Higuera and a mix of
uses similar to what is shown in
owners'concept.
Respect creek/wild life corridor,
Develop policies to direct future
development.
PAGE #CIRCULATION
ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES
PH1-193
1
Boysen &
Santa Rosa
Support separated crossing for
bikes/peds of Santa Rosa at Boysen,
Consider all vehicular alternatives for
Boysen intersection at SR 1 including
full closure, access restrictions, and
retaininq its current confiquration.
PH1-193
2
Realign
Chorro,
Boysen, and
Broad
Support alternative 2-3 realignment of
Chorro and Broad and Boysen.
PH1-194
3
Potential
Ramp
closures at
HWY 101 and
SR1
Support alternative 3-2 ramp closures
and consolidated SR1/HWY 101
interchange for further evaluation
including impacts to residential
streets and the need for a
siqnaqe/wav-find inq proqram.
PH1-194
4
Broad & HVVY
101 Ramp
closure
Support alternative 4-2 ramp closures
at Broad with the addition of bike and
pedestrian overpass.
Bike and
pedestrian
overpass at this
location is
currently in the
BTP.
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
PageT
Attachment 16
PAGE #CIRCULATION
ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES
PH1-194
5
Convert
Marsh &
Higuera to 2
way
(Santa Rosa
to California)
Support two way vehicular circulation
of Marsh and Higuera between Santa
Rosa and California.
PH1-194
6
Transit Center
location on
Santa Rosa
and Higuera
Support site/block of Higuera/Santa
Rosa/Monterey for the transit center
location and consider use of both
public and private property. lnclude
ideas from student projects and the
Downtown Concept Plan.
PH1-194
7
Mission Plaza
"dog leg"
Support alternatives 7-2 and 7-3
(varying degrees of streets affected)
using a woonerf concept instead of
full closure of the streets.
Develop policy direction regarding
desired outcomes and nature and
phasing of treatment for the area.
PH1-194
I
Realign
Bianchi and
Pismo
Support alternative 8-3 realignment of
street intersection (Pismo to Bianchi).
PH1-195
9
Realign
Madonna to
Bridge St
instead of
Higuera
Consider appropriate connection from
Madonna to S. Higuera in concert
with redevelopment of Caltrans site.
Potentialto realign Madonna to
connect with Bridge Street may better
address some pedestrian and bike
connections.
PHl -196
l0
Bishop St.
Extension
Support evaluation of three options:
a bridge over the Railroad tracks for
all modes of traffic; one for bicycles
and peds only; and complete
elimination of bridge facility.
Current
Circulation
Element has
Bishop Street
extending over
railroad tracks via
bridqe.
CouncilResolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 8
Attachment 16
PAGE #CIRCULATION
ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES
PH1-196
11
Victoria
connect¡on to
Emilv
Support Victoria connection to Emily
Council
Resolution 10460
PH1-196
12
Broad Street-
consolidate
access
Support Broad Street consolidation of
access points.
Council
Resolution 10460
PH1-196
13
Orcutt Road
Overpass
Keep facility as part of Circulation
Element. Do not consider removing
facility due to concerns about
increasing rail traffic.
Overpass is
currently part of
Circulation
Element
PHl -198
14
Froom
connect to
Oceanaire
neighborhood
Provide pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity only.
Neighborhood
input opposed to
vehicular
connections and
is concerned
about cut-through
traffic
PH1-197
15
Prado Road
interchange
vs overpass
Evaluate both interchange and
overpass
lnterchange is
part of existing
Circulation
Element.
PH1-197
16
Connections
to Dalidio
from Froom
and/or Calle
Joaquin
Evaluate whether one or more
connections are needed to provide an
additional connection between LOVR
and Prado/Dalidio; and whether an
internaleast-west or loop road is
needed to connect these roads on
the Dalidio property.
PH1-199
17
Realign
Vachel Lane
Support alternative 17-2 Vachel to
Higuera connection as a "back up"
alternative in the event Buckley Road
does not connect to S. Hiquera.
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 9
Attachment 16
PAGE #CIRCULATION
ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
NOTES
PH1-199
t8
N.S
connect¡on
between Tank
Farm and
Buckley
Support alternative 18-2 creating a
north-south connection between Tank
Farm and Buckley for future
connectivity.
PHl -199
19
Buckley to
LOVR
connections
Support alternatives 19-2 (Buckley to
Higuera) and 19-3 (Higuera to LOVR
behind Los Verdes - 101 bypass)
OcT 0 3 2013
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cc:
Marx, Jan
Thursday, October 03, 20L3 L2:29 PM
'donnanash@charter,net'; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan;Ashbaugh,
John
Schroeder, Sheryll;Goodwin, Heather AGENDA
RE: Pacheco School - Keep as a School CORRESPONDENCE
Date Item#lllLràll
Please post as agenda correspondence on our website for the l-0/1"5 council meeting
Tha n ks
Jan
From : donnanash@charter. net Imailto:donnanash@charter. net]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:26 AM
To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: Pacheco School - Keep as a School
Please see attached. Thank you. Donna Nash 805/543-9595
1
Donna Nash
290 Kentucky Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
80s/s43-9s9s
October I,2O]-3
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Jan Marx:
Council Members: Kathy Smith, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Carpenter, John Ashbaugh
Please keep Pacheco School as it is -- a school.
As more companies locate to San Luis Obispo and local businesses expand, some of their
employees will require a home with a nearby school. I look forward to the time when my area
will once again include many families with children who can walk to school. And when this
happens, hopefully, Pacheco will be available, and families will not have to wait for a new
school to open or be required to drive their children across town to school.
