Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutph1luceupdate FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development SUBJECT: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE (GPI/ER 15-12). RECOMMENDATION Receive a progress report on the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update and provide direction to staff regarding special meetings on January 14th and 28th for consideration of the draft Elements 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 and gauge for evaluating any proposed 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 The work scope authorized by Council includes grant-focus items: • Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo through 2035. • A comprehensive guide for decision-making based on land use, design, circulation and access, sustainability and the preservation of the quality of life in the community. • Policies that balance development and conservation to preserve the City’s natural beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibrant economy and addressing disadvantaged communities. • Evaluate consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG. • Opportunities to create Complete Streets/neighborhoods and develop programs to achieve them. • Identify areas appropriate for residential infill and densification. 1 Minutes from January 17, 2012 (Attachments 1) Meeting Date Item Number 1-7-14 PH 1 PH1 - 1 LUCE Update Process Page 2 • Identify the circulation system that is needed to appropriately balance the community’s values and the need for growth • Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing. • Promote energy efficiency & conservation and incorporate Climate Action Plan strategies. • Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate Transit Oriented Developments (TOD). • Identify programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the single occupant vehicle. • Identify healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike access. In addition, the City Council identified the following topics for the update: • Neighborhood Wellness • Neighborhood Mapping • South Broad Street Corridor Plan • Healthy Cities Initiatives • Pedestrian Circulation Plan • Nightlife Public Safety Assessment (alcohol outlets) • Airport Issues • Traffic Congestion Relief • Other Transportation Issues (Multi-Modal level of service, for example) • Avila Ranch development concept • LAFCO Sphere of Influence Areas The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) process garnered 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 has also informed the policy review and development phase of the update. The development of alternatives for San Luis Obispo has been a two‐step process: the first step proposed physical alternatives (endorsed for further study by the City Council in October, 2013); and the second step proposed policy changes, which the Council will evaluate at special meetings on January 14th and January 28th. The legislative drafts of the updated Elements primarily contain edits to existing policy language. However, new policies and programs have also been included. A portion of the work included review of new policy language needed to address the work scope items identified above in addition to:  Notable policy gaps (missing policies) that have been identified over time in the existing General Plan;  Other new policy areas identified through the public process; PH1 - 2 LUCE Update Process Page 3  Policy topics to respond to changes in State law, such as policies to address climate change and complete streets; and  Topics or items that the City committed to addressing as part of the Sustainable Communities grant that is funding this update. TF-LUCE and Planning Commission The TF-LUCE has met 31 times over the course of the update process to date representing thousands of hours of volunteer time committed to the community. Their review of the draft Elements alone required 17 meetings between September 18th and December 10th. The Planning Commission reviewed the Task Force’s work and endorsed, with minor changes, the detailed review and effort that went into developing the updated Elements for Council review. The Planning Commission’s recommendations will be transmitted with the staff reports for January 14th and 28th respectively. In summary, minor changes were made to the documents forwarded by the Task Force. Any changes recommended by the Planning Commission that differ from the Task Force have been noted by a text box with explanatory text. An example is shown below: Update Process The physical alternatives 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. The EIR process will evaluate the changes endorsed by the City Council for further study on October 15, 2013 (Attachments 3-5). The other piece of the update is comprised of the policy updates in the Land Use and Circulation Elements. These documents contain policy direction to guide the decision-making process as well as development guidance for several of the physical alternative sites. The LUCE update is comprised of both the potential physical changes and the policy changes endorsed by the City Council which together become the “project description” to be evaluated in the EIR. Once a draft EIR is available, the update process will result in further refinements to the draft LUCE to address and mitigate potential impacts. These changes will be considered by the Planning Commission, and the City Council. 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 – much of the update will not result in dramatic differences in the City’s form or policy basis which shapes and plans the City of San Luis Obispo. However there are several areas where more significant changes are anticipated, primarily Dalidio, Avila Ranch, and the Madonna PH1 - 3 LUCE Update Process Page 4 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 Future Fair 3 workshop held on December 7, 2013, provided an opportunity to present a progress report of the LUCE update process as well as an opportunity to hear from the community regarding the scope of the EIR. Attendees were also able to view proposed new policies and guidance on development sites and provide input. A summary of the workshop and input is provided as Attachment 6. The summary contains copies of the posters from the workshop that describe the physical alternatives and some of the new policy direction being proposed as part of the update. The meeting was attended by approximately 125 community members (including several City Council, Planning Commission and TF-LUCE members). The graphic below shows the activity completed to date and the process moving forward towards final Council action. The City must deliver a draft document to the state by June 30, 2014 in order to meet the grant deadline. The draft Elements and associated EIR will then proceed through the City’s advisory bodies and public review and hearing process prior to returning to City Council for final action. There are two special meetings scheduled for the Council to consider the Land Use and Circulation Elements. On January 14th, Council will consider the legislative draft of the Land Use Element followed by consideration of the Circulation Element on January 28th. Staff will be requesting Council’s input on those documents and initiation of the policies in combination with the previously initiated physical alternatives for further study through the EIR. The draft Elements recommended by the Planning Commission will be provided to the Council the first week in January, 2014. PH1 - 4 LUCE Update Process Page 5 The City Attorney has requested a determination from the Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC) regarding two sites of potential conflicts of interest on the part of Council members. Staff will address the FPPC’s determination prior to the January 14th Council meeting and will suggest a discussion protocol to avoid potential conflicts if necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental review will occur once a project description has been endorsed by the City Council. 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council could direct staff to modify the order of the Elements to be considered by the Council. 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. January 17, 2012 Council Meeting minutes 2. Council Resolution 10466 - physical alternatives endorsed for further study 3. Council Resolution 10467 - physical alternatives endorsed for further study 4. Council Resolution 10468 - physical alternatives endorsed for further study 5. Workshop Summary from 12-7-13 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 www.slo2035.com provides TF-LUCE Information and summary of workshops and other studies which have informed the process. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE TF-LUCE Binders with agenda materials T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-01-07\LUCE Policies Introduction (Johnson-Murry)\LUCE-CAR_1-7-14.docx PH1 - 5 ATTACHMENT 1 PH1 - 6 ATTACHMENT 1 PH1 - 7 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 . ATTACHMENT 1 PH1 - 8 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 . ATTACHMENT 1 PH1 - 9 RESOLUTION NO. 10466 (2013 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE PHYSICAL ALTERNATIVES SET FOR THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATB TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS (GPI 1s-12) \ryHEREAS, 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 2071, 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 \ryHEREAS, 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 \ryHEREAS, 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 imporlant milestone step in the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to fuilher 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 \ryHEREAS, the City Council will review policy alternatives recommended by the TF- LUCE and Planning Commission prior to beginning the Environmental Impact Reporl. R 10466 ATTACHMENT 2 PH1 - 10 Council Resolution No. 10466 (2013 Series) 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 parl 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 Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Council Member Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: Council Members Ashbaugh and Christianson, and Vice Mayor Smith None None Council Member Carpenter and Mayor Marx The foregoing resolution was adopted this I 5th day of October 201 3 Vice Smith ATTEST: yJ. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J.Dietrick City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: ATTACHMENT 2 PH1 - 11 Council Resolution No. 10466 (2013 Series) Page 3 EXHIBIT A PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-193 c Old Pacheco School Site Remove from consideration as part of the LUCE ElR. ATTACHMENT 2 PH1 - 12 RESOLUTION NO. 10467 (2013 Series) A RESOLUTION 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 1s-12) \ryHEREAS, 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 20II, the City Council approved goals for the 201I-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 WHERBAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, four community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 18 Task Force meetings, fìve 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 WHBREAS, 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 WHBREAS, 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 \ryHBREAS, 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 \ryHEREAS, the City Council will review policy alternatives recommended by the TF- LUCE and Planning Commission prior to beginning the Environmental Impact Report. R 10467 ATTACHMENT 3 PH1 - 13 Council Resolution No. 10467 (2013 Series) Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RBSOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the set of physical altematives 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 Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Vice Mayor Smith, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh and Christianson, Vice Mayor Smith and Mayor Marx NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Council Member Dan Carpenter The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of October 2013. an ATTEST: yJ. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Christine Dietrick City Attorney ATTACHMENT 3 PH1 - 14 Council Resolution No. 10467 (2013 Series) Page 3 EXHIBIT A PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-196 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). ATTACHMENT 3 PH1 - 15 RESOLUTION NO. 10468 (2013 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE PHYSICAL ALTBRNATIVES SET FOR THE LAND USB 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 WHERBAS, in June 201I, the City Council approved goals for the 2011-2013 Financial Plan including additional funding to Support consideration of 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 WHBREAS, 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 \ryHBRBAS, 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 \ryHEREAS, 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 staflpresented at said hearing; and \ryHEREAS, the City Council will review policy alternatives recommended by the TF- LUCE and Planning Commission prior to beginning the Environmental Impact Report. R 10468 ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 16 Council Resolution No. 10468 (2013 Series) 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. ALTERNATMS. 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 Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Vice Mayor Smith, and on the following roll call vote: Council Members Ashbaugh, Carpenter and Christianson, Vice Mayor Smith and Mayor Marx None None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of October 2013. an Marx T J. Mej City Clerk AS stine Dietrick City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CMC ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 17 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 consideration of parking and height changes to facilitate mixed use. PH1-193 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 consideration of 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. PH1-195 F Downtown Area No physical land use changes proposed. Consider policies and desirability of plazas and public views and a program to update the Downtown Concept Plan. ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 18 Council Resolution No. i0468 (2013 Series) Page 4 PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-195 G Mid-Higuera Area No changes proposed PHl-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 uses compatible with conference center. PH1-196 J Broad Street Area Plan I ncorporate physical alternative described in South Broad Street Area Plan endorsed by September 17, 2013 by Citv Council. Council Resolution 10460 PHI -198 K Sunset Drive in Area Support consideration of mixed use. Develop policies to address appropriate mix of uses. Policy discussion should address historic nature of Sunset Drive in and ensure site can still accommodate Homeless Services center. Provide bike connections as called for in bicycle transportation plan. PH1-197 L Dalidio Support consideration of a mix of uses through LUE policies with significant open space/agricultural (at least 50%) component. Alt. L5 without specific direction of pafticular sizes or shapes. Residential component to be consistent with applicable airpod policies. PH1-198 M Pacific Beach School Site Policy development to Support consideration of Commercial Retail fronting LOVR and Froom Ranch and park to serve neiqhborhood. ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 19 Council Resolution No. 10468 (2013 Series) Page 5 PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-198 N Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Support consideration of mixed use in the context with the Dalidio propefty 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 consideration of 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 consideration of a modified Alternative P-5 with medium high density residential infill housing with open space. PH1-199 o MASP Policy to support consideration of changes to MASP to allow increased density on eastern portion of MASP area, PH1-199 R Tank Farm @ Broad Support consideration of 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. ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 20 Council Resolution No. 10468 (2013 Series) Page 6 PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-199 S Avila Ranch Area Support consideration of 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. PH1-193 1 Boysen & Santa Rosa Support consideration of 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. PH1-193 2 Realign Ghorro, Boysen, and Broad Support consideration of alternative 2-3 realignment of Chorro and Broad and Boysen. PH1-194 3 Potential Ramp closures at HVVY 101 and SR1 Support consideration of 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. Prior to full implementation, staff to focus on low cosUlow impact solutions PH1-194 4 Broad & HWY 101 Ramp closure Support consideration of 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. PH1-194 5 Convert Marsh & Higuera to 2 Way (Santa Rosa to Calif.) Support consideration of two way vehicular circulation of Marsh and Higuera between Santa Rosa and California. ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 21 Council Resolution No. 10468 (2013 Series) Page 7 PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-194 6 Transit Center location on Santa Rosa and Higuera Support consideration of 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 consideration of alternatives 7-2 and 7-3 (varying degrees of streets affected). Analyze full closure of roadways. Develop policy direction regarding desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment for the area. PH1-194 I Realign Bianchi and Pismo Support consideration of 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. Potential to realign Madonna to connect with Bridge Street may better address some pedestrian and bike connections. PH1-196 10 Bishop St. Extension Evaluate elimination of Bishop Street bridge over railroad tracks and consider road diet for Johnson Ave. Current Circulation Element has Bishop Street extending over railroad tracks via bridqe. PH1-196 11 Victoria connection to Emily Support consideration of Victoria connection to Emily. Council Resolution 10460 ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 22 Council Resolution No. 10468 (2013 Series) Page 8 PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-196 12 Broad Street- consolidate access Supporl consideration of Broad Street consolidation of access points. Council Resolution 10460 PH1-196 13 Orcutt Road Overpass Keep facility as pad of Circulation Element. Do not consider removing facility due to concerns about increasing rail traffic. Overpass is currently part of Circulation Element PH1-198 14 Froom connect to Oceanaire neighborhood Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity only. Neighborhood input opposed to vehicular connections and is concerned about culthrough 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; whether an internal east-west or loop road is needed to connect these roads on the Dalidio property; and minimizing impact of road extensions on AG/OS land. PH1-199 17 Realign Vachel Lane Supporl consideration of alternative 17-2Vachel to Higuera connection as a "back up" alternative in the event Buckley Road does not connect to S. Higuera. ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 23 Council Resolution No. 10468 (2013 Series) Page 9 PAGE #LAND USE ITEM CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOTES PH1-199 18 N-S connect¡on between Tank Farm and Buckley Support consideration of alternative 18-2 creating a north-south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley for future connectivity. PH1-199 19 Buckley to LOVR connections Support consideration of alternatives 19-2 (Buckley to Higuera) and 19-3 (Higuera to LOVR behind Los Verdes - 101 bypass) ATTACHMENT 4 PH1 - 24           Wo r k s h o p  5 Pu b l i c  In p u t  20 1 3  12  10 e  RR R . d o c x     Page 1    Pu b l i c  Wo r k s h o p  #5 ,  (F u t u r e  Fa i r  3)      De c e m b e r  2,  20 1 2    Th e   Ci t y   of   Sa n   Lu i s   Ob i s p o   ho s t e d   th e   fi f t h   in   a  se r i e s   of   si x   co m m u n i t y   wo r k s h o p s   on   th e   de v e l o p m e n t   of   th e   Ge n e r a l   Pl a n   La n d   Us e   an d   Ci r c u l a t i o n   El e m e n t s   (L U C E )   up d a t e .    Th i s   wo r k s h o p ,   re f e r r e d   to   as   Fu t u r e   Fa i r  3,   wa s   he l d   at   th e   Ci t y / C o u n t y   Li b r a r y   (9 9 5   Pa l m   St r e e t )   an d   ra n   fr o m   1: 0 0   to   5: 0 0  pm .   Ap p r o x i m a t e l y   12 5   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   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   Ta s k   Fo r c e   (T F ‐LU C E )   me m b e r s   at t e n d e d   th e   wo r k s h o p ,   su p p o r t e d   by   Ci t y  st a f f  an d  me m b e r s  of  th e  co n s u l t i n g  te a m .   Th e   Fu t u r e   Fa i r   fo c u s   wa s   to   lo o k   FO R W A R D   to   th e   Ci t y ’ s   fu t u r e   de v e l o p m e n t   an d   ev o l u t i on   as   it   ap p l i e s   to   La n d   Us e   an d   Ci r c u l a t i o n .    Th e   ob j e c t i v e s  of  th e  wo r k s h o p  we r e  as  fo l l o w s .   Ob j e c t i v e  1:    Up d a t e   th e   co m m u n i t y   on   th e   cu r r e n t   st a t u s   of   th e   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   an d   po l i c y  up d a t e s .   Ob j e c t i v e  2:    In t r o d u c e   th e   co m m u n i t y   to   th e   En v i r o n m e n t a l   Im p a c t   Re p o r t   pr o c e s s   an d   th e   as s o c i a t e d   No t i c e   of  Pr e p a r a t i o n .   Th e   wo r k s h o p   wa s   co n d u c t e d   in   an   op e n   ho u s e   fo r m a t   us i n g   tw o   la r g e   roo m s   at   th e   li b r a r y .    In s i d e  th e  ro o m s  we r e  fo u r  st a t i o n s .   1) Ci r c u l a t i o n   El e m e n t   Po l i c y   Up d a t e s   Re v i e w   of   pr o p o s e d   po l i c y   up d a t e s   in   th e  Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t .   2) La n d   Us e   El e m e n t   Po l i c y   Up d a t e s   Re v i e w   of   pr o p o s e d   po l i c y   up d a t e s   in   th e  La n d Us e  El e m e n t .   3) 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   Re v i e w   of   Ci t y   Co u n c i l   di r e c t i o n   re g a r d i n g  th e  LU C E  al t e r n a t i v e s .   4) No t i c e   of   Pr e p a r a t i o n   fo r   th e   Pr o g r a m   En v i r o n m e n t a l  Im p a c t  Re p o r t    In t r o d u c t i o n   to   th e   No t i c e   of   Pr e p a r a t i o n   fo r   th e   En v i r o n m e n t a l   Im p a c t   Re p o r t   wi t h   th e   op p o r t u n i t y   fo r   th e   pu b l i c   to   pr o v i d e   co m m e n t   on   im p o r t a n t   to pi c s   to   re v i e w   in   th e   En v i r o n m e n t a l  Im p a c t  Re p o rt .   Pa r t i c i p a n t s   we r e   en c o u r a g e d  to move between  th e   st a t i o n s   an d   po s t e r s  at their own pace.  In  ea c h   ro o m   an d   at   ea c h  poster, participants were  en c o u r a g e d   to   as k   questions to one of the City  st a f f   or   co n s u l t i n g   team members present.  A  co m m e n t   bo x   wa s  provided for submitting  co m m e n t s   re g a r d i n g  the information presented  or   an y   ot h e r   to p i c   related to the LUCE update  (c o m m e n t s  re c e i v e d  are presented as stated later  in  th i s  wo r k s h o p  su m m a r y ) .   Th e   op e n   ho u s e   ra n  between 1:00 and 4:45 pm.   A  pr e s e n t a t i o n   on   th e  next steps in the process  wa s   pr o v i d e d   to   th o s e  in attendance between  4: 4 5  an d  5: 0 0  pm .     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 25         Page 2               Ph o t o s  of  Fu t u r e  Fa i r  3 ac t i v i t i e s     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 26         Page 3    St a t i o n  1  Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t  Po l i c y  Up d a t e s      OB J E C T I V E   Th e  ob j e c t i v e  of  th i s  st a t i o n  wa s  to  ga i n  in p u t  on  th e  no t a b l e  po l i c y  ch a n g e s  pr o p o s e d  in  th e  Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t  up d a t e .    Th e  po l i c i e s  presented were as edited  by  th e  Ta s k  Fo r c e  fo r  th e  LU C E  (T F ‐LU C E ) .    Ov e r  th e  co u r s e  of  se v e r a l  me e t i n g s ,  th e  TF ‐LU C E  re v i e w e d  po l i c y  ch a n g e s  pr o p o s e d  by  City Staff / consulting team  an d  th e y  ha v e ma d e  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  th e y  fe l t  we r e  ap p r o p r i a t e  to  re f l e c t  th e  ne e d s  of  th e  co m m u n i t y .   FO R M A T   No t a b l e  Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t  po l i c y  up d a t e s  we r e  pr e s e n t e d  in  po s t e r  fo r m a t  wi t h  re v i s i o n s  to  th e  el e c t r o n i c  do c u m e n t  (r e d l i n e  / st r i k e o u t ) .   The posters  fo c u s e d  on  pr o p o s e d  ne w  po l i c y  fo r  Mu l t i ‐Mo d a l  Le v e l  of  Se r v i c e  (M M L O S )  st a n d a r d s .    Wh e r e a s  Le v e l  of  Se r v i c e  st a n d a r d s  in  th e  cu r r e n t  General Plan apply  le t t e r  gr a d e s  to  au t o m o b i l e  tr a f f i c  co n d i t i o n s  ba s e d  on  ea s e  of  mo v e m e n t ,  MM L O S  st a n d a r d s  al so  ap p l y  le t t e r  gr a d e s  to  tr a f f i c  co n d i t i o n s  for bikes, pedestrians,  an d  pu b l i c  tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  (i e ,  th e  co m p l e t e  tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  sy s t e m ) .       In p u t  Re c e i v e d   Th e  fo l l o w i n g  is  in p u t  re c e i v e d  fr o m  th e  pu b l i c  re g a r d i n g  th e  pr o p o s e d   Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t  po l i c y  up d a t e s  (c o m m e n t s  ar e  un e d i t e d ) .    Pl e a s e  in c l u d e  as  ma n y  Cl a s s ‐1 bi k e  pa t h s  fo r  th e  20 3 5  pl a n  fo r   th e  ag i n g  SL O  ac t i v e  po p u l a t i o n  an d  fo r  th e  pr e d i c t e d ,  fo r w a r d   th i n k i n g  ne w  re s i d e n t s  an d  ch i l d r e n !    Po l i c y  Is s u e s   Ne w  an d  re m o d e l e d  – Bu i l d i n g s / B u s i n e s s ,  Pu b l i c  Bu i l d i n g s  et c .   sh o u l d  re q u i r e  Bi c y c l e  Pa r k i n g  of  Em p l o y e e s  an d  Te n a n t s  an d  in   ad d i t i o n  Bi k e  Pa r k i n g  fo r  Vi s i t o r s ,  Sh o p p e r s  an d  Bu s i n e s s  vi s i t o r s   Ba s e d  on   ‐Ca r  Ve h i c l e  Pa r k i n g   ‐Po p u l a t i o n  wo r k i n g  in  Bu i l d i n g   ‐Sq .  Ft .  of  To t a l  Co m p l e x  or  ea c h  su b s e t  of  co m p l e x    Ag g r e s s i v e  an d / o r  sp e e d i n g  ve h i c l e s  are a #1 issue with cyclists  Wh a t  po l i ci e s / f a c i l i t i e s  ar e  pr o p o s e d  to Control vehicular  tr a f f i c ?   Ro a d  di e t s   Bi k e  La n e s   Tr a f f i c  ca l m i n g   Re d u c e d  sp e e d  li m i t s   Tr a f f i c  Ci r c l e / R o u n d a b o u t s   No  mo r e  4/ 6  La n e  St r e e t   Pr o v i d e  Fo r  Ro a d  Di e t s    No r t h  Bo u n d  Hi g u e r a  fr o m  Br i d g e  St r e e t  to South Street exist a  fu l l  bi k e  la n e  to  no n e x i s t e n t  bi k e  la n e .   Provide for continuous  Cl a s s  2 Bi k e  La n e s  on  Hi g u e r a  no r t h  and southbound from  Br i d g e  St r e e t  to  So u t h  St r e e t .    A mo r e  bi k e  fr i e n d l y  Ro u t e  is  Br o a d  Street from Foothill south  to  fr e e w a y .    Re m o v e  fr e e w a y  on / o f f  ramps and provide grade  se p a r a t e d  bi k e / p e d  cr o s s i n g  of  US  10 1  via Broad Street. ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 27         Page 4     Cr o s s i n g  of  HW Y  1 at  Bo y s e n  ne e d e d   Hw y  1 – Ch o r r o  co n n e c t i o n  bl o c k e d  at  Hi g h l a n d  Dr i v e  cu t   op e n i n g  in  is l a n d  to  al l o w  bi c y c l i s t  to  ga i n  ac c e s s  to  Ch o r r o  an d   po i n t s  so u t h .    Sa f e t y  Cr o s s i n g  ov e r  US  HW Y 1  fr o m  Fo o t h i l l / C h o r r o  Ar e a  to   St e n n e r  Gl e n  Ar e a      Or c u t t  Rd  Ov e r p a s s  ov e r  RR  so r e l y  ne e d e d  Bi c y cl e  fa c i l i t i e s   di s c o n t i n u o u s  fr o m  RR Tr a i l  so u t h  la c k i n g  sa f e  co n n e c t i o n  fr o m   RR B i k e  Tr a i l  to :    1)  Or c u t t  Rd  to  Jo h n s o n   2)  Sa c r a m e n t o  Rd  So u t h    In t e r s e c t i o n  Is s u e s  fo r  Pe d e s t r i a n s  an d  Cy c l i s t s   1)  Hi g u e r a  an d  Ma d o n n a  al l  di r e c t i o n s   2)  Ma d o n n a  Ro a d  fr o m  Hi g u e r a  to  LO V R  la r k i n g  cr o s s i n g s  fo r   Pe d s  & bi k e s   3)  Ma d o n n a  an d  LO V R La ck i n g  Bi k e  La n e s  an d  Le f t  Tu r n  Bi k e   La n e    Th e r e  is  an  ov e r a l l  as s u m p t i o n  th a t  more people means more  ve h i c l e  tr i p s  an d  ne e d  fo r  pa r k i n g .    The plan should assume that  th e s e  po l i c i e s  wi l l  re d u c e  ve h i c l e  tr i p s  accordingly.  No free  pa r k i n g ! !    Fr e e  pa r k i n g  is  th e  dr u g  th a t  keeps solo motorists  ad d i c t e d .    To o  mu c h  pr e c i o u s  sp a c e  is already devoted to the  au t o m o b i l e .      SL O C O G  re c e n t l y  is s u e d  a bi c y c l e  su r v e y  that identified  ag g r e s s i v e  an d  sp e e d i n g  mo t o r i s t s  as  the No. 1 reason people  do n ’ t  ri d e  or  do n ’ t  ri d e  mo r e .    I do n ’ t  see any policies that  sp e c i f i c a l l y  ad d r e s s  ho w  in f r a s t r u c t u r e  will slow down  mo t o r i s t s .    Al so ,  is  it  ap p r o p r i a t e  to  include public education  an d  en f o r c e m e n t  to  en c o u r a g e  mo t o r i s t s  to switch to walk,  bi k e ,  or  ta k e  tr a n s i t  an d  ci t e  mo t o r i s t s  and cyclists who don’t  fo l l o w  ru l e s  of  th e  ro a d .    Lo v e  th e  Bi c y c l e  LO S ‐pr o g r e s s i v e !         ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 28         Page 5    St a t i o n  2  La n d  Us e  El e m e n t  Po l i c y  Up d a t e s   OB J E C T I V E   Th e  ob j e c t i v e  of  th i s  st a t i o n  wa s  to  ga i n  in p u t  on  th e  no t a b l e  po l i c y  ch a n g e s  pr o p o s e d  in  th e  La n d  Us e  El e m e n t  up d a t e .    Th e  po l i c i e s  presented were as edited  by  th e  TF ‐LU C E .    Ov e r  th e  co u r s e  of  se v e r a l  me e t i n g s ,  th e  TF ‐LU C E  re v i e w e d  po l i c y  ch a n g e s  pr o p o s e d  by  Ci t y  St a f f  / co n s u l t i n g  te a m  and they have made  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  th e y  fe l t  we r e  ap p r o p r i a t e  to  re f l e c t  th e  ne e d s  of  th e  co m m u n i t y .   FO R M A T   No t a b l e  La n d  Us e  El e m e n t  po l i c y  up d a t e s  we r e  pr e s e n t e d  in  po s t e r  fo r m a t  wi t h  re v i s i o n s  to  th e  el e c t r o n i c  do c u m e n t  (r e d l i n e  st r i k e o u t ) .   Posters included  po l i c y  up d a t e s  fo r  Do w n t o w n ,  Ne i g h b o r h o o d  Co m p a t i b i l i t y ,  He a l t h y  Co m m u n i t i e s ,  Su s t a i n a b i l i t y ,  Ni g h t l i f e  Sa f e t y ,  an d  Ai r p o r t  Co m p a t i b i l i t y .    In p u t  Re c e i v e d   Th e  fo l l o w i n g  is  in p u t  re c e i v e d  fr o m  th e  pu b l i c  re g a r d i n g  th e  pr o p o s e d   Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t  po l i c y  up d a t e s  (c o m m e n t s  ar e  un e d i t e d ) .    A ma j o r i t y  of  re s i d e n t s  an d  bu s i n e s s  ow n e r s  we r e  wi l l i n g  to  pa y   mo r e  fo r  on l y  2 th i n g s :  pa y i n g  mo r e  fo r  ac q u i r i n g  an d   ma i n t a i n i n g  op e n  sp a c e  fo r  pa r k s  an d  hi l l s i d e s / a n d  pa y i n g  mo r e   fo r  ac q u i r i n g  an d  ma i n t a i n  op e n  sp a c e  fo r  th e  ci t y  gr e e n b e l t .    Pr o t e c t i n g  op e n  sp a c e  ha b i t a t  is  th e  to p  co m m u n i t y  va l u e  an d   th e  EI R  sh o u l d  re f l e c t  th a t .    Th e  en v i r o n m e n t a l  ev a l u a t i o n   sh o u l d  no t  be  li m i t e d  to  “s i g n i f i c a n t ”  wi l d l i f e  on l y .    Re s i d e n t s   ra t e d  th e  na t u r a l  en v i r o n m e n t  (a i r  qu a li t y  & op e n  sp a c e )  as   ha v i n g  th e  #1  mo s t  im p o r t a n t  im p a c t  on  th e i r  qu a l i t y  of  li f e .    Do w n t o w n   Ne w  & ex i s t i n g  de v e l o p m e n t  sh a l l  be  de s i g n e d  an d  op e r a t e  to   be  su b o r d i n a t e  an d  su p p o r t i v e  of  mi x e d ‐us e  ho u s i n g .    Ho u s i n g   vi a b i l i t y  sh a l l  be  hi g h e r  pr i o r i t y  th a n  ou t d o o r  ef f e c t s  of   en t e r t a i n m e n t  us e s  (b a r s ,  ni g h t c l u b s )     In c o m p a tib l e  De v e l o p m e n t   Ke e p  th e  de l et e d  ch a r a c t e r  po l i c y  A only use “shall”.  ARC needs  mo r e  fi r m  gu i d a n c e ,  as  do  ar c h i t e c t s .   Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   A br o a d  po l i c y  to  re s p e c t  li m i t e d  re s o u r c e s  is needed: the City  sh a l l  li m i t  gr o w t h  to  th e  lo n g ‐ra n g e ,  sustainable capabilities of  re s o u r c e s  su c h  as  wa t e r  su p p l y .    My  program for sustainable  ca p a c i t i e s  sh a l l  be  10 0  ye a r s ,  si m i l a r  to the transitional concept  of  se v e n  ge n e r a t i o n  be i n g  pr o t e c t e d .    Qu e s t i o n s  to  co n s i d e r :   1.  Co u n c i l  di r e c t i o n  wa s  to  fo c u s  on  infill.  However, previous  co u n c i l  ap p r o v e d  la r g e  ex p a n s i o n s  of the LAFCO Sphere of  In f l u e n c e .    Sh o u l d n ’ t  th o s e  “S O I ”  bo u n d a r i e s  be brought in to  av o i d  de v e l o p e r  pr o p o s a l s  to  exp a n d  into the Edna and Los  Os o s  Va l l e y s ?   2.  Do e s  th e  Ci t y  wa t e r  su p p l y  al l o w  for more development than  th e  ex i s t i n g  pl a n  + SO I  po t e n t i a l ?    With new plan proposals, how  mu c h  “e x t r a ”  wa t e r  wi l l  be  av a i l a b l e  beyond “build‐out”? Will ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 29         Page 6    th e r e  be  a su s t a i n a b l e ,  ve r y  lo n g ‐te r m  ca p a c i t y ?    Sh o u l d  th e   su p p l y  be  cu t  ba c k ?    Ci t y  De s i g n    I mi s s e d  an  or g a n i z i n g  de s i g n  fo r  th e  Ci t y .   ‐Id e n t i f y  ex i s t i n g  ne i g h b o r h o o d  ce n t e r s  an d  wa l k a b l e  ar e a s   wi t h i n  a 5 to  10  mi n u t e  wa l k .   ‐Id e n t i f y  po t e n t i a l  ne w  ne i g h b o r h o o d  ce n t e r s  (m a y b e  al r e a d y  in   lo w  in t e n s i t y  de v . ) ,  to  cr ea t e  th e  pa t t e r n of  a wa l k a b l e  ci t y ”   ‐Ex a m i n e  zo n i n g  & im p l e m e n t i n g  po l i c i e s  th a t  co u l d  le a d  to   re d e v e l o p m e n t  of  th e s e  po t e n t i a l  ce n t e r s .   ‐Se t  po l i c i e s  to  do  th e  re f o r m  if  yo u  ca n ’ t  du r i n g  th i s  up d a t e ,  as   an  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  pr o g r a m .    Ar e  th e r e  po l i c i e s  yo u  ca n  co n s i d e r  th a t  wo u l d  fa c i l i t a t e  th e   ab i l i t y  of  yo u n g  pr o f e s s i o n a l s  to  pu r ch a se ho m e s  in  th e  Ci t y ?    Re v i e w  or d i n a n c e s  on  ke e p i n g  be e s  to  en c o u r a g e  be e  ke e p i n g    Cu r r e n t l y  on l y  co u n t y  la n d  is  pr o t e c t e d  in  th e  “r i g h t  to  fa r m ”   wh i c h  pr o t e c t s  ag r i c u l t u r a l  en t e r p r i s e s  fr o m  co m p l a i n t s   re g a r d i n g  no i s e ,  sm e l l  et c .    Co n s i d e r  a po l i c y  of  th i s  so r t  to   su p p o r t  ur b a n  ag r i c u l t u r e ,  an d  en c o u r a ge fo o d  pr o d u c t i o n .    