HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2014 ac - lopes2ph11336 Sweetbay Lane
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
January 13, 2014
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
RE: Comments on Planning Commission LUCE recommendation
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
JAN 14 2014
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Dates
lhyjo
1J 2,x /1 q
Please consider my concerns about the recommended Planning Commission Land Use
and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update below and in the following outline, which uses
the legislative draft.
The LUCE has gone forward without the analysis that typically precedes a plan update,
regarding the existing and planned capacities for growth, the existing plan's anticipated
usage of those capacities, and issues that address plan increases in resource and
infrastructure usage. Examples are the City's water supplies and the traffic capacities of
Highway 101 and other regional roads. Instead, you are being asked to "approve"
recommendations that do not have this information or guidance, for what is purported to
be a sustainable city plan. A solution would be if the Environmental Setting section of
the Draft EIR is utilized to guide a second round of analysis and policy- making, where
the existing plan is modified in a Phase 2 of the LUCE update. If this is the presumed
approach, it should be made more explicit how the Draft EIR will guide the preparation of
a sustainable city plan. More detailed comments follow:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
1. 1.0 Overall I ntent — p. PH 1 -62
a. Add the following preamble paragraph or similar text: "The City intends to
retain ample resources and major, costly infrastructure capacity for the
use of future generations, for a very long -term horizon of 100 years
(approximately seven generations). The City will manage growth within
the city boundaries to avoid major environmental and fiscal impacts which
could degrade the quality of life of its residents."
2. 1.0.1 Growth Management Objectives — p. PH1 -62
a. Please add an objective D, renumbering accordingly: "D. The City shall
minimize increases in commuter traffic on Highway 101 and regional
roads that are used for commuting." OR:
b. Add an optional objective D, renumbering below it: "D. City growth is
balanced to retain the designated safe traffic capacity of Highway 101
and regional roads that are used for commuting."
James Lopes
January 13, 2014
10. 2.2.5 Neighborhood Pattern — p. PH1 - 81
a. This policy is nonsensical by its omissions. An extensive policy would list
the features of a neighborhood as was done for Neighborhood Amenities,
and guide the location of these features to create a gradation of density
away from arterial streets, focal points for small public spaces and parks
and civic uses, neighborhood centers for small -scale retail and office
uses, street connections in a frequent grid pattern, and natural area
conservation areas, and so on. It may be that the intent with this policy
was to encourage street linkages between new and existing
neighborhoods: "The City shall require that all new residential
development should be integrated physically by streets and other routes
with existing neighborhoods... "
b. Additional points should be added to address the comments above:
"Neighborhoods shall be designed in an urban block pattern with:
i. a frequent grid of streets, alleys and other routes, which connect
to advacent streets and routes,
ii, a downward gradation of housing density away from arterial and
collector streets,
iii. higher density housing near focal points, schoolss and
neighborhood centers;
iv. central focal points on streets for small public spaces and parks
and civic uses:
v. edge locations of small -scale neighborhood centers for retail,
office and civic uses;
vi. open spaces for natural area conservation, flood control and
habitat protection."
3 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
11. 3.2.1 New or Expanded Areas of Neighborhood Commercial Use — p. PH1 - 98
a. Most existing neighborhood centers have no or inadequate pedestrian
access through parking lots. This policy needs to address this as the first
point, renumbering: "i. Sidewalk access from the street to building and
store frontages."
POLICIES
12. 8.3.2.4 SP -2, Dalidio Specific Plan Area — p. PH1 — 160
a. The purpose of development on this world -class prime agricultural land,
should be to minimize the footprint of development, perhaps even with the
City's financial support for expensive infrastructure and structured
parking. The project here could be an urban corridor of street - fronting
buildings such as located on State Street in Santa Barbara, with parking
in structures behind them. This kind of retail and tourist environment
could include an internal pedestrian street as seen in The Grove in L.A.,
or Santana Row in San Jose. This sort of environment would attract the
department store(s) and entertainment uses that are desired by many.
Policies could encourage the neighboring Promenade property to
redevelop with the concept. If this is interesting, the City needs to set the
stage for it in these standards:
James Lopes
January 13, 2014
b. Add the following at the beginning of the Purpose: "This project site
should be developed to minimize the loss of prime agricultural soils for
intensive farming by minimizing the development area or "footprint." The
preferred concept is for a compact corridor of large - scale buildings
fronting Dalidio Drive, as a boulevard behind a wide sidewalk
environment with rear structured 12arking. Retail entertainment and
tourist uses shall integrate and connect well with each other along this
boulevard concept. Dalidio Drive, internal streets and paseos are
encouraged to execute a robust pedestrian environment. The extent of
development should not occur past a line even with the rear of the U.S.
Post Office parcel on Madonna Road." Continue with the proposed text.
13. 8.3.2.6 SP -4, Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area — p. PH1 — 163
a. This area is probably too impacted with jet and other airplane noise to be
viable under the flight paths of so many planes. The City cannot in good
conscience expect people to live inside their houses with windows closed
in all weather in order to avoid noise impacts, much less to go out into
their yards. This property was thoughtlessly added at the last minute in
the County update of the area plan also in 1994. It should be limited to
very low intensity, exterior storage yard kinds of industrial uses to
minimize a potentially huge employee increase.
b. Whether or not it is feasible to develop residential on the Avila property,
the specific plan area should be moved or expanded further east on
Buckley Road to the corner with Davenport Creek Road. It should include
non -prime land between Jesperson Road and Buckley Road. This area
should be viewed as the sacrifice area for housing the thousands of
existing and future commuting employees to the airport area, to achieve
some resemblance of a.job /housing balance in the City's plan and zoning.
This concludes my comments. Thank you for your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
James Lopes