I purchased my home 33 years ago and both my husband and I walked to work at Cal Poly. I
have spent many hours and dollars to keep my home and yard in good repair. Should Pacheco
property be sold and turned into a housing complex with multiple changing residents, my
house will lose value as a family purchase because of the additional speeding vehicles, noise
and congestion. Ultimately, the low value will only interest investors to purchase as student
rentals, not home owners.
Pacheco School is not sitting vacant; it is rented and used for its intended function -
Education.
This area was built for families, not temporary residents, who come and go and who seemingly
have little ¡nterest in keeping our environment the best it can be.
Please keep Pacheco School as it is -- a school
Sincerely,
Donna Nash
OcT 15 2013
ËDRECET.V
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
AGENDA
GORRESPONDENCE
Marx, Jan
Tuesday, October 15, 201-3 8:44 AM
Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather
FW: Agenda: Circulation Element Physical Changes
council physical change CE update.doc
Please consider this agenda correspondence for PH-1.
Thanks,
Jan
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(80s) 781-71.2o or (80s) s4L-2716
From : rsch midt@rain.ors Irschmidt@ rain.org]
Sent: Monday, October L4,2013 8:24 PM
To: Marx, Jan; dcarpen@slocitv.ors; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn
Subject: Agenda: Circulation Element Physical Changes
Dear Council Members,
Attached are comments related to the above subject for your upcoming meeting,
Thank you
1
October 14,2013
Re: LUCE "Physical Alternatives"
Dear Council Members,
You have undertaken a "focused" LUCE update, though it is impossible to determine
whether there is in fact any focus, since things being "focused upon" look more like the
results of shotgun blasts fired at random at a city map.
Here are some comments, referring to numbered items in your resolution
1. Circulation ltems 1 and 2 (Bovsen, Chorro, North Chorro. Broad realignments).
On Page 7 of your staff report, the update "process" is described as follows:
'1. This is a focused update. We do not need to fix what is not broken. The update
needs fo address actual problems. Many of the factors making our city the happiest
in North America are incorporated in our present LUE. /f seryes our city well by
protecting our quality of life and fiscal sustainability."
That was YOUR directive to staff
So, perhaps you can explain to a resident whose neighborhood could be devastated by
this circulation change - and nobody in the neighborhood has been noticed by the city
that this is even being considered, an omission that violates the existing General Plan
as well as Council directives to staff on resident notification -
Exactly what is "broken" and what "actual problems" are addressed by these far-
reaching and costly proposals?
I submit to you this is one of the stupidest things the city could do with the $15 million or
so it will cost (by the time you condemn houses and business properties), and there is
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER WHY THE CITY SHOULD EVEN BE
LOOKING AT SUCH A RIDICULOUS SET OF PROPOSALS. They accomplish nothing
constructive, and do a lot of damage, both neighborhood quality of life damage and
economic damage.
Leave Boysen open on both ends, leave the alignments of North Broad and Chorro
and North Chorro just the way they are.
I REQUEST YOU COMPLETELY REMOVE THESE TWO ITEMS FROM FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.
2. Circulation Item 7 IM ion Plaza f)on I eo\This silly planning idea, based in paft on
ancien regime notions of the city beautiful and modernist notions that culture deserts
are a good thing, has been kicking around for too long. Mission Plaza is right-sized, lt
doesn't need to be expanded onto Broad Street. That little street is important for
efficient multi-modal circulation downtown. lt can continue to be closed for special
events on an as needed basis.
Please remove it from further consideration
3. Circulation ltem 10 (Bishop Street Extension). Since the Council puts this on ice
every time it arises as an actual possibility, why keep it alive? You know now Council
will ever approve it. Bishop Street should not be made a cross-town thoroughfare, as it's
a residential street. lt's also far too narrow at its Johnson end, so unless you plan to
condemn a lot of property, it can never happen. As for a pedestrian bridge - I'd have to
ask: Another one? lf Lompoc is the "city of murals," your staff seem to intend SLO to
become "the city of bridges." ls that really a distinction you seek? Especially given the
unattractive dullness of our bridge efforts so far?
(You have more important bridge projects. By my count, you'll need four to complete the
next phase of the railroad bike trail: Highway 101, Monterey St., SL Creek, and Johnson
Avenue. Shouldn't you "focus" where focus is needed, and get to first things first? Finish
the bike path, don't diddle with Bishop Street.)
I REQUEST YOU COMPLETELY REMOVE A BISHOP CONNECT]ON OR
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FROM FURTHER GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATION.
4. Circulation ltem 3 (Hiqhwav 101 and Hiqhwav 1) and related items
Finally, something I can support. We are long overdue for creating one safe interchange
at this highway junction, and in return removinq ALL the other unsafe low-speed on and
off ramps between Marsh and California that dum p and draw freeway traffic into
neighborhoods. You have no clue, unless you've lived on one of these streets as I have,
how totally incompatible freeway-on-ramp traffic is with neighborhood safety and quality
of life. Let's move into the 21't century, get one good interchange to replace all the
outmoded little ones, and add peacefulness and safety to a whole bunch of
neighborhoods.
PLEASE INCORPORATE THIS CHANGE INTO THE GENERAL PLAN
5. I would like to add a few comments about what's missing from your CE update
physical change list,
While staff apparently wants to focus on big in-your-face projects, they neglect the
simpler things that would make our city traffic flow more gracefully. They have made
circulation so complex and slow with their interventions, like traffic signals with too many
cycles, or adding signals that are marginally desirable, that they're contributing to the
destruction of residential neighborhoods, like mine, with diversions of cut-through traffic
frustrated with delays on arterials. You need policies and programs that deal with such
"over-engineering" of traffic signa ls.