St r e e t l i g h t i n g  in  Re s i d e n t i a l  Ne i g h b o r h o o d s  ad j a c e n t  to   do w n t o w n  is  to t a l l y  un a c c e p t a b l e  fo r  pe d e s t r i a n s .    Th i s   si t u a t i o n  is  da n g e r o u s  an d  a gr e a t l y  deters walking at night.   Th i s  sh o u l d  be  ad d r e s s e d  as  a co m p o n e n t  of the circulation  el e m e n t .    Th a n k  yo u  fo r  ha v i n g  th i s  ev e n t  an d  also having the open  me e t i ngs .   I ha v e  2 ma i n  ob j e c t i o n s  to  th e  pr e s e ntation.  1.  I do n ’ t  se e  wh e r e  cu r r e n t  pr o b l e m s  (such as the number of  st u d e n t s  li v i n g  of f  ca m p u s ,  ho m e l e s s ,  etc.) are explicitly  ad d r e s s e d .   2.  Al l  of  th e  pr e s e n t a t i o n s  ar e  bi a s e d  (in language, focus,  or g a n i z a t i o n ,  et c . )  in  fa v o r  of  de v e l o p m e n t .   I don’t see anything  ex p l i cit  in  pr e s e r v i n g  an y t h i n g  ex i s t i n g .    (l i f e s t y l e ,  ne i g h b o r h o o d s ,  am b i a n c e ,  etc.)  [C o m m e n t e r ’ s  na m e  an d  ad d r e s s  re m o v e d  for privacy]   Ne i g h b o r h o o d  Co m p a t i b i l i t y   I li v e  in  Al t a  Vi s t a  ne i g h b o r h o o d ,  in  an area zoned R‐1.  I don’t  kn o w  wh e r e  yo u  wo u l d  do  “i n f i l l ”  he r e .   But the neighborhood  sh o u l d  no t  be  fu r t h e r  “s t u d e n t i f i e d ”  – No matter what form or  de s i g n  yo u  us e  he r e .        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 30         Page 7    St a t i o n  3  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   OB J E C T I V E   Th e  ob j e c t i v e  of  th i s  st a t i o n  wa s  to  pr e s e n t  th e  fi n a l  re c o m m e n d a t i o n s  on  th e  ph y s i c a l  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  al t e r n a t i v e s  presented are the  su m m a t i o n  of  in p u t  pr o v i d e d  by  th e  pu b l i c  at  Fu t u r e  Fa i r s  1 an d  2 (D e c e m b e r  20 1 2  an d  Ju n e  20 1 3 ,  re s p e c t i v e l y ) ,  by  th e  TF ‐LU C E ,  Pl a n n i n g  Commission, and  di r e c t i o n  fr o m  th e  Ci t y  Co u n c i l .    Th e s e  ar e  ju s t  di r e c t i o n  on  th e  al t e r n a t i v e s  to  be  co n s i d e r e d  in  th e En v i r o n m e n t a l  Im p a c t Re p o r t ,  as no final decisions have yet  be e n  ma d e .    FO R M A T   Th e  va r i o u 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 s  we r e  pr e s e n t e d  in  po s t e r  fo r m a t  wi t h  ma p s  of  ex i s t i n g  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  de s i g n a t i o n s  and proposed changes,  de s c r i p t i o n s  of  th e  ch a n g e  (b a s e d  on  Ci t y  Co u n c i l  re s o l u t i o n s ) ,  an d  pr o p o s e d  po l i c y ,  as  ap p r o p r i a t e  to  th e  si t e  (b a s e d  on  TF ‐LU C E  in p u t s ) .      In p u t  Re c e i v e d   Th e  fo l l o w i n g  is  in p u t  re c e i v e d  fr o m  th e  pu b l i c  re g a r d i n g  th e  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 a n k  yo u  fo r  ma k i n g  su r e  th e  CR  de v e l o p m e n t  @ th e  “D a l i d i o ”   si t e  is  ad j a c e n t  to  th e  ex i s t i n g  pa v e m e n t .  Th e  vi s t a  of  op e n  sp a c e   fr o m  10 1  sh o u l d  be  pr e s e r v e d .    I li k e  th e  mo r e  li m i t e d  do g l e g  re m o v a l  by  mi s s i o n  pl a za.    Th e   mo r e  ex t en d e d  on e  sh o u l d  on l y  be  wi t h  bo l l a r d s  th a t  ca n  be   ra i s e d  fo r  sp e c i a l  ev e n t s ,  bu t  le a v e  Br o a d  an d  Mo n t e r e y  op e n  on   re g u l a r  da y s .    Th e  ch i l d r e n ’ s  mu s e u m ,  st o r e s ,  an d  re s t a u r a n t s  an d   so o n  to  be  th e  li t t l e  th e a t e r  an d  MU  de v e l o p m e n t  re q u i r e  us i n g   th e s e  st r e e t s  – Bi g  su pp o r t e r  of  Bo y s e n  Av e  & Sa n t a  Ro s a   Cr o s s i n g .    It ’ s  he l l  ri g h t  no w .    Pl e a s e  cl a r i f y  AS A P  th e  po t e n t i a l  vi a b i l i t y  of  Pr a d o  Ro a d  ov e r p a s s   vs .  in t e r c h a n g e .    Fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  (d e v e l o p e r s )  sh o u l d  ha v e  a  cl e a r  pi c t u r e  no w  of  wh a t  is  or  is  no t  vi a b l e  in  ac c o r d a n c e  w/   Ca l t r a n s .    Up p e r  Mo n t e r e y   Th e  to u r i s t  de v e l o p me n t  pr o p o s e d  is  much too intensive, and  ha r m s  ad j a c e n t  ne i g h b o r h o o d s  to  ea c h  side.  Intensity needs to  be  di a l e d  ba c k .    Th i s  wo u l d  ma k e  a go o d  “motel park” district of  le s s e r  de n s i t y .    Cl o s i n g  ra m p s  on  10 1   Th i s  is  a go o d  mo v e  – ge t  th r u  tr a f f i c  from the Freeway out of  ne i g h b o r h o o d s  an d  on t o  Sa n ta Ro s a ,  where it belongs.  Close all  bu t  on e  se t  of  ra m p s  be t w e e n  Ca l i f o r n i a  and Marsh.   Br o a d  St  & Hi g h w a y  1 Ra m p  Cl o s u r e  #4  ye s ,  pl e a s e !    I’ m  in  su p p o r t  of  th e  fr e e w a y  clsoures for all the  ne i g h b o r h o o d s .    Di r e c t  th e  tr a f f i c  to  th e  main thoroughfare of  Sa n t a  Ro s a .    [C o m m e n t e r ’ s  na m e an d  add r e s s re m o v e d  for privacy]      ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 31         Page 8     Bo y s e n / C h o r r o / B r o a d   I’ m  co n c e r n e d  ab o u t  an  in c r e a s e  in  tr a f f i c  th r o u g h  th e s e   ne i g h b o r h o o d s  an d  ho w  we  ar e  al r e a d y  ex p e r i e n c i n g  a la r g e   vo l u m e  of  tr a f f i c .    I’ m  co n c e r n e d  ab o u t  de s t r u c t i o n  of  lo n g t i m e   re s i d e n t  Ar l e n e  Za n c h u c k ’ s  ho m e .    Sh e  ha s  li v e d  he r e  an d   co n t r i b u t e d  to  ou r  co m m u n i t y  fo r  a lo n g  ti m e .    Th i s  se e m s  li k e  it   co u l d  be  re s o lv e d  by  pu tt i ng  a de d i c a t e d  le f t  tu r n  si g n a l  fr o m   Fo o t h i l l  on t o  Ch o r r o  ra t h e r  th a n  st r e e t  cl o s u r e  & re d i r e c t i o n  of   tr a f f i c .    Ne i g h b o r s  & ne i g h b o r h o o d s  ar e  pr e c i o u s  & sh o u l d  be   pr o t e c t e d .  Tr a f f i c  sh o u l d  be  di r e c t e d  on t o  ma i n  th o r o u g h f a r e s   su c h  as  Sa n t a  Ro s a  & Ca l i f o r n i a .    [C o m m e n t e r ’ s  na m e  an d  ad d r e s s  re m o v e d  fo r  pr i v a c y ]    Bo y s e n / C h o r ro / B r o a d   ‐Re l a i g n m e n t  to  tu r n  th e s e  st r e e t s  in t o  th o r o u g h f a r e s   1.  Ge t  th i s  ou t  of  th e  LU CE   2.  Ge t  it  ou t  of  th e  EI R .    On c e  in c l u d e d  in  th e  EI R ,  th e  pr o j e c t ’ s  a  do n e  de a l  an d  no  fu r t h e r  CE Q A  wo r k  wi l l  be  re q u i r e d .    Th i s  fa s t ‐ tr a c k s  a ba d  pr o j e c t .    Fo o t h i l l  ar e a  B  mi x e d  us e  ho u s i n g  on  fo o t h i l l  at  Sa n t a  Ro s a  – WO W !    Tr a f f i c  is  al r e a d y  to u g h .    Wh a t  wi l l  re s i de n t s  (p e r m . ) do  to  ge t  ou t   of  me s s ?    Bo y s e n / C h o r r o / B r o a d   Th i s  re a l i g n m e n t ,  wh i c h  is  de s i g n e d  to  in c r e a s e  ne i g h b o r h o o d   th r u ‐tr a f f i c ,  is  a pe r f e c t  ex a m p l e  of  wh a t ’ s  wr o n g  wi t h  th i s   up d a t e !    TH E  PE O P L E  AF F E C T E D  HA V E  BE V E R  BE E N  NO T I F I E D  TH I S   IS  UN D E R  CO N S I D E R A T I O N ,  an d  th u s  ha v e  ne v e r  be e n  ab l e  to   vo i c e  wh a t  wi l l  be  ne a r ‐unani m o u s  an g e r  at  ho w  th e  ci t y  wo u l d   se l l ‐ou t  th e i r  ne i g h b o r h o o d .    Th i s  is  th e  wr o n g  wa y  to  do  th i s  so r t   of  “r e s i d e n t ‐ce n t e r e d ”  up d a t e !    Mo n t e r e y  St r e e t  Up p e r  Ar e a :  Co n c e r n s   En h a n c e m e n t  + re v i t a l i z a t i o n  ar e  no t  contingent on new/larger  ho t e l s ,  co n f e r e n c e  ce n t e r  + re s t a u r a n t s .   Take care of current  is s u e s  be f o r e  bu i l d i n g  ne w  bu s i n e s s e s .   If increased density does  ha p p e n  – wh o  wi l l  be  ab l e  to  wo r k  th e r e  for low wages – no  ho u s i n g / l o w  co s t .    Th a t  is n ’ t  su s t a i n a b l e  housing.  Nosie‐traffic‐ cr i m e  ar e  al r e a d y  pr o b l e m s  – in c r e a s e d  density won’t help us as  re s i d e n t s .    Ca l  Po l y  + Ci t y  ne e d  to  wo r k  together to improve what  we  li v e  wi t h  al r e a d y .    Th a n k  yo u .    I re c o m m e n d  th e  cl o s u r e  of  Mo n t e r e y  St and 2 sections of Broad  St  – to  ma x i m i z e  th e  ci v i c  qu a l i t y  of  Mission Plaza (Dog Leg) 7   Fo o t h i l l  Ar e a   1‐Tr a f f i c  Fl o w  as  de p i c t e d  on  bo t h  si t e s  don’t appear to improve.  2‐Tr a f f i c  Fl o w  fr o m  Fo o t h i l l  to  Hi g h l a n d  and Santa Rosa.   Ma k e  mi n i m u m  le v e l  fo r  Ci t y  de s i g n a t e d  bike route – C not D   16  De s c r i p t i o n  sh o u l d  (s h a l l )  in c l u d e  – “minimizing impact on  ex i s t i n g  ad j a c e n t  ne i g h b o r hoo d s  – no t  only ag lands.   I op p o s e  pr o p o s e d  ci r c u l a t i o n  ch a n g e s  to Broad Street which  wo u l d  pr o h i b i t  le f t  tu r n s  on t o  Mi t c h e l l  Dr. & Caudill St. as part of  th e  Br o a d  St r e e t  Sp e c i f i c  Pl a n .    A si g n a l  on Broad would be  pr e f e r a b l e .    Ha v i n g  a no  le f t  tu r n  on t o  Mitchell means also I could  tu r n  le ft  on t o  Br o a d  fr o m  Mi t c h e l l ,  wh e n  to travel downtown, I  wo u l d  ha v e  to  do u b l e ‐ba c k  to  La w t o n ,  go down to South St and  tr y  to  tu r n  ri g h t  th e r e  wh e r e  tr a f f i c  is  always backed up, creating  a ma z e  of  dr i v i n g  ef f o r t s .    Th a n k  yo u  – Cindy Jacinth   Ho w  ar e  yo u  pr o t e c t i n g  th e ai r  in  th e city by having 2000 more  ca r s  tr a v e l  do w n  Ch o r r o  in  th e  Fo o t h i l l  Area?   I do n ’ t  se e  a lo t  of  op p o r t u n i t i e s  fo r  “w a l k e r  friendly” streets in  th e  Fo o t h i l l  ar e a  wi t h  yo u r  pr o p o s e d  design. ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 32         Page 9     We  li v e  in  th e  An h o l m  ar e a  & op p o s e  th e  re a l i g n m e n t  of  Ch o r r o   at  Fo o t h i l l  if  it  wi l l  in c r e a s e  th e  tr a f f i c  in  Ch o r r o  be t w e e n  Fo o t h i l l   & Do w n t o w n .   Fo r  th e  MU  ar e a  at  Sa n t a  Ro s a  & Fo o t h i l l  we  op p o s e  to o  ma n y   ba r s  or  ni g h t s p o t s .   Ke e p  it  al l  pe d e s t r i a n  fr i e n d l y  at  al l  co s t s ,  pl e a s e !    I op p o s e  th e  id ea of  re a l i g n m e n t  in  th e Foothill area – it doesn’t  se e m  to  be  ne c e s s a r y  or  he a l t h y .         ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 33         Page 10    St a t i o n  4  No t i c e  of  Pr e p a r a t i o n  fo r  th e  En v i r o n m e n t a l  Im p a c t  Re p o r t   OB J E C T I V E   Th e  ob j e c t i v e  of  th i s  st a t i o n  wa s  to  in t r o d u c e  th e  No t i c e  of  Pr e p a r a t i o n  (N O P )  fo r  th e  Pr o g r a m  En v i r o n m e n t a l  Im p a c t  Re p o r t  (E I R ) .    The NOP notifies the public  an d  ag e n c i e s  of  th e  Ci t y ’ s  in t e n t  to  pr e p a r e  a Pr o g r a m  EI R  an d  to  ga i n  th e i r  in p u t  on  th e  sc o p e  an d  co n t e n t  of  ne e d e d  en v i r o n m e n t a l  information.  FO R M A T   Th e  NO P  wa s  pr e s e n t e d  in  po s t e r  fo r m a t  an d  in c l u d e d  ba s i c  in f o r m a t i o n  on  th e  NO P  pr o c e s s  as  we l l  as  a di s c u s s i o n  of  po t e n t i a l  en v i r o n m e n t a l  impacts.   Pa r t i c i p a n t s  co u l d  su b m i t  co m m e n t s  re g a r d i n g  po t e n t i a l  en v i r o n m e n t a l  im p a c t s  at  th i s  st a t i o n .    In p u t  Re c e i v e d   Th e  fo l l o w i n g  is  in p u t  re c e i v e d  fr o m  th e  pu b l i c  re g a r d i n g  th e  NO P .    Th e  Pa c i f i c  Be a c h  si t e  wo u l d  be s t  se r v e  th e  pu b l i c  be s t  by  lo w ‐ in c o m e  or  Se c t i o n  8 ho u s i n g  wi t h  a pa r k .    Th i s  wo u l d  su i t  th e   ne i g h b o r h o o d  ne a r  Ta r g e t  be t t e r  th a n  in c r e a s e d  co m m e r c i a l   of f e r i n g s .    Ma n y  mi n i m u m  wa g e  wo r k e r s  co u l d  th e n  wa l k  to   wo r k  an d / o r  ha v e  ea s y  ac c e s s  to  pu b l i c  tr a n s i t .    Pl e a s e  co n t i n ue  to  in c l ud e  as  ma n y  Cl a s s ‐1 bi k e  pa t h s  as   po s s i b l e  fo r  th e  pu b l i c  of  20 3 5 !    Mo r e  re t i r e d  bi k e r s  an d  lo t s  of   fo r w a r d ‐th i n k i n g  yo u n g e r  ne w  re s i d e n t s .    TH A N K S !    It  wo u l d  be  wo n d e r f u l  if  CA L ‐Tr a n s  co u l d  va l i d a t e  or  in v a l i d a t e   th e  Pr a d o  Ro a d  ov e r ‐pa s s  or  in t e r c h a n g e ea r l i e r  ra t h e r  th a n   la t e r .    Th i s  wo u l d  gi v e  th e  pu b l i c  a cl e a r  vi s i o n  of  wh a t  th a t  ar e a   wi l l  lo o k  li k e .    Th e  co n n e c t i o n  of  Pr a d o  Ro a d  @ Br o a d  or  Ta n k  Fa r m  @ Sa n t a   Fe  or  at  In d u s t r i a l  Wa y  wa s  no t  sh o w n .    Pl e a s e  in c l u d e  th a t  in   th e  fu tu re .    Th e  Ch e v r o n  re m e d i a t i o n  wi l l  pu t  th e  “f l o w e r   mo u n d s ”  at  a 3%  gr a d e .    It  se e m s  th a t  ch a n g e  ma y  cr e a t e  be t t e r   vi a b l e  al t e r n a t i v e s  fo r  th e  “N o r t h e r n  Al i g n m e n t . ”    Le t ’ s  pr o t e c t   th e  in t e g r i t y  of  th e  Da m o n  Ga r c i a  sp o r t s  fields and facilitate  tr a f f i c  fl o w  on  Br o a d  St r e e t !    Hy d r o l o g y  an d  H2 O  Qu a l i t y :  RE Q U I R E ,  when possible, that  pe r m e a b l e pa v i n g  be  us e d  to  ab s o r b  rain water.  Mantia 8  SL O W ,  SI N K ,  SP R E A D  th e  wa t e r  if  yo u  cannot collect in $ save it  fo r  dr i e r  ti m e s .     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 34         Page 11    Th e  fo l l o w i n g  it e m s  we r e  pl a c e d  in  th e  co m m e n t  bo x  fo r  th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n   bu t  we r e  in c l u d e d  in  th e  NO P  se c t i o n  ba s e d  on  co n t e n t  ma t t e r .    Fo r  th e  EI R ,  pl e a s e  ma k e  a po i n t  of  co n s i d e r i n g  al l  of  th e  ef f e c t s   th a t  th e  pr o p o s e d  ch a n g e  wi l l  ha v e  on  th e  ex i s t i n g  re s i d e n t i a l   ne i g h b o r h o o d s  an d  ne i g h b o r h o o d  st r e e t s .    Eg .  In c r e a s e d  tr a f f i c   an d  sp e e d  of  ca r s  ef f e c t s  on  ne i g h b o r h o o d  (p e o p l e )  sa f e t y .    Th e  re a c h  an d  de p t h  of  th e  EI R  mu s t  re f l e c t  ou r  co mm u n i t y   va l u e s .    (s e e  at t a c h e d su m a r y )   Th e  Im p o r t a n c e  of  Na t u r a l  Re s o u r c e  Pr o t e c t i o n  to  Ci t y   Re s i d e n t s  & Bu s i n e s s  Ow n e r s   Wh a t  2, 2 0 0  Ci t y  Ho u s e h o l d s  an d  Ci t y  Bu s i n e s s  Ow n e r s  Sa i d   Th e y  Wa n t e d  in  th e  20 1 2  LU C E  Su r v e y …   1.  Re s i d e n t s  & Bu s i n e s s  ow n e r s  ra t e d  th e  “N a t u r a l  En v i r o n m e n t   (a i r  qu a l i t y  & op e n  sp a c e )  “a s  ha v i n g  th e  #1 ,  mo s t  im p o r t a n t ,   im p a c t  on  th ei r  qu a l i ty  of  li f e .    (2 0 1 2  LU CE  Su r v e y  Su m m a r y ,   pg . 4 )   2.  Wh e n  as k e d  wh a t  ad d i t i o n a l  fa c i l i t i e s  an d  se r v i c e s  th e y   wa n t e d  mo r e  of ,  ci t y  re s i d e n t s  an d  ci t y  bu s i n e s s  ow n e r s   su p p o r t e d  on l y  fo u r  ar e a s ;     1.  58 %  su p p o r t e d  ac q u i r i n g  an d  ma i n t a i n i n g  op e n  sp a c e   fo r  pe a k s  an d  hi l l s i d e s .     2.  54 %  su p p o r t e d  acqu i r i ng  an d  ma i n t a i n  op e n  sp a c e   fo r  th e  ci t y  gr e e n b e l t .     3.  53 %  su p p o r t e d  ac q u i r i n g  an d  ma i n t a i n i n g  op e n  sp a c e   fo r  cr e e k s  an d  ma r s h e s     4.  50 %  su p p o r t e d  mo r e  bi c y c l e  in f r a s t r u c t u r e  (2 0 1 2   LU C E  Su r v e y  Su m m a r y ,  pg .  14 )   3.  Wh e n  as k e d  wh a t  th e y  wo u l d  be  wi l l i n g  to  pa y  mo r e  fo r ,  a  ma j o r i t y  of  ci t y  re s i d e nt s  an d  ci t y  bu s i n es s  ow n e r s  su p p o r t e d   on l y  tw o  th i n g s ;     1.  54 %  su p p o r t e d  pa y i n g  mo r e  for acquiring and  ma i n t a i n  op e n  sp a c e  fo r  pe a k s  & Hi l l s i d e s .     2.  52 %  su p p o r t e d  pa y i n g  mo r e  for acquiring and  ma i n t a i n i n g  op e n  sp a c e  fo r  th e  ci t y  greenbelt. (2012 LUCE  Su r v e y  Su m m a r y ,  pg .  15 )     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 35         Page 12    Ot h e r  To p i c 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  to  th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  co m m e n t  bo x  bu t  di d  no t  ha v e  an y  sp e c i f i c  lo c a t i o n  fo r  in c l u s i o n .    Th a n k  yo u  fo r  al l  yo u r  ha r d  wo r k !     Th e  Ch e v r o n  re m e d i a t i o n  wi l l  op e n  up  tr a n s p o r t a t i o n / r o a d  op t i o n s  fo r  th e  Ta n k  Fa r m / M a r g a r i t a / P r a d o  Rd .  Ar e a .    At  what point is the Chevron  Pl a n  an d  th e  Ci t y  Pl a n  go i n g  to  me r g e .    Th e  ex t e n s i o n  of  Pr a d o  Ro a d  wa s  no t  de p i c t e d  on  pl a n s  (T h e  No r t h e r n  Al i gn m e n t ) .    It  se e m s  th a t  co m p r e hen s i v e  EI R  of Prado Road, from Broad  St .  to  Ma d o n n a  is  ma n d a t o r y  as  pa r t  of  th e  LU C E .  20 3 5  pr o c e s s .    Ne e d  fo o d  ou t l e t s  do w n t o w n .    Gr o c e r y  st o r e ,  me a t  ma r k e t ,  gr e e n g r o c e r .    I wo u l d  li k e  to  se e  so m e t h i n g  do n e  to  ad d r e s s  ex c e s s i v e  sp e e d  on  Hi g h  St .    