For example, there's much fuss over traffic on Santa Rosa. But as for congestion, Santa
Rosa's not the problem - what the city has done to Foothill and its unwillingness to
coordinate with Caltrans on signal timing is the problem. When I moved to my house on
North Broad 40+ years ago, there was one very simple two-way signal on Foothill.
Traffic flowed smoothly, and there was much less cut-through traffic in the
neighborhoods than today (though the speeds were freeway-level). As each successive
signal was added on Foothill, and again as each signalwas further modified with more
and more cycles which slowed arterial traffic, more cross-town traffic cut through our
neighborhood. We could literally see an increase immediately after each
complexification of traffic flow took place on Foothill. I believe this was deliberate traffic
diversion by the city. Even today, the fastest way downtown from my place on Broad is
to go across Murray to Santa Rosa, where one can get all the lights green on the
Caltrans section and drive 35 mph -- much faster than cutting through the neighborhood
--lF you can avoid the slowness the city has created on Foothill. BTW, before moving
here, I lived out off Jeffery, and worked where Scolaris was located on Johnson. I
always drove across Foothill to Santa Rosa to Marsh because it was the fastest route
by far. I didn't really know about the cut-through route till I moved onto Broad, and woke
up that first Monday morning to the chaos of semis, gas tankers, and lots of speeders
zipping past my house.
SO PLEASE ADD TO THE -PHYSICAL CHANGES" LIST MAKING PHYSICAL
CHANGES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, REDUCE THEIR
CYCLIC COMPLEXITY, AND TO TIME THEM IN COORDINATION WITH CALTRANS
This would do wonders to alleviate neighborhood cut-through traffic by getting such
traffic back on arterials where it belongs.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
sEP 3 0 2013Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mary, Jan
Monday, September 30, 201-3 7:4I AM
Schroeder, Sheryll
Goodwin, Heather
agenda correspondence for 10-L5-13
Schwartz annotated arlicle 10-1-5-13.pdf
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Please post this as agenda correspondence for the LUCE item on 10-15-13 gsls t2l lt\ ltem# H+l
Jan Howell Max
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(BOs) 781-7120 or (805) 541-2716
1
e-ClUrt¿¿ æ .tÆ.. glVtVtZ.
I SPECIAL FEATURE
BY TOM FRANCISKOVICH
ufn
Before 1 gct into rhis ¿rticle, I would likc to
make a iull clisclosure: Two of rnl.three kids go
to Bishop's Peak lìlementary, my yor.rngest u'ill
soon, bLrt hc is still in preschool. Bishop'.s Peak
is our ncighborhood schotrl autl we clccided
to live where we do specificallv bec¿use of
the school. We hacl done rlr¡ rese¿rt:h trelò¡e
movìng to torvn und Bishop's Peak,',rs we
leartred, rvas a highly respectecl school Antl,
wlìen u'c I'ound out that Tè¿ch School, an
opfional rccclerated learning lrogrâm for 4th -
6th grlders, wirs irlso o¡r campus, it lvns icing <rn
the cakc. Our daughrer,rvlro is our oldest chilcl,
ìs now iu the fourth grÂdÈ. [,¿st year, when she
u,a.\ eight-ye¿rs-old, u.e had to make a cìccision
about rvhcther or rìot shc rvould continuc to
attencl llishop's Peak or nove over to Teach
wherc r¡any of her friencls had applied. I rvill
rrdrlrit rlr¡f. the c{ecision rvas not tiec ofc<¡nflict
and, ultimatell', we supported our daughter's
clrr.¡icc, rvlricll rv¿s to rer¡rain at Bishop's Peak.
L-r the spirit crf. this fi¡ll disclostrrc, I will sha¡e
that goìrrg through that proccss fclt strange
and albitrary rncl unsettling-ns kids who hnd
bcen in class rogethcr since kirrdergar¡en wc¡c
askecl to plcdgc their allegiance to one school
or rnothcr. While rny wife and I both stronsl/
support the notion of accelcratcd learning-
we bcrnefìttcd personally as chi.lden growir.rg
tup in the G.A.T.E. (gifted and talentcd
education) program-it appeârs tlìût rlre \.vry
rve rrc addressing the ûeeds of our students
c¡n certainlv be inrploved. So, when the
conlfÒvefsy srrrror.Lntling'ì'ench School enLpted
reccntl¡ I rlccidcd to look inro it tirther.
\\¡hile, I câre deeply about the outct:nle fbr
rny kicls rrrd their liiends rvho shurc a camgtrs,
I do not harc 'l prescri¡rtion fot' tl-re cllrr: înd
alìt not advociltìng crne partirullrr r)u tconìe or
anofher T, like you, anC all olthe people rvho
have shared rheìr rhoughts foi ttris article, warrt
the best possihlè resuit f<¡r eveÌyone c<¡nr:ernecl.
Hopefìrll¡ thc 1'ollou'íng rvill help vou corne t'l
youl owr) corlclusiorrs...
The rnonth of August is alrvays a nervous tíme
l'or adr¡inistrators at thc San Luis Coast¡l
Unificd School I)is¡'ict. Since the district has
¿ilì opcn cnrollment policy, any student can
t¡ansl'cr to any school with few limit¿tions.
42 I SLO LIFE MAGAZINE APR/MAY 2019
This revelat¡on has
caused some parents
to ask the question:
J:
e, lf the classroom
programs at Teach
are so effective,
why aren't they
being implemented
district-wide? 1i
Snrdents-as is thc case i¡,ith most other school
districrs nadonwide-are not required to attend
their neighborhot¡d school. fuid, at San Luis
Coastal, tlìere is no destination rnore popuJ'ar f'or
local 4th graders than Tr:ach School.