Is  th i s  Fu t u r e  Fa i r  ju s t  a pr i nto u t  of  th e re s u l t s  of  Fu t u r e  Fa i r  2   Pl e a s e  re t h i n k  RT D  go i n g  to  th e  Ai r p o r t  on c e  ag a i n  no w  th a t  th e r e  ar e  mo r e  bu s i n e s s e s  in  th e  Ar e a .        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 36         Page 13          Ci r c u l a t i o n  El e m e n t  Po s t e r s   ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 37         Page 14        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 38         Page 15    ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 39         Page 16          ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 40         Page 17          La n d  Us e  Po l i c y  Po s t e r s       ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 41         Page 18        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 42         Page 19      ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 43         Page 20          ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 44         Page 21          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      ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 45         Page 22        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 46         Page 23     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 47         Page 24     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 48         Page 25     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 49         Page 26     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 50         Page 27     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 51         Page 28     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 52         Page 29     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 53         Page 30     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 54         Page 31     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 55         Page 32     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 56         Page 33        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 57         Page 34      Pl e a s e  se e  th e  ne x t  pa g e .     ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 58         Page 35          No t i c e  of  Pr e p a r a t i o n  Po s t e r s      ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 59         Page 36    ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 60         Page 37        ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 61         Page 38       ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 62         Page 39      ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 63         Page 40    ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 64         Page 41         ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 65         Page 42       ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 66 AGENDA -- CORRESPONDEi Date ' I Item JAN 2 8 2014 E. Jud to City Council, Jan. 28, 2014, Spm Item: LUCE Work, Input into EIR and Traffic Model 1. Thanks, good work so far, but serious questions remain: .Ammw� - Will the great comments of planner Jaime Lopes of Jan. 21 have consequences? Systematic planning, job housing balance etc.? 2. Traffic model: How will the well known statistics below go into the calculations? Americans - especially young people - are driving less and biking more. A SHIFT TO CAR -LITE LIFE �.tk,��r( ."PIt! F'r ISfQ fr- Zif�R.if A7 -tf a Why do we not use the model to test "out of the box" concepts instead of just the politically correct plans? Prado Rd. Fw. Interchange, Prado Rd.; near sport fields, alternatives at Tank Farm /Broad St. Intersection etc. (simulations are INEXPENSIVE and save millions of construction costs). In Model and EIR please apply the planning slogan of Cal Poly President Armstrong: RADICAL TRANSPARENCY! 3. Please put the following mandate into the Circulation Element: "The Urban Street Design Guide" of NACTO 2013 is the basis for SLO. (Many cities and DOTS have already done so) E. Jud, 665 Leff St., 7561729 P .e , ,a JAN 2 8 Wheefin2 Water Outside our Citv Limits: Circulation issues Jan Marx 1 -28 -14 If the City allows any kind of water service to properties outside our city limits, it will be facilitating development next to city limits, and in our greenbelt. (See attached minutes from 1983) This development outside our URL will have need road, bike path and pedestrian connections. It also could create the need for transit. The impacts and growth inducting implications need to be analyzed in the EIR. BACKGROUND "The City Council unanimously prohibited prohibiting the extension of water and sewer services for private use outside of City limits. March 15, 1983. (See CC minutes of 2 -1 -83) 2014 Municipal Code 13.16.010 City not to approve any provision of or entitlement to. After the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the city shall not approve any provision or entitlement to water or sewer service for the use or benefit of properties outside the city limits. (Ord. 951 § 1, 1983) 13.16.020 Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply to: A. Any property duly annexed after the effective date of the ordinance codified herein; B. Any public or private party with which the city had an effective agreement for provision of services prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein; C. Properties which currently receive city water or sewer service without a previously effective agreement; D. Provision of sewer service to the Hidden Hills Mobile Home Park, as provided in the State of California Water Resources Control Board Order. No. WOO 824. (Ord. 951 § 2, 1983) * *The consultant's notes to 1.11.1 (1 -43 or PH 1 -71) say this long standing policy was modified for "style." The consultant states that "Word `potable' added to clarify the service being addressed and changes to the Water and Wastewater Element approved by the Council in 2010" * * This implies that Council approved the wheeling of potable water. This is not true. The Water Element A 7.3.4 says "Consider the potential to deliver available recycled water supplies to customers outside the city limits, including analysis of policy issues, technical concerns and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent with the General Plan." * *The Task Force did not discuss this issue (see notes of November 6, 2013) * *The Planning Commission may have referred to this issue obliquely in the context of urban sprawl, but did not specifically discuss wheeling water. See PH 1 -11, minutes of December 12, 2013 page 3 top paragraph. The PC minutes say that Kim Murry indicated that "the General Plan should provide the policy basis on which to respond to any County proposals" for development on land outside the city URL. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ` VTR Item #--20L. City Council Minutes Tuesday, February 1, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. Page 11 Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Billig, Councilmembers Settle, Dovey, Dunin and Griffin NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. UTILITY SERVICES OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS Council considered an ordinance prohibiting the extension of water and sewer services for private use outside of the City limits. Mayor Billig reviewed for the Council the ordinance provisions. The thrust of her concerns have been the current and future impacts on City residents of premature or ill- conceived projects approved by the County on the City's periphery. Past as well as recently approved projects have created serious potential health and safety problems for the City and its residents relating to waste disposal system failures, inadequate fire protection, water quality control, questionable grading, erosion, and runoff. She wanted a clear message sent to agencies that the City would not be supportive of coming to their rescue with water. Councilman Settle supported this as being a positive effort and could support the ordinance. Councilman Dunin stated he would support the ordinance as it is a standing policy. After brief discussion and on motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Griffin, the following ordinance was introduced: Ordinance No: 951 (1983 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo probibiting the extension of water and sewer services for private use outside of the City limits. Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Griffin, Dovey, Dunin and Mayor Billig NOES: None ABSENT: None 10:40 p.m. City Council convened in Closed Session to discuss Litigation matters. 11:35 p.m. City Council reconvened, all Councilmembers present. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Billig adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, Fepfu ry 8, 1983, at 12:10 p.m. (Pamela Vo es, C i; C rk t c APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 3/15/83 city of Mohns -sml h is owspo Water and Wastewater Table 5: Annual Recycled Water Usage Calendar Year Annual Recycled Water Usage in acre -feet - 2006 7.69 62.36 2007 2008 95.75 2009 137.36 A 7.1 Goal Number of Sites Using Recycled Water 1 I 11 17 Notes: 1- Partial year data reported, October through December 2006_ 2. The City initiated a Construction Water Permit Program (CWPP) on July 1, 2009_ Recycled water usage associated with the CWPP is included with annual recycled water usage. Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010. A 7.1.1 Utilize recycled water for non - potable purposes, thereby offsetting the use of potable water. A 7.1.2 Maximize the use of the City's available recycled water supply for approved uses. A 7.2 Policies A 7.2.1 Recycled Water Supply The City will make available recycled water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law and to supply new non - potable uses. A 7.2.2 Accounting for Recycled Water The -City will add total recycled water usage from the prior year to the Citys water resource availability on an annual basis. A 7.3 Programs A 7.3.1 Expand the recycled water distribution system to serve customers in the Water Reuse Master Plan area. A 7.3.2 Review development proposals for projects within the Water Reuse Master Plan area to ensure recycled water is utilized for appropriate uses. A 7.3.3 Annual recycled water usage will be presented to the City Council as part of the annual Wafer Resources Status Report and will be added to the City's water resource availability per policy 3.2.1. A 7.3.4 Consider the potential to deliver available recycled water supplies to customers outside the city limits, including analysis of policy issues, technical concerns, and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent with the General Plan. 8 -20 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2013 Page 3 Comm. Multari noted that the Commissioners need to refer to the Land Use Map to examine the areas that have not been developed and those that are designated Rural Suburban and Residential Rural. He expressed that these might become areas of urban sprawl. Community Development Deputy Director Murry displayed the map and indicated the areas around the Urban Reserve Line that already have been subdivided. Comm. Draze asked if the City will have input if the County rezones any of these areas. Community Development Deputy Director Murry stated the City is provided a referral from the County for any discretionary project that occurs within the Planning Area. She indicated that the General Plan should provide the policy basis on which to respond to any County proposals. Comm. Multari suggested adding a policy stating that the City does not support further subdivision in the City's sphere of influence area to lots smallerthan 20 acres. Comm. Larson stated that he shares the same concerns and recognizes that this is a very difficult issue. He noted that the intent of Table 2 is to recapitulate the higher County zoning designations and define the City's desire to have lower densities in areas that might affect the City's plans for a green belt. He stated that while the City needs to be able to evaluate anything that affects a green belt around the City, it would be better to recognize the City's goal and develop policies without being so detailed. He supported the inclusion of a general and consistent policy statement and a clear graphic representation about the City's sphere of influence, the City limits, the green belt concept, and LAFC's policies and role. Comm. Stevenson stated that he agrees with Comm. Larson and thinks that Table 2 is not necessary. He noted that the County's policies about agricultural preservation are particularly strong, that the County honors the City's boundaries, and that any development that would come close to City boundaries would result in consultation with the City. He supported language stating the City's desire to preserve rural character of the area and the green belt. Comm. Multari stated that the Task Force struggled with this issue and the map was an attemptto acknowledge development and define the rest of the land as open space. Comm. Draze stated that there is a need to have some influence over lands that are close to, but not within, the City limits. He supported a statement stating that it is the City's desire to have development in these areas with no more than one dwelling per 20 acres. Comm. Stevenson stated language should refer to LAFCO's sphere of influence update, done every five years, which has provisions about how any proposals for land use changes would be handled between the City and County and is specific about general plan amendments. He suggested looking at language in Memorandums of Agreement the County has with other cities. Staff member Murry indicated the City has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Countythat provides for referrals and discusses how land use changes will be handled. The Commission proceeded through the legislative draft of the Land Use Element by chapter. PN 1 - 11 TF -LUCE Minutes November 6, 2013 Page 5 Policy 1.9.4 (page 1 -38): Minor revisions to language under sub - section A to read, "Be screened from public views by land forms or lands Gaping vegetation, but not at the expense of habitat. If the visually screened locations contain sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, avoid development should be avoided in those areas and instead designed as the clustered developm_e.nt in the form of vernacular farm building complexes, to blend the traditional agricultural working landscape. Policy 1.10.4 (page 1 -40): Task Force members provided minor language changes to retain the word "Council" in the first sentence, and to add, "or companies producing significant numbers of head of household jobs" to the end of subsection D. policy 1.11.1 (page 1 -41): Task Force members changed the language to read, "The City shall continue to communicate with nearby government and educational institutions to address proposed changes in numbers of workers, students, or inmates that have the potential to result in significant adverse land use or circulation impacts on the City or may negatively influence the City's ability to manage growth. Policy 1. 11.4 (page1 -41): Task Force opted to replace the word "plans" with "efforts ". olicv 1.12.6 (page 1 -45): Task Force revised proposed text to read, "The City shall approve development in newly annexed areas only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of public services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build out within the City limits." Policy 1. 12.7 (page 1 -46): Task Force determined that subsection F was still needed to address future Bishop Knolls annexation. On a motion by Task Force Member Brown, seconded by Member Goetz to approve the Growth Management, Chapter with revisions and direction as noted. kip gv-el-) AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney �jSGuff NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino OT The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. I )(2,1 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no further comments made from the public. SET TIME FOR NEXT TF -LUCE MEETING: NOVEMBER 7, 2013. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 pm. (.,Ityof Land Use THE GENERAL PLAN 4421.11 Annexation and Services a4241.11.1 Water and Sewer Service . .................. The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City otp able water or sewer services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous connections orcontracts with the City. A. Outside the City limits; B. Outside the urban reserve line; C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity -flow in the City water system; D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity -flow or pumps in the City sewer system. Polic 1.12.1 10, Ste ❑ Clan ❑ currencX 10 Relocate J ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance JE Resources Word "Potable" added to clarify the service being addressed and changes to the Water and Wastewater Element approved by the Council in 2010. 1.42.21.11.2 _Annexation Purpose and Timing The City may use_Aannexation should he its as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city - approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. (See alsG Ca^tlnn port Area) Policy 1 12 2 10 5t e 10 Clari ❑ Currency I ❑ Relocate 10 Complete 10 Relevance 10 Resources Edited for style and to delete unnecessary referenceto Section 7.0. 1.11.3 Annexation of Cal Poly The Cjjty should analyze the suitability of annexing Cal Poly. NEW 10 Style © Clarity 1 ❑ Currency 1 ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete 1 ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources Desire to investigate the advantages of annexation, including capture of sales tax revenues, sharing of services, and so forth were brought up during Community Leader Interviews held during March 2012 1.12.4 Annexation in Airport Area F_qT__ perties in the Airport aArea Specific Plan_, a SpeG'fi(; plan shall be adopted for-the whole aFea. Until a specifiG plan is adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria: 1. The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and 2. The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and 3. The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and \lercinn 1714AI' 11'A 1_111 PH1 - 71 / s V" r ' 4gk•�J `s F s � 1' t��rp •�� � 75� ' ! �`. *4r� � , ('`, tJr ' •y r }'r �s`7 i �y 'y �� � ` � � , a1. rT' fs U, r—Q -kr C 07 CL N � O (D a) Coll w� c CL N Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10 :30 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk CKV 0I, sm) iuis c1mspo 990 Palm Street Sari Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 8(6,7317102 FW: General Plan Circulation Element Up -date From: David Albrecht [mailto:daveabrecht @me.