I)an Block, rhe uruch-l¡uded principal ofboth
Bishopt Peak '¡nd Teach Elementary Schools,
settled into his dcsk early one August morning
to catch rrp on some wolk. The school,vear wes
stìll a ferv weeks lwa)., so the h¿lls of the sharecl
cânìpus were quiet. Nothing else was calJing for
his attention, except for the blìnking cursor on
his spreadsheet. But as Block, rvho resembles
NFL Commissioncr Roger Coodcll, clicked
the "Sum" but¡on he rvas convinced that the
nurnbe¡s ucrc u.rong. uI kcpt looking rrt rhc
bottc-rm line, and it lvas shorving grorwh of 50
kids for Bishop's Pcak nlone," he erplains, *TIre
growth rate rvas il'.urning and it w'¡s not going
to be sustainable."
Nfuch like Commissit>ncr Goodcll, who is
dealing nlth rrrajur prcrblerns concerning
concussiens and pla¡.er safetv, Pr-incip"al Block
hacl a major problem of his own.In some wals,
he was bec<jr-¡ing a victim of his c¡wn success, as
Bishop's Pcak and Tcâch have become nvo of
the most desi¡able schools to t¡ansfer into via' the clistrict's open enrollmcnt process, But, there
were other cþnamics at pl'ay. Reccntlv, there
had been '¿ lot more young llrnilies rnoving
into thc neighborhood ¿round rhe carnpus,
making Bishop's Peak their dcfhult destination
for elemcntary school. It appears, in part, that
Cal Polyt efforts to bring more studcnts to livc
baek on carnpus has c¡eated more opporruniries
for local f¿milies to buy or rent homcs ìn
thc ncighborho.od that sits not far frorn rhe
col.lege. \44hatever the case, therc were rnorc
neighborhood kids feeding into Rishopì Peak
thun had been expected,
'Ihe carnpus th¿t houses both tsishop's Pcak
¿nd Te'¡ch School w¿s dete¡mincd b.y a srucly
comnrissir-¡ncd in 2005 to have a nr'¿rimum
captcity of525 sn¡denrs,The fin,¡l nunrbcr
:lt the bottorn ofBlocks screen read "522."
Although it rvould trke some doing, hc figured
he could nrake it wo¡k this school year, but if
the r¡cnr-l continued the¡e would be what he
cha¡actcrized in his letter to the school board
¿s "an cnrollmcnt crisis" next year Block, after
double c^nd niple checking rhe numbcrs on his
screen, took a dcep breath, picked up the phone
'¿nd dialed Superintendent Eric Prater dowr at
the distrìct ojîce.
l¡ is no sccrct that Prater is an unabashed
suDDortcr of neishborhood schoo[s. who
hâs srnce tlfe begrnrung ot hls tcnurc [)een
unconrfortable with the concept ofTeach
-1k
School-at least in the form it cxistcd when
he took over almost 3 vears ago-citing
concenìs offairness having to do with acccss
und cqualit¡'. So, when Block be¡çan çxpl'aining
the sinraticrn, he t'ound a sympathetic atrdierrce
on thc other end of the line. Pr¡rrc¡, a r¡úddle -
agcd Cluk Kcnt look-a-like, is known by those
r¡,ho rynrk with hin lbr his bouncling crrergy
'¡nd u¡rshalublc optimism, 6âw the inìpendirìg
enr:ollnrent crisis as an opporrtrcity. "f)rrn antì
I talked it ovc¡ and decided to look at tl:ìs in
a positive u'ay, thinking that sonre renl good
could corne out of it," reveals Pr'.rte r. "Perlups
something that ct¡uld have a widcr impact
tluor,rghout the clistrict,"
The result ofthe conversati<¡n lvas th¿f lllock
would lrc hostirrg a series of public forur¡s on
càìrnpus to alcrt stakeholders-p'.u'ents, teachcrs,
neighbors-of the i rnpendi npç enrollmcnt
crisis ¿nd tn get input for possible solutiorrs.
There is not much more important to parents than
their child's education. And with the shared campus
of San Luis Coastal Unified's Bishop's Peak and
Teach Elementary bursting at the seams, the topic has
garnered a lot of attention lately, and for good reason...
'Ihi¡rgs wcrrt rveU ert first ¿ncl since rhe carnprrs,
which happens to l¡e thc snallest one in the
cìistrict, rvas aJread;¡, bursting ttt the seams with
its current headcount, no orte was surpriscd
ro hc'¡r rhe news. llost toc,k it in stride ilncl
l coopelative, collegial di'*logue ensued,
T}oughrful su€llestioìrs rvere rnacle, clespite the
palpable anxie!v huging overhead. Bur, that
all chnrrqed one chilly C)crobel eveLring when it
became cle'¡¡ thar, in thc fhce of ¡¡ S8 millíon
cìcficìt, there were not goiug to be an1, easy
ùlìswers. I\{arry of the Teach School parents
ro¿Llized that the most iìttractive option to the
cash-strapped district rnight, irr fact, bc to close
the school In that moment the tone and tcnor
of thrrse ::neeÉngs rvent fiom calm, rational
question and answer se,ssions to a B¡irish
Parliame-nt-sryle <:utpouring of objection, and a
"Save Jtrrc.h School" movemenf wa^s bt¡rn.
When S¡utnik was taking its fir'st vict,rrl'
lap'arountl the planct, Arncrican llu'r¡¡akcrs
realizeú that rve had lùst Fjgnificant Éiround
ro the Soviets and tlrat our kids were gcring
to havc to becomc a lot smarter to keep up.
In 1957 the Cold War was raging and tny
advantage gaincd hy <.¡ur conrnrunist arrtagonists
r,ras dealt rvith swiftly and in:mediateþr So,
rhe cr:unterpunch to this ¡articular issut rvas
handlcd b1' Congress,lvho passed thc Nation'¿l
I)efense Erlucation Ai:t (NDE,{), which
allocatecl $1 billion (in those days this rvas an
ru npr-ccc de nted exp encliture) to bolster scien cr:,
math, irncl technoto¡y irr ¡:rublic cducation.
The goal, rhough not cxpressly srated, was to
cfeltte ouÍ own gerìeration of rocket scicntìsts
who would be smarter th¿rn our comr¡ic focs,
The plan çvorked as expecte<l and our kids got
smater, but, ns it tlrrns out, yor,r only neetJ so
m.ru.y leally smart scientists to build a¡rIC:BN{
(interctrntinental ballistic rnissile)..Á.fter that,
the. Unitcd States turned its atcentíon alvrry
iì'om ¿Lrcele¡atecl leurning ancl tor¡ard tl¡e a¡rns
race. Who cares hnu. s'rnart we arel As long as we
have mo¡e nukes th¡n the other guy, *'e're gr:od.
By 1983, the lact that we h'¡d trken our eye
oll- the ball was beginn inpç to show, Ancl arr
eighteen-month-long stur1y called "A N¡rrion ¡t
RisU'was pubÌishcd showin¡5 that, not only had
A I'RËE Reþn'øl & PlaæmerrtAgeÍrey
Do you know ryþs¡,youi
loved ones have
reached the next stage?
Senior Ltvlng Consultants does.
Call usl Trust lhø most
êxparlênøed FREE placÚ,ment
agoncy on the centralour sfildents falJe¡ behirrd the Sovìets, they had
also fallen behind most ofthe other developed
countrics-even kìds irr pltces liJce Sweden
were outperlorming our children. fuound this
sârnc tirne, especially in Cdi brnia, ¡1 program
cllled G.A.T.E. was int¡oduced as a supplement
to stan tlnrd classror¡ r¡ cur¡i culum. Childle n
testôcl into the program and u.ere given mr¡re
ch'.r.llen¡çing work to stretr:h thenr acatlernicolly
whíJc nlso meetingthe neecìs of their:
m$in$trsâm fi-iends. ln 1f/80, San Lrris Obis¡ro
'was rlready ahea<l of the curve having t'aken
G,4.1'.1ì. to its next logical conclusion, as a
of the
Bv1 ProBrarn gfown to point
where it needed nore space, so it rvas nloved
to the current Pacheco School location and
fivc years late¡ assumed rhc n¿me uCharles E.
Teach School Alternativc Program." In I 993
the schcnl board came to the conclusion tluit
dcscribing the program as 'hlternative" was
ucreatiu¡ç c:t¡¡rfusio¡r and/o¡ a senstl ol'qlitis¡n
among ceftain members in the comrnuniry"
so tlrev changed the nirme to "Charles E.
'I'each S cìrool." Atten drnce at Tench pelked in
2001 with around I7.5 stur'lents then declinerl
througlurr.Lt the dec'¡de tL¡¡til 2011 rvhen Ít
enjol.ecl a res(¡r:gence of popularity. Todq',
'I'ear:h is not technic'ally considerecl a G.À.T.E.
as enrollment is not
One tloes rrot have to look far-the other
c¡rd of lbothill Bouleyard, ¡ctually-to firrd
anotl'rcr highly succesrful edrrcation institution
with a qlose kinship toTeach: Cal Poli'.Widr
hist<llicul roots ås a h'¿nds-on technic'*l school,
C'¡l Polv has rocketed to rhe tùp of rhc many
i'Best Colleges" Iists that a¡e published cnch
yerr mostly by focusing on one relatÌvely sirnple
concepf: "1earn by doing," Although Tcach
begar-r its êyistence as a collection of G,A.T,E.
kìds who rook on an adv¡rnced curriculutn,
the ¡rngram has evolved into rvhat it is tod'ly
by em6racing that sanre "leam by doirrg"
philosophy, which in actdcr¡ric circles is relèrred
to as "cr:nstructivism."this form of'lcuning, ì:.)
o¡I
> l/\
Attendance at Teach dropped to just 66 students during
the 2006/2007 school year. This year it's at 156. And it
would have been a lot more if it weren't for the lottery.
which has its theoretical underpinnings with
Maria Montcssori, manifssts itself at Tcach
with hcavy parental involvement, hands-on
learning, including some cxtraordinarv lield
trips. for example, the fourth graders at Teach
go to space camp for threc days, which contrasts
with their Bishop's Peak counterparts who take
a day trip to the Monterey Bav Aquarium.
Aurd, aside from the G.A,T.E. students,
lvho commonly havc a lot ofsupport from
acadcmically inclined parents at home, some of
the grcatest bencfrciaries of the Teach School
program have beerr kids that were stnrgglinø
in ¿ traclitional classroom setting and nlay
have "slipped through the cracks" at other
elementary schools. The chssroom environmerìt,
rvith its highly interactive curricul"rm, has
been able to reâch many of those students who
are norv thriving academically. In Principal
Blockt report to the school board oudining
the impending en¡ollment crisis, he included
a stack ofletters Êom Teach parents, many of
whorn detailed tlÍs phenomenol claiming that
their child is thriving at'Ieach where they had
not elsewhe¡e,'Ihis revelation has caused some
parents to ask the question: "Ifthe classroom
prograrns atTeach are so effective, rvhy arerit
they being implemented district-wide?"