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:11 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: General Plan Circulation Element Up -date Good morning, RE :ERRED JAN 28 2014 C 'LO CITY AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date - v) Item* On behalf of the members of the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club, I urge you to approve the General Plan Circulation Element Up -date at your special meeting this evening. The San Luis Obispo City Council recently committed additional funds to bicycle infrastructure projects and we applaud you for that vital step in making bicycling safer in town. Adoption of the Circulation Element up -date will solidify these planned improvements and guide transportation needs for all future development in the city. The beauty of Circulation Element Up -date is that it is a product of your LUCE committee. This committee of residents are committed to a future San Luis Obispo that stresses alternate forms of transportation and active forms of transportation that will keep the community livable and healthy. Thank you for your time and, again, I urge you to adopt the Circulation Element Up -date this evening. Sincerely, David Abrecht Bicycle Advocate San Luis Obispo Bicycle Clubsp Sent from my Wad Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Begin forwarded message: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:48 PM Kremke, Kate Fwd: LUCE update From: "Marx, Jan" <imarx ,slocity.org> Date: January 14, 2014 at 2:38:41 PM PST To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia a,slocity.org >, Subject: FW: LUCE update Agenda correspondence L? JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Dale_! Item# Z12 -L... "Goodwin, Heather" <hgoodwin(2slocity.org> - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Karen Adler [mailto: fudge 805 gcharter. net] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:21 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Carlyn Christiansen; Smith, Kathy Subject: LUCE update Dear Mayor & City Council Members: On behalf of the residents of the Alta Vista Neighborhood, we strongly object to the idea of multi - family housing being built near Cal Poly! This would not be appropriate in established R- 1 and R -2 neighborhoods. We are already fighting for our survival with the possible addition of new freshmen dorms adjacent to our neighborhood. Adding multi - family units would be the final nail in the coffin. Please give this serious consideration and do not approve this suggestion. Thank you, Karen Adler - Chairperson of AVNA 1676 Fredericks St. SLO, CA 93405 � r Y 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO January 14, 2014 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Land Use Elements Recommendations Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, JAN 15 2014 - AGENDA -- f.MESPONDENCE Item # ice/ �l /Lf lo(4 1 I as)ly- The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce wishes to acknowledge the diligence and perseverance of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Task Force volunteers, its Planning Commission members, City staff and all of the community members and groups that have weighed in over the last several months on the updating of this very important document. Outreach, several community forums and numerous meetings have taken place and resulted in valuable ideas for our future. The work of the LUCE Task Force has been diligent, with every member contributing to the final outcome. We would like to commend them for their lengthy and committed service. As you are aware, the Chamber formed its own task force last spring in order to support long term plans adopted by the City that are of particular interest to our members and to provide perspective on shared values such as providing affordable housing, supporting head of household jobs and preserving the character and quality of life enjoyed in San Luis Obispo. As previously stated, we believe this update is an opportunity for the City to align with key priorities and strategies included in the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP), Climate Action Plan, and the General Plan Annual Report. Specifically, we recommend that projected and planned residential capacity align with these documents, and that we create an environment that allows for diversity in both housing type and density in order to attract and grow jobs here. We continue to believe that mixed use projects and consideration of raised height limits where appropriate will serve our community well. We also propose that the City should take into consideration its growth beyond the 2035 horizon as the purpose of the LUCE update is not to preserve existing neighborhoods as they are today, but rather to look forward to the needs of future generations. In addition to these general comments, similarly to past letters we offer up the following language recommendations to section 3.9.8 Tourism and a newly created 3.9.9 Economic Development sections, s 805.781.2670 sirrhaml:cr. . r 805.543.1255 a p,t91n.�;Nfi e slochamber0slochamber,org �lrti tr. n, scvtrt 3.9.8 Tourism 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO The City shall: A. Develop and help implement aggressive tourism marketing programs; B. Encourage development of additional conference facilities and meeting space C. Work with arts organizations and community venues in promoting arts oriented tourism; D. Support agritourism, culinary tourism, ecotourism and voluntourism programs; E. Develop destination concepts such as bicycle tours, historical tours and rail tours; F. Encourage development of appropriate recreational facilities for golf, tennis, equestrian activities, hiking, swimming, fishing and competitive athletic events. In addition, the Chamber has been a strong advocate for efforts advancing economic growth in our region, and in order to support the implementation of the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan, we are proposing the following new addition to the revised LUCE: 3.9.9 Economic Development The City shall: A. Maintain San Luis Obispo as the business hub of the county; B. Encourage existing business growth and head -of- household job creation by maintaining appropriate availability of land for diversity in commercial development type; C. Pursue creative methods to finance current and future infrastructure needs to support business growth and enhance community well- being, such as 1. Increasing broadband access, 2. Implementing circulation improvements, 3. Supporting the growth and success of the SLO County Airport; D. Partner with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to invest in growing the entrepreneurial ecosystem In closing we would again like to thank all of those that have contributed to this document. As the roadmap for our future, it is important and the careful work of the participants is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Stacey White, AIA, LEED AP BD +C Chair, SLO Chamber of Commerce LUCE Task Force Cc: Eric Meyer, Chairperson, LUCE Task Force Michael Draze, Chairperson, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department 7 605.781.2670 slt�ch tmk�srs�iy F- 805,543.1255 visi��la cnrr r slochamber0slochamber.org slo biar,esscoN Goodwin, Heather From: Codron, Michael Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:45 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting Attachments: SLOLUCE 11- 14- 13.docx From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [mailto:sierraclub8 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:41 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting Dear Councilmembers — Attached are the comments submitted by the Sierra Club to the LUCE Update Task Foce on the LUCE Resource Protection chapter for your information when you deliberate on this section at your upcoming meetings. Thank you, Andrew Christie, Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805- 543 -8717 From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [mailto:sierraclub8 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:37 PM To: 'kmurry@slocity.org' Subject: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting Hi Kim — Please distribute the attached comments to the LUCE Update Task Force members for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Andrew Christie, Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805 - 543 -8717 Nov. 14, 2013 S I E RRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 Dear LUCE Update Task Force Members, Santa Lucia Chapter P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 543 -8717 www. santalucia. sierraclub. org Following are the comments of the Sierra Club on the proposed revisions to the Resource Protection chapter of the LUE. 6.0.3 Land Use Element Map Revision Resource Mapping is retained at 6.0.2 but the proposed deletion of the following section eliminates the purpose of the program. As written, 6.0.3 provides the reason why the Resources Mapping program exists and its role in determining the locations for appropriate development. We see no purpose in deleting the rationale for the Resource Mapping program from the description of the program. 6.1.1 Open Space and Greenbelt Designations We strongly agree with the decision not to delete and relocate this information to "the new uses and standards table" and to keep it as it is and where it is. The COSE update process of 2005 -06 made clear that City staff and elected officials need to be reminded frequently of the definition and uses of Open Space. That language should be readily available to them, and to the citizens of San Luis Obispo for the likely future occasions when the City will need to be reminded. This information belongs where it is, intact, prominently featured in the City's General Plan, in the location where anyone would expect to find it when looking for it, under Open Space Policies, not diverted to a table. We suggest this rule of thumb be followed throughout the update process: Major policies belong under their policy headings, not shifted to tables. 6.1.4 Interim Open Space Regardless of any restrictions that may be "covered in Section 8.0, Specific Planning Areas," the overarching description of the nature and purpose of Interim Open Space should remain in the Resource Protection chapter. As to the issue of takings, a designation of Interim Open Space would appear to be a clear indication to any future land purchaser that the land in question may be eventually zoned in a manner incompatible with future development proposals. If "as worded, this designation has potential implications for a takings finding," it is the job of the city council, on advice of the city attorney, to apply the policy in such a way as to avoid such implications. 6.1.5 Interim Open Space Uses and Parcel Sizes We register the same objection as above to the text proposed for deletion. 6.1.6 Eventual Uses We register the same objection as above to the text proposed for deletion. 6.2 Hillside Policies All hillside policies should remain where they are with greater emphasis rather than being moved to Special Planning Areas. Protection of hillsides was 1 of only 4 service areas in the LUCE Survey for which city residents and business owners said they were willing to pay more. The Update should reflect this priority. 6.2.7- B The Woodland Drive area This should not be deleted as significant parts of it are not developed, re 2.5 acres just above Skylark, as well as remaining Upper Goldtree lots and County Property -- see pg. 1 -I I 1 consultant comment box. 6.2.7 -C Orcutt area The reference to specific development limit line at 460 feet should be retained. 6.3.3 Architectural Guidelines Architectural guidelines should be retained as it states the City's underlying presumption and intention that "all hillside development occurs on sensitive sites, where architectural review is required. The Community Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review." Though the current design guidelines may include this now, retaining the language here preserves the city's presumption and intention to protect hillsides. 6.4.5 Porous paving As the measures suggested here go beyond "porous paving," we suggest replacing this title with the more accurate and comprehensive "Runoff reduction and groundwater recharge." We suggest adding "and new development" to "Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas," and appending the following to the suggested measures: "ample landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained to facilitate percolation, consisting of rain gardens, vegetated bioswales constructed wetlands and/or trees planted with mulched root zones." 6.5.1 Previously Developed Areas Policies protecting creeks -- a top priority of residents responding to the LUCE Survey and one of only four things which they were willing to pay more for — should not be deleted. Before agreeing to delete the policies for limiting potential flood damage, we suggest Task Force members ascertain that listed policies A through D proposed for deletion are in fact identical to those in "the City's flood plain ordinance, setbacks, specific plans, and design standards," per the text proposed to replace the current list of policies. If the current list in the General Plan represents policies in addition to those to be found elsewhere, they should be maintained as written. Per the stated rationale for their deletion -- "state and federal standards change over time" — the Task Force should determine if this list does in fact represent state and federal standards or are the City's standards adopted in exceedence of state and federal standards. If the latter, they should be retained. Thank you for your attention to these concerns, Andrew Christie Chapter Director Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:20 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk c;lt,y Of s111 luis omspu 9yo Palm Street Sari l uis Obispo, CA 93401. tel j 805.78 .7,oz FW: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2 :45 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element Agenda Correspondence Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 JAN 2 8 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date`Jc -; - — item# 4 From: allancoope @gmail.com [allancoope @gmail.com] on behalf of Allan Cooper [acooper @calpoly.edu] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:02 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Mandeville, Peggy; Johnson, Derek Subject: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element Date: January 27, 2014 To: Mayor Jan Marx and Council Members From: Allan Cooper, Chair Save Our Downtown Subject: Draft Circulation Element Save Our Downtown and I have reviewed this draft document and heartily support its endorsement of a Downtown Pedestrian Plan (DPP). As an aside, we will be following with great interest how the proposed DPP Citizens Advisory Task Force will be constituted and its timeline for task completion. We have a few concerns which we have addressed below: Modify Figure 3: "Neighborhood Traffic Management Areas" to include an additional area from Nipomo to Pepper and from Pacific to Highway 101. The Downtown Core Neighborhood, the Mission Orchard Neighborhood and the Mill Street Neighborhood are all in need of traffic management plans. 4.0.8 Bicycle Transportation Coordinator The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle transportation plan policies and programs and shall continue to rely upon the Bicycle Advisory Committee to provide additional guidance in this area 5.1.2 Sidewalk Pedestrian Network For areas outside of the Downtown, the City will pursue shall implement its program for the installation of sidewalks to complete a continuous and connected pedestrian network throughout the community. V., 171 5.1.21 City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the downtown and Citywide pedestrian plan policies and programs and shall rely upon a newly formed Pedestrian Advisory Committee to provide additional guidance in this area. 13.1.4 Public Parking Structures The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study. The location of future public parking structures shall not be confined solely to those sites which are publicly - owned but shall be based on optimal access to the greatest number of users. Thank you for your due diligence and please contact us should have any additional questions regarding this matter. Goodwin, Heather To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Proposal for a Pedestrian Advisory Committee From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:42 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Proposal for a Pedestrian Advisory Committee agenda correspondence Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 f E� \Jti JAN, 28 2014 Sr O Cs Q — AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Datear- Item* From: allancoope(�)gmail.com [allancoope @gmail.com] on behalf of Allan Cooper [acooper @calpoly.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:39 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Mandeville, Peggy; Johnson, Derek Subject: Re: Proposal for a Pedestrian Advisory Committee Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members - My sister has arrived in town today and is taking me out to dinner. So, I am unable to attend your Council meeting tonight as planned to make my presentation. However, I was advised by our SOD core committee members last night to add two more caveats to our list of concerns. We are urging you to public notice all upcoming Pedestrian Plan Citizen's Advisory Task Force meetings and to allow opportunities for public comment. In closing, please seriously consider our suggestion for establishing a "Pedestrian Advisory Committee" so that pedestrian issues receive the same depth and breadth of consideration as do bicycling issues. - Allan On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Allan Cooper < wrote: JAN 14 2014 Kremke, Kate From: Goodwin, Heather AGENDA Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:59 AM CORRESPONDENCE To: Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: LUCE Update Date V o, ,,X item# q1 y Agenda correspondence Begin forwarded message: From: "Marx, Jan" <imarxgslocit .org> Date: January 14, 2014 at 9:58:10 AM PST To: Brett Cross <brettcrossgyahoo.com> Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia(2slocity.org >, Subject: RE: LUCE Update "Goodwin, Heather" <hgoodwin(j�slocity.org> Thank you for your comments, Brett. Please include our city clerk in future emails to council, so they can be posted on our website as Agenda Correspondence. All the Best, Jan Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 From: Brett Cross [brettcross @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:34 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: LUCE Update Just a couple of points. 1. 1.13 Costs of Growth The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new develop ment, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certai n development to obtain community -wide benefits. Question ?. The community will choose how ?. Election ?, community input ?. 3 -2 vote of the City Council ?. 2. 2.2.1 Mixed Uses &and Convenience The City shall promote Neighborhoods shall include a mix of compatible uses in neighborhoods to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. This policy would encourage convenience retail stores within a neighborhood designation. Do you really want to do that ?. What is the the thinking. I don't really want a Quicky Mart literally "in" my neighborhood. 3. 2.2.8 Parking The City shall discourage the development of Llarge parking lots should be avoided. and require pParking lots shoul d be screened from street views. In general, parking should not be provided located between buildings and the public streets. What type of screening is going to be considered ?. 8' high block walls ?. The City essentially allowed that type of screening for the high density housing along Los Osos Valley Rd at Madonna. 4. 2.2.4 Street Access The City shall ensure Nnew residential developments or and redevelopments involving large sites, should be are designed to orient low- density housing to local access streets, and medium- or high- density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. That policy basically eliminates mixed densities within a development. Go look at Devaul Ranch, is that what you want ?. 5. 2.4.2 Density Changes The City shall approve re- zonings that increase density in existing residential areas only if it finds that the following are not adversely impacted: neighborhood character and identity; compatibility of I and use; impact on services and facilities (including schools). In addition, the City shall find that proposed density changes meet policies related to neighborhood amenities (Policy 2.1.7); compatible development (Policy 2.2.9) and residential project objectives (Policy 2.2.11). Staff needs to give some examples. Obviously they have something in mind. This is open ended rezoning of established neighborhoods. 6. 2.4.3 Residential Conversion The City shall approve proposals to conv ert residential properties along major streets to office or commercial uses onl y when there already is a substantial non- residential character to the corridor, the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use, and adequate off -st reet parking can be provided. Where appropriate, replacement dwellings shall be provided as part of the project. What is the definition of a major street ?. 7. 2.5.3 Amenities The City shall encourage devel opment of attractive Mmultifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should to provide the amenities which that students may otherwise seek in single - family areas, to provide an attractive alternative. Is location a factor ?. Or can you just build this attractive multi family housing miles away from campus ?. C Obviously I haven't gone through the whole document but there is this thinking that at General Plan needs to be generalized in its wording. It doesn't have to be. If the community wants or desires a particular feature those policies and programs should be specific and detailed as to create that. There needs to be a discussion regarding what the policies are intended to create and not so vague as to be almost uncertain in there affect. Sincerely, Brett Cross San Luis Obispo 4 Robert A. Hill Natural Resources Manager CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 1 805.781.7211 email I rhill @slocity.org web I www .slocitV.org /naturairesources /index.asp - - - -- Original Message---- - From: D. Dollar [mailto:ddollar @pacbell.netj Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:54 AM To: Marx, Jan; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Hill, Robert Subject: LUCE and Open Space Committee Mayor and City Council, ,1AN 15 201 {4 AGENDA C ®a E'SPONDENCE Date .� � helm# f )1lv /)q 1 120)1 � Our City's Open Space Program is something to be very proud of. As we approach the 20th year of the program, there is a great opportunity to add to the successful program by establishing an Open Space Committee. The value of our Open Space lands is very apparent when you visit them. They are all well used and loved by the community. As we look to the next 20 years of the Open Space Program, there will be various challenges and great opportunities. I think that an Open Space Committee, as listed in COSE, Appendix C - Management of Open Space Lands, # 15, will give thoughtful deliberations to Open Space issues and help continue the success of the program. The addition of public expertise in natural resources and open space management will be very useful to Council decisions. Please add an Open Space Committee to LUCE. Sincerely, Don Dollar SLO 781.0118 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:19 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Fwd: LUCE language recommendations of aggressive tourism Begin forwarded message: R 17- JAN 28 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date Item #_!L'\ `I,,`I1u.'I -2y From: debbie farwell <dif532earthlink.net> Date: January 27, 2014 at 9:58:33 PM PST To: "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpentgslocity.org >, "Marx, Jan" <jmarx e,slocity.org >, "ashbaugkslocity.org" <ashbaugcr�,slocit y.org >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmithkslocity.org >, "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristinslocity.org> Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia@slocity.org> Subject: LUCE language recommendations of aggressive tourism Jan. 27, 2014 Subject: Recommendations for aggressive tourism within LUCE Update Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, The more I learn about the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan Update, the more I appreciate the work that has been done by staff and volunteers alike. Thanks to all, who are part of the process. It certainly is a very complicated and monumental task. Clearly, there are a variety of interests, perspectives and values to balance for an equitable outcome. I have concerns about the Chamber of Commerce LUCE language recommendations for Tourism and Economic Development. I ask your close attention to the proposed changes in the LUCE Task -Force language. These concerns should also be addressed in the EIR studying the Upper Monterey Street Area. The Chamber recommendation that the LUCE TF language (3.9.8) be changed to "the City shall develop and help implement aggressive tourism marketing programs" is irresponsible. Governor Brown has already declared a State of Emergency for the State of California due to drought, Jan. 15th, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture declared San Luis Obispo County to be one of 27 Counties in the state, to be declared a "natural disaster area" due to drought. Within our own County, both Paso Robles and Cambria are facing critical water shortages. Each of these communities, are considering mandated intervention to curtail their own water usage. Residents and commercial users alike are faced with cutting back on water consumption. Is it wise to promote aggressive tourism, which will bring in additional autos, people and water needs by visitors? Increased air - pollution, water consumption and resource demands, will impact the City and County alike. The Chamber recommendation for Jobs /Housing Relationship (1.4) within the scope of the LUCE EIR is certainly worth further study. The severe lack of affordable housing for working class persons within the city of SLO puts workers and those with limited financial means at the mercy of landlords seeking to maximize profitability of their property. It can take up to two years to get into low -cost housing. Within our neighborhood along the Marsh, Higuera, Monterey and Palm Street corridors, numerous single- family homes have been converted from residential dwellings to offices. These homes would have been ideal for working class families who could walk to schools and work from a small, downtown home. These conversions from residential to office or commercial use begin on corner lots and then march along house to house, to gradually encompass an entire block. There has been a large reduction in low -cost, affordable housing within the Upper Monterey Street Area during the last two decades, due to conversion. As a result, the feeling and character of the neighborhoods from Upper Monterey Street to the downtown area has dramatically changed. The types of jobs created by tourism are most often low- paying public service sector jobs. That is how Big -Box Hotels are able to increase their profitability and pass along the numerous local taxes that make them so appealing to cities. The Tourist Industry is seen as the vehicle for economic development and infrastructure maintenance. Yet the very workers, needed to provide public service for the Tourism Industry, have been forced to live outside the city by lack of housing. This isn't unique to San Luis Obispo! The July 24th 2013, U.N. General Assembly on Sustainable Tourism points out negative impacts, which have occurred as a result of unchecked tourism, While there are positive aspects of tourism, it is recommended by the U.N. that there must be a balance created with "local control, community wellbeing, cultural richness, physical integrity ... and environmental purity". Residents have a vested interest in their neighborhoods. It is not just an economic interest. A neighborhood should imply a home, sanctuary in reality, not just words. When local workers are unable to obtain affordable housing, creating new minimum wage employment, further degrades the quality of life, rather than improving it. To even consider aggressive tourism in light of severe drought conditions is unwise. The impacts of tourism on water usage, air - pollution, loss of local affordable housing in existing neighborhoods, are just a few of the possible, negative impacts. Nurturing existing residential neighborhoods must be a priority to maintaining a healthy, vibrant downtown community. The City has no place in aggressively pursuing any particular form of business, to the detriment of residents living within the city. Thank you for your consideration. Debbie Farwell, 39 year Palm Street resident Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:00 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: comments on EIR Upper Monterey for special city council meeting 1/14/14 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 1 805.781.7102 AGENDA Gt FIRESPONDENCE Date. t 0 -y-Item #_If� - - - -- Original Message - - - -- // qh Lt From: Debra Farwell [mailto:dif53 @earthlink.net] 1 2�-3j j Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:56 PM J To: Mejia, Anthony; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John Subject: comments on EIR Upper Monterey for special city council meeting 1/14/14 Kim Murry, Deputy Director Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Scoping Meeting for NOP Copies to City Council Members Jan. 9, 2014 Kim, I am submitting written comments, based on my oral presentation to the Planning Commission on Wednesday Jan. 8th. My concerns are directed toward the Upper Monterey Area LUCE Update and what appears to be a lack of knowledge about current conditions that we as neighbors, face day to day. I realize that at this point, the language for the NOP is standardized and non - specific, due to the large scope of the update. I will use the N.O.P. paperwork provided at the Dec. 7, 2013 Future Fair as a guideline for my comments. I'd appreciate it if you could please pass along my written comments to the Commission, as they consider the EIR for the LUCE Update. I appreciate your time and consideration. will e-mail my comments on the City Council myself, to save you some time. On page 1, Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal, dated 12/2/13, the second section, Project Location. Please note "Waterways" with San Luis Obispo Creek and Chorro Creek listed. I'd like to point out that there is a small (depending upon drought) year -round creek, which crosses our property. I believe that the source for the creek is along the foothills of the Cal Poly Grand Ave entry, along Slack St. It travels toward Hwy 101, to cross Wilson St. and behind houses along Park. It crosses behind VFW Hall on Mill St. near the Vet's Building. It crosses Palm St. and travels across resident property lines and can be found next to Frank's Hot Dogs on Monterey St. and California. I believe it passes along Monterey St. down to join San Luis Creek at the concrete culverts near the Anderson Hotel. Street run -off and gutter drainage passes directly into this small local creek, finding its' way eventually into the downtown creek system. While "no zoning changes have been proposed ", the language of the Update reflects an intent to increase the density of hotels, restaurants and a possible conference center along the Upper Monterey Corridor. With increased density, there will be more hazardous materials discharged into our creek. Increased garbage storage, auto drainage on streets, air and dust pollution will be washed by surface water into the creek in our neighborhood, to join the larger San Luis Creek. During my lifetime, I've lived closely to the creeks in my neighborhood. I've lived here on Palm St. for 39 years, next to our small creek. In 1971 -1972 1 lived over Muzio's Grocery Store in Downtown San Luis. We spent a good deal of time listening to the frogs in the creek in front of the Mission. Since the 70's there has been a significant decrease in the Summer frog chorus downtown and on our own property. Frogs have been considered the "canary in the coalmine ", by some environmental researchers. Please address supportive biological environments as required in the Biological Resources section of the EIR in relation to frogs and other impacted fauna. My second point of concern about the LUCE for the Upper Monterey Street Area is noise. In addition to auto traffic, the music of restaurants, impacts our environment. Frank's Hot Dogs have 2 speakers facing the outside eating patio. The "canned music" is audible about % a block away on Monterey and California. Daily sound volume and wind are factors in how far the sound travels. Add to that, the traffic noise. An additional source of loud noise and dust, are the "professional" landscape maintenance, which blows clean the businesses along Monterey and California. An increasing number of businesses and landlord's, use the "blow and go" type of landscaping. Noise is a Potential Environmental Impact, which needs to be assessed, in the EIR for the LUCE Update. Please address this very intrusive factor that we who live on the Monterey Street corridor live with daily. My third concern is related to restaurant and business garbage within the Upper Monterey Street Area. Over the last 5 years, the numbers of raccoons, opossums and rats have been increasing. These critters get into the numerous garbage containers along Monterey Street and use the creek as a transportation system. With the blessing of US Fish and Wildlife, I trapped 5 raccoons myself, between November and December. The raccoons killed one opossum and I trapped another. I still have raccoons coming in at night. The rats are a constant. The garbage containers are left open, wet garbage leaks out through the container onto the pavement, which can wash into the gutter system. The critters are destructive, digging and destroying landscaping. In additional, they are a health hazard. Please consider the impact that restaurant and business garbage has on the surrounding neighborhood, within the Hazardous Materials section of the EIR. Under the Aesthetics section of potential environmental impacts, light and glare is addressed. Currently the Lamplighter Hotel has security lights facing away from the hotel into the parking lot, due to vandalism and concerns of theft. They shine away from the hotel into the windows of the residence across the street. The neighbor has unsuccessfully approached the hotel in attempts to have the lights turned away from the house. Due to terrain, the Lamplighter Hotel towers about 4 stories above our homes, if one is standing on the corner, of Grove and Palm St. Security lights are rotated outwards, but the lights shine for quite a distance beyond the hotel. When we first moved into our home, we could see the Milky Way. Now, we are lucky if we can see the brightest stars /planets. Light pollution needs to be addressed in the EIR, with the current and any future density that is considered. View shed has been greatly reduced during the last decade on our 2 blocks of Palm Street. We used to be able to see mountains to the East and to the West from our home. Now, we have lost all view to the West and partial view to the East. A two story house was built to the West. We were assured that there would be no impact. However, due to the foundation being raised for flood purposes, and over height ceilings, we lost our view from our sun porch. Positioned on a slope, the Lamplighter Motel