As thc school board held public forums recently
to openly discuss the fate of'I'each School, it
became clea¡ that they had run head-long into
abuzz srw of parent opposition. Yet, equally
energized, but much less vocal,lver-e the
neighbors living in the homes on Craig Way
Jaycee I)rive which provide the narrow
to
conúngent,
fo¡most part,on the a¡xiew caused
splitting up thc fourth graders (last year
7Vo ofTeach School was fed by Bishopt Peak
rnaking it, by far, the largest sou¡ce of
as well as the impact of having to
up campus resources to Teach. There is also a
complaint that is not often vocalized----cne
popped up in the 90\, but is still alive
thatTeach school carries a certain elitism
that harms the mor¿le on'campus, which can
undeniablybe the perception to a nine-year-old
kiil when their neighborhood friends are
^wayat space camp while they are on a bus heading
north to look atjeliy6sh.
No onc knows f"r;;; the fate ofTcach
School. For now the school board h¿rs elected to
punt-having decided to keep the status quo for
the next school year, albeit capping the number
of new enrollees. This school year, for the first
tinre, admission was limited by lo*ery-in
other.,vords, random chance. Going forward,
however, it is likely that Teach\ future will be
determined by a recently convened advisorv
cornmittee, which has been comprised of 17
locals who arc not affiliated with the school
l¡o'¿¡d. Thei¡ findings are expected to bc shared
November. fhe
lvould be to move
i ¡O - 0g núllion range, that is signi.frcant. Not
to mcntion the cost for a separatc principal,
jarutors, and so on. As Block savs, uThe
solutions are easy.They just al-l require money,
and a lot ofìt," Another popular proposed
option is to add portable classrooms to the
current campus,The cost to do that, even if
they did somehow get permission, as well as a
blessing f¡om the neighbors, to exceed the 525
sÈudent enrollmenc cap, is a cool million.
Despite the deficits, despite the lack ofoptions,
you get the feeling from talking widr Prater,
who plainl,v states, nThis whole matter isn't
going to go awa¡'that he is just a phone booth
visit away f¡om tansforming into Snperman
and solving this issue with a sin¡¡le bound. In
fact, he takes it one step further, as he explained
durin¡ç a reflective conversation to critique his
own handling ofthe "Save Teach" moverhent,
that "despite some of the emotions, I do believe
we're going to be a better district because of
it," Prater, who readily admits to "mistakes of
communicati<in" is quick to point out that he
is the superintendent ofall the schools in the
district ¿nd wants the "most good for the most
the success
in theory it
gfeat,just one thingthey dorlt
THE RIGHT
805-441 -9562 // Right0lickClasses,com
321 Main Street // Templeton
ter LearninCom Center
ffi
rnake phone booths anymore. SOIE!
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Marx, Jan
Sunday, October 13, 2013 2:23 PM
Mejia, Anthony
Goodwin, Heather
FW: LUCE Update-Physical Alternatives
LUCE Alts l-0-15-2013.doc
CI CLER
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date lolr6lr<fte PHI
OcT 14 2013
Please post this message as a piece of agenda correspondence
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(80s) 781-7120 or (80s) s41-2716
From: Carolyn Ike6hng@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 73,201.3 t:47 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn
Subject: LUCE Update-Physical Alternatives
Attached please find a letter from RQN regarding PHL on Tuesday's Council Agenda
Thank you.
Carolyn Smith
1
Resid entg for Ghraltt5r Flelgtrbort¡oods
P.O. Box 126'o'4 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
15 October 2013
Dear Mayor Marks and Members of the Council,
From its inception, the mission of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RaN) has been to preserve,
protect and improve the quality of life in the city's established neighborhoods. Although change is
inevitable, residents want to ensure that it is "for the better."
After listening to Council's direction that the process should begin with workshops in the
neighborhoods occurring simultaneously with receipt of the written survey, and that input from said
workshops and questionnaires should occur prior to the formation and meeting of the task force, we
were disappointed when this did not occur.
Resident outreach "in the neighborhoods" morphed into city-wide workshops held at the Monday Club
and Ludwick Center (each attended by about 50 residents) and city-wide Open Houses held at three
locations (each with about a dozen attendees) on two separate Saturdays. This city-wide approach for
obtaining initial input regarding issues of concern to residents did not consider the value of neighbors
meeting together to discuss common issues and share their visions, and the synergy that occurs in such
meetings - nor do these workshops appear to have met either the spirit or the letter of Council's
direction.
Later, two city-wide Future Fairs were held with 50-60 at Future Fair I and 208 (40 without addresses)
at Future Fair ll. Future Fair 2 was an opportunity for residents to comment on the 1-9 land use and 1.9
circulation proposals. Only six (6) neighborhoods affected by a land use proposal were noticed; no
neighborhoods affected by circulation proposals were noticed, The reason given was the excessive
cost if post cards were sent to all potentially affected neighborhoods.
Parenthetically, a resident of the Oceanaire area, one of the neighborhoods noticed, indicated on a
comment card that the post card was uninformative and useless and none of the about fifty neighbors
she spoke with understood its significance. This comment was reminiscent of Andrew Carter's
observation from the dias that we (the City) send notices, but we do not communicate.
It appears to us that some obvious issues have not been captured by this process, No survey question
addressed, for example, party noise, and yet this is the reason most often given when long-time
residents leave the city. No survey question addressed the increased population density experienced
in some of our established neighborhoods and the effects that has had on residents' quality of life.
These are some of the issues that may have emerged had meetings been held in the neighborhoods.
With regard to the land use and circulation alternatives being presented, the RQN Board, with input
from our members, submit the recommendations shown at attachments 1 and 2. We ask that you
keep preservation of the City's established neighborhoods in mind as you deliberate and make your
decisions.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Smith
Secretary RQN
Attachment L
Land Use
A - Nativity Church Site.