renovation expends 4 stories. It has a huge impact on the neighborhood view shed. I am concerned about any remodels that extend upward, blocking both sunshine and view to our neighborhood. Please consider the impact of buildings, which block the view or sunlight of pre- existing residences. This hasn't been taken into account in the past, leaving us with visual blights. z There is no mention of the environmental impact of odor into a residential neighborhood. This is a huge issue for those of us living along Palm Street. Starting around 6 AM, Franks' starts breakfast with onions and bacon cooking. As the day progresses, the smells are of hamburger and sometimes rancid grease. Depending on the wind, it is possible to detect odors from the railroad tracks on Palm, to Grove Street at Monterey. I have a lovely garden, but when I walk outside, it isn't my flowers I smell. It is onions, bacon and burgers from Franks'. All of my neighbors have complained as well. It is nauseating, to smell the odors every day. One can smell bread from Splash Cafe and Mexican food from Pepe Delgados walking along Monterey Street. By far, Franks' odors travel the farthest and are the most constant. For the neighbors with 2 -story homes, the odors seem to enter their higher windows easier. While odor isn't directly listed on the N.O.P. Potential Environmental Impacts to be Assessed, please discuss odors related to restaurant food prep and garbage storage. Being able to enjoy our homes and gardens is directly effected by the smells in the air around us. Increasing hotel, restaurants and possible conference center density, will make it worse, if the current problems aren't mitigated. I appreciate your consideration of these concerns. Increased traffic will make the intersection at California and Monterey Street even less safe. It has limited visibility and some high -speed traffic. Bikes, skateboards, pedestrians, food delivery trucks and autos all share a very small space. In walking through our neighborhood, it appears that very little forethought was used in creating a residential and business community. This is a good opportunity to improve upon the mistakes that were made in the past. Thank you for allowing our input into the process. Debbie Farwell Palm Street 3 ¡.1 !":r".i_: r',, j,j.j¡ ì;,-i ,-_t..i ,i r..i_r JAN 0 6 2014 Goodwi Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Agenda correspondence Marx, Jan Saturday, January 04,2014 8:19 PM Goodwin, Heather Fwd: City Council LUCE TF Update consideration l-7 -I4 and I-2L-L4 my LUCE Task Force letter 12-13 .doc AGÊNDA ENCE Scrt 1ìonr rnv Vcrir.on Wirelc'ss 4(l t,T[ -(nrlrtphonc Original message From: Debra Farwell Date:0l 10412014 6: I 6 PM (GMT-08 :00) To: "Mury, Kim" ,"Marx, Jan" ,"Smith, Kathy" ,"Christianson, Carlyn" ,"Carpenter, Dan" ,"Ashbaugh, John" Subject: City Council LUCE TF Update consideration 1-7-1,4 and l-21-14 Jan,4,20'14 San Luis Obispo Members of the City Council, Thank you for the opportunities share my concerns about the Upper Monterey (8.2.2) porlion of the LUCE Update, I appreciate the huge amount of time and effort that has already gone into the update. I know that the task force has put in many hours of volunteer time, on behalf of our community. I am grateful for their work. That being said, I have grave concerns about the language of the Upper Monterey Area alternatives. I understand that, "no zoning changes have been proposed". Yet, the proposed language sets the stage for increased density potential ofhotels, restaurants and conference centers (free-standing or otherwise). Traffic along Monterey Street is already unsafe, ln pafticular, the corner of Monterey St. and California Blvd., is one of the most unsafe intersections in San Luis Obispo. We have lived in our home on 155 I Palm St. for about 39 years, The amount and speed of traffic has dramatically increased over the decades. The green bike lanes are an effort to make drivers aware of bike traffic. I do not feel any safer when I ride my bike through that intersection! Visibility is low, driveway traffic into Splash Café, Frank's Hot Dogs' and Petite Soleil is extremely unsafe. Add in pedestrians from the High School, Tourists, skate boarders, bikes, delivery trucks and motor vehicles, it is no wonder there are so many accidents at that intersection. How many years has there been a Trolley? While it may lessen traffic some, I don't see any significant improvement. That type of shuttle service to the downtown isn't a long-term solution to the existing problem. The stated emphasis of the Upper Monterey Area Plan, is "revitalization and enhancement". Reading through Mayor Jan Marx's Jan 17,2012 direction to the City Council regarding the LUCE Update and Task Force, she points out, "that the process is to be resident- centered". The existing General Plan outlines multiple points that speak to needs of residents, environment, social, and economic concerns. W ithin that one section, the term, "Resident" is used 7 times. There is a clear intent to foster neighborhoods and communities. The updated LUCE alternatives now contain language, which addresses Ordinance I 130 and the San Luis Drive neighborhood. That is an improvement, thank you. Yet, if one walks downtown, along the Monterey St. corridor, on Palm or Higuera St., numerous homes are passed. People live in these homes, We aren't a formal neighborhood, but we are part of what makes San Luis Obispo a Community. 'We strengthen the social and economic ties of the Cify. Increasing densify in our neighborhoods by actively promoting the growth of tourism, in no way revitalizes or enhances our lives. I know that tourism won't go away. I prefer planned growth of the industry. However, there are numerous downsides of the increased bed tax, sales tax and economic shot-in-the-arm, which tourism provides. The Sunset Savor The Coast article, in the Telegram Tribune a couple of weeks ago, touched on some real economic issues ingrained in tourism. Spending more money, to get more tourists into an area, is no guarantee of profitability or improvement of a community. This isn't a new or localized problem. 1 The U.N. General Assembly presentation on Sustainable Tourism (July 24,201 3) recognizes global issues, which mirror many of our own increasing community problems. They list l2 Aims of Sustainable Tourism: Promoting positive impacts while minimizing negative ones. They are worth consideration: I ) Economic viability; 2) Local prosperity; 3) Employment quality; 4) Socialequity; 5) Visitor fulfillment; 6) Local control; 7) Community wellbeing; 8) Cultural richness; 9) Physical integrity; I 0) Biological diversity; I l) Resource efficiency; I 2) Environmental purity I addressed these concerns on Dec. l2th, when I spoke to the Planning Commission. The minor language changes to the LUCE for the Upper Monterey Area since that meeting do not change the City sponsored potential for increased hotel, restaurant and conference center development. Residential life is already impacted by existing tourism on Monterey St. and beyond. Please maintain the balanced approach of the existing General Plan, with resìdents being the focus, not tourism, Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Debra Farwell Attached is my Dec. 1,2013 letter to the LUCE TF 2 Dec. l, 2013 LUCE Task Force members: I appreciate the opportunities to speak before your group, on Nov. 26,2013. Thank you for your interest in my comments and willingness to consider my concerns about the Upper Monterey Street area and Downtown safety, This written response is in support of my verbal comments made before your committee Tuesday night. We own and have resided in our home for about 39 years. The choice to live downtown is intentional. \We can walk to many downtown services and ride our bikes to others. \üe can chat over our fences with both neighbors and visitors alike. We trade stories, recipes and plants, Our children have grown up together. It is truly a neighborhood. I am the middle of seven generations to reside and call San Luis Obispo home, My Great-Great Grandparents lived on Hollister Peak in the late 1800's. My Great-Grandmother was born on the family farm located below the Peak. As a young woman, she traveled by horse and buggy over the Cuesta Grade with her brothers to attend dances held in Santa Margarita. As an older woman, she and I walked through town to eat lunch at Woolworth's lunch counter, She didn't drive and neither did my grandmother, who walked downtown from her neighborhood near Chorro Street. Walking through their neighborhood, to town and back helped shape their lives. My life reflects their experiences and my own relationship with my hometown. Living and walking downtown has been of benefit to our children and Grandchildren. In addition to what we gain personally, there is a benefit to our community. I've called to report numerous unsafe conditions observed as \rye've walked on city streets: unlocked business doors, an unattended fire in an unoccupied business and people in unsafe situations, Mixed business and resident neighborhoods can develop a symbiotic relationship, Keeping that relationship healthy, is the intent of the Community Goals as discussed in the Society and Economy section of the General Plan: "Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents. , ," (# I 8); "Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as parl of a neighborhood pattern" (#29); and "Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and fabric of neighborhoods" (#34). There are numerous residents living within the Upper Monterey area. 8.2.2 of the Upper Monterey General Plan Land Use Alternatives negatively affect current residents in a number of ways. Development of additional hotels, restaurants and a conference center in the Upper Monterey Area WILL NOT enhance or improve the lives of the people already living in the area, We are daily impacted by Franks' and Splash cafr, on the corner of Monterey St, and California Blvd. Their parking lots are totally inadequate for their customer needs. People walk to and from the restaurants, dropping food papers and trash, cussing and yelling, as they return to their cars. Cars park in front of our driveways, blocking entry or exit for residents. Frank's has 2 outside speakers, which blare music constantly above the street noise, I walk out of my front door, to be assaulted by the smell of rancid grease, bacon and hamburgers from Franks'. These actual problems and more, daily affect the lives of the people who live in our neighborhood. According to the direction given by Mayor Jan Marx, to the LUCE Task Force (Jan. I 7 ,2012), the City "Council has repeatedly stated that the process is to be resident-centered". As a long- time resident and taxpayer, I'd like to "truly own and affirm" a plan for the Upper Monterey Area. Existing Business and Resident issues must be addressed, before any new projects are considered. Circulation of automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and skateboards need to be mitigated. Palm Street is frequently used because it is wider than Monterey Street. Speeding, noise and dirt all have markedly increased during the last decade. The green bike lane and explanatory signage are a step in the right direction, Enforcing existing rules against speeding, U-turns and recklessness would benefit us all, business customers and residents alike, Children and the elderly live in our neighborhood. Increased density and traffic will only worsen the current safety problems and quality of life. The Downtown Transit Center may address some of the existing parking problems. Too many students park in residential neighborhoods, while they avoid expensive on-campus parking. Non- residents frequently park on the street, to car-pool or take the bus to their final destination, The City and Cal Poly must work together to develop adequate plans to address student, parking needs. Adequate downtown parking at a Transit Center would improve the flow and impact of traffic through neighborhoods. Efforts must continue to change the driving culture, of people using their autos. A Park-and-Ride type of center, with adequate space for bikes, skateboard lock-ups, which is also pedestrian friendly and safe, is needed, The best focus for the Task Force is to improve these existing conditions, rather than creating new problems: such as a four story parking structure, convention center, larger hotels and restaurants in the Upper Monterey Area. None of my neighbors were aware of the intent, of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan Update. I'm not sure where the fault for that lies. I don't take the T-T, we don't watch television, we do listen to KCBX and maybe I missed that interview. I did not realize that the character of our neighborhoods was threatened. Once I did know of the need to be involved, I found the SLO 2035 V/ebsite very difficult to navigate. There needs to be an index to direct one immediately to a subject site, Scrolling back and fofth through all the material is very frustrating and counter-productive. There is a lot of material and I can appreciate all the volunteer hours, which have gone into the process. Thank you for your hard work. But it is a difficult site to navigate and understand. Public input is vital if solutions are to fitthe residents living in the areas affected. Keeping our neighborhoods, families and community healthy and sustainable into the future is in the best interest of allthose who reside downtown. My Great-Grandmother, Grandmother, and Mother would applaud those efforts. I hope that my children and Grandchildren will be able to look back from the future and recognize their home and still feel welcomed. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Debbie Farwell l55l Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-544-5209 t1i'/". Í-r ll il--l.:,:l': .r i- I 1 JAN 0 7 2014ApaUSKI MONOSKI M¡.PPNN CUMBERLAND & GnEEN np ATIoRNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 3835 ' San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990' F 805-543-0980' zttww.ammcglaw.com l' . l.i t:. 1,." fanuary 6,20t4 Honorable Jan Marx, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Pacific Beach High School Property Objection to LUCE Designation as Park Dear Madame Mayor and Members of the City Council: Our firm represents the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. We have been asked to review the City's LUCE process as it would impact the District's Pacific Beach School Property' The current recommendation is to designate a portion of that property as a public park' On behalf of the District, we must object to this designation and point out that designating a significant portion of the Pacific Beach Property as a park would result in a taking of the District pıperty without payment of just compensation. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission -tf q^SZl 4S3 U.S. St5. As set forth in Nollan and the many cases following, requiring a park on ihe pacifrc Beach property would require a determination of the relative impacts of the proposed project and a determination that there is a nexus between the proposed development and the ieqíirea park dedication. Certainly such a showing cannot be made at the LUCE stage nor does it seem ìit.ty that any proposed development would trigger the requirement for a park dedication. 'We also note that the School District already provides many acres of open space recreational ground in SanLuis Obiçpo, In faet, we would feel safe in assumingthat onl-v.the City provid". -or". Therefore, to again look to the School District to meet the City's perceived need for park space is unreasonable and unjust. The District does recognize the need for public park spacì but would ask the City to recognize that the District is already doing its fair share and more. Finally, we would like to once again make the City aware that the District's iriterest in developing its surplus property is solely to generate revenue to educate the youth of San Luis Obispó. Ãny p.op.rty dedicated to a public park will not be available to generate money for educàtion. We urge the Council to balance the competing interest and recognize the paramount importance of education. AGENDA CORRESPONDENOH Date*_*"-"--*ltem '1. ,'þt *\z'J Paso Robles Office: 1948 Spring Street . Paso Robles, CA9346-7620 ' T 805-238-2300 'F 805-ZS8-2322 Honorable Jan Marx, Mayor January 6,2014 Page2 Based upon the foregoing, we would urge the City Council to designate the entirety of the Pacific Beach Property as Commercial Retail which will allow both retail and residential development. Such a designation avoids a takings claim and represents the highest and best use of the property for commercial, residential and, indirectly, educational purposes. We thank you for your consideration. Re spectfully submitted, ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP THOMAS D. GREEN TDG:tlg f:\forms\templates\ammg templates\new lh.dot Kathy Smith, Council Member Carlyn Christianson, Council Member Dan Carpenter, Council Member John Ashbaugh, Council Member Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Kim Murry, Community Development cc: city of san Luis osispo January 28, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Communit, JAN 2 8 2014 �_. .: Deve opment Department Planning Division AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date!!