We agree this site should be removed from consideration.
B - Santa Rosa and Foothill Area.
(1) We support retainingthe current Commercial Retail (CR) designation forthe propertytothe north
of Foothill between Santa Rosa and North Chorro (University Square) favored by the developer and
encourage the inclusion of a substantial housing component.
We would not support parking policy changes that further decrease required residential parking. We
would not support height policy changes that ignore or dismiss Scenic Roadway designations; both
Foothill and Santa Rosa are Scenic Roadways.
Although we believe University Square is a prime location for medium high or high density housing
because of a) proximity to Cal Poly, b) bordering a neighborhood of primarily apartments, c) proximity
to transit, and d) easy downtown access via Santa Rosa minimizing the need to cut through residential
neighborhoods, we understand housing can be part of a CR development.
(2) We do not support the addition of housing to either the commercial parcel located to the east of
North Chorro or to the commercial parcels south of Foothill that border on Chorro Street. This long-
established neighborhood south of Foothill is highly impacted by population density, traffic and
parking; maximizing housing on these properties would exacerbate those problems,
Also, we do not support realignment of streets in this area, shown in alternative B-4, since that would
intentionally direct traffic down Chorro and/or Broad. These two-lane residential streets, should not
be confused with gateways into the city.
C - Old Pacheco School Site.
We agree with the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighbors, and the School District that this site
should be removed from consideration.
D - Diocese Property Along Bressi.
We agree this site should be removed from consideration and the RSF and OS designations retained.
E - Upper Monterey Area.
We have no input regarding this site
F - Downtown Area.
We have no input regarding this area
G - Mid-Higuera Area.
We have no input regarding this area.
H - CalTrans Site.
We have no input regarding this area other than that Madonna and Higuera are Scenic Roadways.
L.L
| - General Hospital Site.
We support retaining the current designations for the site (PF, a horizontal band of RLD, and OS to the
city limit).
Several uses are allowed in R-L that would be consistent with the site, such as residential care
facilities, rest homes and similar types of uses. Upzoning to R-2, or endorsing policies to increase the
flexibility of the site without notice to adjacent neighborhoods is contrary to Neighborhood Wellness
policies and programs. Adjacent neighborhoods were not noticed.
J - Broad Street Area Plan.
We believe it is good forthe health of the community as a whole if existing businesses are protected
and, also, allowed to expand.
K - Sunset Drive-in Area.
L - Dalidio.
We have no input regarding these areas.
M - Pacific Beach School Site,
We believe the current PF designation should be retained until either the adjacent neighborhood is
clearly noticed and allowed to discuss their concerns about the site, or until a project is brought
forward for consideration, thus requiring notice to residents.
lf the site is developed as mixed use with a substantial housing component, the addition of dense
housing along with tenants' vehicles will have negative impacts on the existing neighborhood. The
same impact will occur if the site is developed as Commercial Retailwith a substantial residential
component.
The site is adjacent to a neighborhood of single-family homes with no nearby park facilities, an amenity
that73.4% of respondents to the 2Ot2 survey stated they would like to have, and is bordered on the
southeast and southwest by congested roadways. The current configuration of the site allows for
some park-like activities to occur. ln addition, area residents were not noticed about this proposed
change.
N - Calle Joaquin Auto Sales.
O - Madonna Property.
We have no input regarding these areas.
P - LOVR Near Overpass Area.
Apparently residents of Los Verdes I & ll sometimes have difficulty crossing LOVR to visit one another.
We would hope this problem is fixed prior to or during development of this site.
Q - Margarita Area Specific Plan.
R - Tank Farm at Broad.
S - Avila Ranch Area.
We have no input regarding these areas
L-2
Attachment 2
Per LUE porograph 2.7.3, Neighborhood Traffic, neiahborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic.
Per CE, Overoll Transportation Strategy #5, Focusinq troffic on Arteriol Streets and Reqional Routes and
Hiahwavs; qnd #6
Per CE, Neighborhood Traffic Monagement Policy 7.0.7, Throuqh traffic should use Regionøl Routes ond
Highways, Arteriols, Parkwoy Arterials qnd Residentiol Arteriol streets ond should not use Collectors or Locol
streets. (All underlininq added)
Circulation
1. - Boysen & Santa Rosa
We support retaining the current configuration of Boysen at Santa Rosa.
Egress from Boysen south onto Santa Rosa keeps traffic headed downtown on Santa Rosa, a main
thoroughfare, in lieu of cutting through the Chorro or Broad Street residential neighborhoods.
We support installation of signals and a crosswalk at Boysen and Santa Rosa. The street at this location
is directly across from the Stenner Glen complex, the tenants of which routinely walk, run or bike
across Santa Rosa at this location. A signal that changes in concert with the signal at Santa Rosa and
Foothill would facilitate crossing Santa Rosa as well as adding to pedestrian safety.
A signal properly timed is considerably less expensive and, thus, more apt to be put in place sooner
than a bridge or tunnel. Also, a signal would seem to be more visually appealing than a "Jennifer Street
bridge" across Santa Rosa.
2 - Vehicular Access Near Foothill Boulevard.
We strongly oppose all proposals to realign Broad, Chorro and Boysen streets. lf another through
street from the north toward the downtown is desired, suggest California be evaluated.
Currently, there is safe access from Boysen heading both north and south. With r¡ght-turn access to
North Chorro going north and right-turn access to Santa Rosa going south, there is no need to cross
traffic. lngress is a right turn from Santa Rosa heading south and a right turn from North Chorro
headingnorth. Ascurrentlyconfigured,thisisoneofthesaferstreetstoenterandexit.
It is unclearwhy a proposalwas selected that results in both of these 2-lane residential streets being
used as throughways into downtown. We do not understand why intentionally moving traffic off of a
4-lane arterial and directing it onto residential streets is the "preferred alternative." This is contrary to
every traffic policy and program in the LUE and CE, and to common sense, and does not bode well for
neighborhood-friendly policies in the updates. Connecting Boysen - Chorro and Broad - North Chorro
transforms these streets from single-family residential streets into preferred routes into the downtown
entertainment district for tenants of all those apartments as well as, potentially, other residents, and
tourists. And,theChorrorealignmentwilldemolishseveral nicelykepthomes,atleastoneofwhichis
owner-occupied.
A few years ago traffic-calming measures were added to both Chorro and Broad streets to keep traffic
from using them, and put that traffic on Santa Rosa. Said measures have been successful. Now, it
appears there is a push to undo the efforts that were made to help these neighborhoods.
2-t
3 - CA-1 & US L01- lnterchange.
We oppose closing the Olive Street ramps and we oppose adding this new interchange. Constructing an
interchange at this location is disruptive to existing, established neighborhoods. There are too many
negative impacts to the residential neighborhoods, and insufficient positive outcomes to make up for
the disruption that would be created for both residents and established neighborhoods.
4 - Broad Street & US L01 lnterchange.
We have no input regarding this item.
We did, however, notice comments regardingthis item on page PHL-86that mentioned a need for
traffic calming measures on Broad, and that closing Broad at l.OL would close the vessel for the
neighborhood to access other areas, rerouting would just add more traffic to other areas and would be
extremely limiting to the people that live in the neighborhood.
5 - Marsh/Higuera & Pismo/Buchon Two-way Roads and Couplets.
We have no input regarding Marsh/Hlguera, but we do not support any change to Buchon.
6 - Transit Center Relocation.
We have no input regarding this item
7 - Broad Street Dog Leg (Mission Plaza Expansion)
We support retaining the existing conditions for the reasons stated in the last comment on page PH-1-
92, i.e., infringes on the rights of property owners; adds to congestion on adjacent streets (in a 4-block
stretch on Palm Street there is Mission Prep, the Mission and two parking structures; with any given
event this area is already congested); closure would enhance transient/homeless issues in the area.
We believe installation of a 3-way stop in lieu of the two stop signs currently in place would preclude
much of the confusion previously referred to,
8 - Realign Bianchi and Pismo.
The options are at least as confusing as the existing conditions.
9 - Realign Madonna to Bridge Street instead of Higuera.
We strongly oppose this realignment. lt purposely connects residential neighborhoods to a fast-moving,
extremely busy street. We believe the realignment will create cut-through, speeding and safety
problems for residents who purposely did not choose to live on a busy street.
This proposal "may better address some pedestrian and bike connections," but it does so at the expense
of neighborhoods. lt would seem more productive to try to solve the pedestrian/bike issue(s) without
creating other problems elsewhere.
This is currently an efficient intersection in that it allows traffic to flow onto the north and southbound
L0L with minimal stops and minimal congestion while providing access to shopping centers. A median
large enough for a bicycle and rider or3-4 pedestrians was added to facilitate crossing Madonna at
Higuera Street. lf there is insufficient time for pedestrians or bicyclists to cross at this intersection, the
signal length for crossing could be extended as was done on LOVR.
2-2
10 - Bishop Street Extension.
We strongly support the elimination of a bridge to carry all modes of traffic, and we question, but do not
oppose, the need for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge in view of the proximity of the Jennifer Street bridge
and the existence of the railroad safety trail.
Bishop Street is a quiet, 2-lane residential street in an established neighborhood. We believe that use of
this street to connect Broad and Johnson, two busy 4-lane streets, will create a number of previously
non-existent problems. ln addition to dissecting the neighborhood, a concern we do not take lightly, the
volume of drivers that choose to "cut through" the neighborhood will likely not think to reduce their
speed from 35-40 mph to the residential 25 mph. Because this is a neighborhood street there is not the
width to provide parking and bicycle lanes and a safety median to enable people to cross the street and
still have room for two driving lanes. This alternative neither preserves nor protects this neighborhood.
The relative proximity of the Jennifer Street bridge to this location and the connectivity provided to the
bridge from Orcutt Road via the railroad safety trail create questions about the need for a
pedestrian/bike bridge this close to the one we have.
11 - Victoria Connection to Emily.
12 - Broad Street - Consolidate Access.
We have no input regarding these items
L3 - Orcutt Road Overpass.
We do not support keeping this project in the CE
Several things have changed since this overpass was proposed that reduce the need for the project.
Bullock Lane was realigned, the intersection was improved and re-signalized, a section of Orcutt Road
was widened, Sacramento Drive was improved, and changed so that it connected Orcutt with lndustrial
Way, and the railroad upgraded the crossing. Previously, being stopped by a train resulted in the choice
between sitting untilthe train passed or returning to Broad/Orcutt. Now there are additional choices.
Plans for overpass construction include razing the business at Orcutt and Laurel, and, it appears, re-
doing the Orcutt-Laurel-Bullock intersection. The current number of trains is minimal (although that
could change), some are at night or early morning, and an RQN member reported being stopped only
once in a 6-month period, and then for only 30 seconds.
L4 - Froom Connect to Oceanaire Neighborhood.
We agree with the Oceanaire neighborhood that this should be removed
l-5 - Prado Road lnterchange vs Overpass.
L6 - Connection to Dalidio from Froom and/or Calle Joaquin.
17 - Realign Vachel Lane.
18 - N-S Connection between Tank Farm and Buckley
L9 - Buckley to LOVR Connections.
We have no input regarding these items.
2-3