- Item# aL� I 'I--1, IIti.'ize VIA: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared by: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Land Use Element update: Resolution and Input to Elements To recognize Council direction regarding proposed changes to Chapter 7 of the draft Land Use Element, staff has prepared the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) for Council consideration. Attachment A of the Resolution contains the complete Airport Chapter in legislative draft format with language that has been updated subsequent to Planning Commission review. Language edits subsequent to Planning Commissions are found in the introductory sentence that occurs prior to the first policy and include two new programs proposed in this chapter. Updated language is shown in italics. If the Council determines that changes are supported in other areas of the Land Use Element that relate to the Circulation Element advertised hearing, the attached Resolution can be revised to reflect Council modification. The Council did receive correspondence recommending some additional language and modifications to portions of the Land Use Element. Tonight's hearing is not agendized to reconsider language in the Land Use Element as the continuance was for the expressed purpose of Chapter 7. Staff will be prepared with a public hearing approach should the council want to address correspondence received since January 14, 2014. Finally, staff received several questions and recommendations regarding the draft Circulation Element subsequent to Planning Commission review. The input is provided in Attachment 2 with Planning Commission draft page numbers where applicable. Input regarding changes are shown organized by chapter with new language in bold (to distinguish from the Task Force /Planning Commission new language which shows in underline) and deleted language is shown as strike -out. Please contact Kim Murry with any questions at kmurry(?slocity.org or via phone at 781 -7274. Attachments: 1. Resolution for changes to Chapter 7 2. Other input /questions Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING CHAPTER 7 (AIRPORT) OF THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT 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 public outreach, including but not limited to two different on -line tools, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven 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 goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element 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 draft Land Use Element after 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis 2 Attachment 1 Obispo that Chapter 7 (Airport) of the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 28, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. AIRPORT CHAPTER. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the policies and programs related to the Airport Chapter in the Draft Land Use Element shown in Attachment A as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. 1. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J.Christine Dietrick Christine Dietrick, City Attorney . 2014. 3 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT A 7 AIRPORT AREA POLICIES TNOTE TO REVIEWER: The City is working with an airport safety expert to develop a new set of guidelines for development near the airport. Policies in this section apply to the Airport Area, as shown on Figure 8 and represent the Airport Influence Area subject to airport safety, noise height, and overflight standards. 7.1 Regional Service The City shall support tThe airport's wiR continued to verve service to the region, consistent with the approved Airport Master Plan.- and FAA - approved Airport Lavout Plan, I Policv 7.1 12 Stvle 1 ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currencv 1 ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete 1 ❑ Relevance J ❑ Resources i 7.2 Airport Land Use Plan Land use densit and intensit shall careful) balance noise im acts and the ro ression in the degree of reduced safety risk further away from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for Ion -term land use tannin ur oses. 9e °'�oprv;e„ "void- be-permitted -only Of it ,.°„SIS+cnt• with -the San Luis Obis . Prospective buyers of property whie" subject to airport influence should be so informed. Policy 7.2 J 0 Style ❑ Clarity 10 Currency 10 Relocate 10 Complete 10 Relevance 10 Resources Edited for style only. NEW POLICY 7.3 Airport Safety Zones Airport Safety Zones shall be consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes. I NEW I ❑ Stvle 1 ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currencv I ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete I ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources 1 I NEW POLICY I 7.4 Airport Noise Compatibility The_Gitac._shall use the aircraft noise_ analy _s,is.prepared_foruthe_Airport_ Master_ Plan__ Environmental_I,mpact Report as_an accurate mapping_of the_Iong_term noise impact of theairport.s aviation_activity_that is_tied to the ultimate, facilities_ development depicted in the _FAA - approved_ Airport Lavout,Plan_The._City shall use the 60 dB CNEL_aircraft_noise contour__( ?F and State aircraft noise plannnc standa_rdj_as_ the threshold 4 Attachment 1 for new urban residential areas. Interiors of new residential structures shall be constructed to meet a maximum 45 dB CNEL. NEW 7.5 City Annexation and Services ] Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources The..City.'Rte o shall actively pursue annexation of the A:airport Aarea as. noted -in „the. Airport Area Specifjc Plan. Airport Area land inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation if it meets the criteria stated in Policy 1.12.4 . and., provisio.n,s_in_ fhe Airport Area Specific, Plan. Annexation of areas that do not meet these interim annexation criteria may be annexed- subject -to completion of environmental -and economic studies and a specific plan: Pending- annexation: Any urban development approved by the County shall be consistent with City development standards-, and Urban development and provision of adequate resources and services needed citywide shall be closely monitored. Policy 7.3 0 style,[ ❑ Clarity ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources Edited for style only. Interim criteria are no longer applicable since specific plan has been adopted. 7.6 Greenbelt Protection The City shall ensure aAnnexation of the Airport Area Specific Plan-,-whether-,# occurs as sne actior�or- severai, shallil is consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area aAnnexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods: Dedicating an open -space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land - conservation organization. Paying fees to the City in -lieu of dedication; which- -that shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. 11 Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources Edited for style only. 7.7 Internal Open Space The City shall ensure areas designated for urban uses in the Airport Area Specific Plan, but not necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site amenities and to protect resources, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. In addition, the City shall ensure wildlife corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved. Policy 7.5 [ D Style i El Clarity 111 Currency 10 Relocate 11 Complete ID Relevance ❑ Resources First sentence is not necessary as an element doesn't need to say you must comply with other elements. TO BE UPDATED Figure 9: Airport Area z Attachment 1 GM Y 0 0 Airport Area SMI Eels CHMSPO City Limit Line N Airport Area Figure 9 10 Style 10 Clarity_ I IZI Currency 10 Relocate I ❑ Complete 10 Relevance I ❑ Resources Figure 9 will be updated once airport section is complete. Currently doesn't show full extent of area covered by RASP. 0 Attachment 1 7.8 Development Before Annexation Areas which are designated for eventual urban development in the Airport Area Specific Plan may be developed during the interim with rural residential or rural commercial uses. In such areas, County development standards and discretionary review should assure that projects will not preclude options for future urban development consistent with the City's planning policies and standards. Before any discretionary County land -use or land- division approval for such areas, a development plan for the site should be prepared, showing that circulation, water and other utility, and drainage proposals will be compatible with future annexation and urban development, _and condit,ions,of approval should include payment of City fees regui,red, to. mitigate, traffic., housi_n,g., and open space. impacts. Any development within the urban reserve approved by the County prior to annexation should comply with City standards for roadway cross - sections, bus stops, walking and bicycle paths, landscaping, view protection, setbacks, preferred site layouts, and architectural character. 7.6 1 ❑ Style 1 ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currency 1 ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete 1 ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources Minor edits proposed. 7.9 Transit Service The City shall work with SLQCQG, the County. RTA, the Airport, and area businesses to extend tTransit service linking development - sites - -w +th -the -- citywide - bus - system- should -be -- provided concurrent with any additional urban development in the- Airport - Areato the air art and Count areas south of the City. Policy 7.7 1 0 Style 10 Clarity ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance © Resources Policy reworded to promote the continued efforts of this extension. The City will prepare a eGifin plan fer land , habitat nretentien , n„ latien , utilities, and dope within the Airport Area Policy 7.8 1 ❑ Style I ❑ Clarity ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate 0 Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources The Airport Area Specific Plan has been completed and adopted. 7,91 Bus +tress- parka -- 7 -sJ -A -Lac -a #ion -arid Uses- Business -parks may be developed in areas designated for them.. Business parks are to accommodate - research and development and -light manufacturing-in-a-cam pus- like setting, They should- provide high quality design- -of- public and private facilities. Land designated for a business park- should -not be further divided- or developed until the City annexes, the area and approves a master-plan-for-the business park. Attachment 1 7.9.1 1 ❑ Style I ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currency 10 Relocate [ 0 Complete I ❑ Relevance I ❑ Resources Relocated to new uses and standard table (Table 1). 7: g:2: --- Building - Intensity Building IGGation and intensity standards will be provided On a speGifiG pIaR for eaGh business part The ratio of huMino floor oree to site area 6hall not exceed 1.0. The Zoning Reoulotione. building height and let Geverage, and rninimum setbacks frorn streets other property I; ;e6, as well as procedwes for eXeept;ens to such standards in special oirG rnstanoeo rl Ainllin riqay he provided only as retaker n ertere. OF art of n speCially eppmve 4aixed use de;,f °clop+ #fie eppfoprlate4es4ential - deity- weL4k"e --set sid ing the max'mum res'deRtial density allowed on aRy neighboring residential area. (A'sE), see thP- res'denfial sedion for POI!GieG on density bonuses for affordable heu6ing+ Policies 7.9.2 [ ❑ Style I ❑ Clarity I ❑ Currency IV Relocate Relocated to new uses and standard table (Table 1). ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources PROGRAMS 7:-0-.3---- Specific -Plan- Attachment I Prog.7.10 10 Style 10 Clarity I ❑ Currency I ❑ Relocate 0 Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources The Airport Area Specific Plan has been completed and adopted. 7.10 Airline Service and Impacts The City will shall continue to work with the County and regional airlines to assure that regional airline services are continued and expanded to adequately serve the needs of the population in the service area of the airport, and - conditions -in -the-vicrinity -of— the - airport are ,.,,.,stem will + r4rG Fiat*E)n Clement p0liGies Prog.7.11 10 Style 10 Clarity 10 Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete 0 Relevance ❑ Resources Policy has been refocused to address airline service. It is not necessary for policy to require compliance with another element. 7.11 Growth Management The City will annex the Airport area denoted in the Airport Area Specific Plan and accommodate incremental development consistent with the growth management policies, including those concerning adequacy of resources and services and development paying its own way. Pro . 7.12 ❑ Style 10 Clarity 1 ❑ Edited to clarify applicability to AASP. ❑ Relocate 7.12 Open Space Dedication and In -lieu Fees In approving development proposals, the City will assure that Airport Area properties noted in the Air ort Area S ecific Plan secure protection for any on -site resources as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in- lieu of open space dedication. Prog.7.13 111 Style 10 Clarity 10 Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete 0 Relevance ❑ Resources Edited to clarify applicability to AASP. NEW POLICY 7.13 County Airport Land Use Plan The Citv shall continue to work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to strive to achieve consistency between the County Airport Land Use Plan and the City's General Plan. If consistency cannot be achieved, the City shall preserve and maintain as a plausibje alternative its constitutional land use and statutory authority to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission with regard to adopting General Plan policies that are consistent with the purposes of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Attachment 1 State Aeronautics Act and State Law,., Ap.pli_cable. sections of th.e. Zoning Regulations and Sp,ecific_Pl.ans, shall be amended accordingly. _ NEW ❑ Style ❑ Clarity I ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources NEW PROGRAMS 7.14 Airport Overlay Zone The City shalt create an Air or# Overlay Zone category to cvdi airport compatibility criteria identified in the cteneralplan for those areas located within the A T rt Influence Area consistent with the to rements of tide_ California..State Aeronautics Act_{CaI Pub. Utilities Code. Section 21670, et. sea.) which establishes stale_wide - requirements for airpyrt_fand _ use compatibility piar�ning. the California__ Airport Land Use Planning__ Handbook_ which is . published bar the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics to support and amplify the State Aeronautics Act requirements, and rather related federal and state requirements rela #r "n to airport land use comp ibilit tannin . lm lementation of the comp a ibilit Iicies will be accomplished Lhrough the Abort Land Use and Zoning Code. NEW O Slvle O Clarity D Currency D Relocate I D Complete D Relevance O Resources 7.15 Airport Land Use and Zoning Code The City shall update its Zoning Regulations to address allowable uses and de_yglggment standards for areas located within the Airport Influence Area consistent with the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act, Caltrans Handbook and related state and federal requirements relating to airport land use compatibility. These development standards will include, but not limited to, intensity and density limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations and other hazards to flight, noise insulation requirements, buyer awareness measures, nonconforming uses and reconstruction and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City consistent these development standards. NEW O Style 10 Clarity D Currency D Relocate D Complete D Relevance D Resources 10 Other Input Circulation Element Input Introduction. Goals and Modal Split Objectives Pages 2 -7 through 2 -11 Attachment 2 Page 2-8: 1.5 Transportation goals 5 Make the Downtown city more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians, especially in areas with high volume pedestrian traffic, including the Downtown. Page 2 -9 1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits 2 Ask the San Luis Ob spo Regional r fanspeftatio n g o Encourage SLOCOG and SLORTA to establish an objective... Page 2-9 1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation 1 Complete a network .....of the city by 2000 2035 Page 2-9 1.8 Manage Traffic Eliminate 9 (this is covered in Chapter 7 of the LUE) Tr of fic_keduc•tion Pages 2 -12 through 2 -14 Page 2.0.3 The City shall encourage employers within the city limits to participate in trip reduction programs and also work with the County to work with employers outside „r the City limits to encourage employers located outside the City to also participate in such programs. Transit Service Pages 2 -15 through 2 -I8 Page 2 -17 3.1.3 The City will maintain a downtown trolley service as part of its overall transit system as funding permits. Page 2-17 3.1.7 Consolidated Regional Transit Center. The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional transit center downtown. Bicycle Transportation Pages 2 -18 through 2 -22 Page 2-18 4.0.3 The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify an Qu additional rights of way as become available. Pa eg_2 -22 New program: The City should consider a bicycle licensing program to address bicycle loss and theft problems. 11 Other Input Attachment 2 Walking Pages 2 -22 throu h 2 -24 Page 2-24 5.1.2 The —For areas outside of the Downtown, the City will ptir!tte shall implement its program for the installation of sidewalks to eample+° a continuous and connected pedestrian network, giving areas with the heaviest pedestrian traffic priority in funding. Traffic Management Pages 2 -28 through 2 -34 Page 2-29 7.0.4 In order to increase support for non - automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes taking into account to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown-in Figure 1. Page 2 -30 7.1.9 The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.0.4 prior to the 2015 -17 Financial Plan. In meeting the " " goal of the polite the guidelines may take into consideration such factors as the need for multi -year planning and budgeting, the reca itimthat projects may benefit multiple modes, that non -city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major interchange improvements ) may be identified as special cases that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes. Neighborhood Traffic Management Pages 2 -35 through 2 -40 Page 2 -37 8.1.3 When este by ° ghbefhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be ^naly-z�for their livability with regards to traffic noise, volumes and speed, as well as the volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Traffic calming or other intervening measures may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. Page Figure 3. Add Neighborhoods near Cal Poly as Traffic Management Areas. Street Network Changes Pages 2 -41 through 2 -48 Page 2 -46 The City shall implement closures to off and on ramps as recommended by Cal Trans, where appropriate. (see 2 -47 chart) Page _2 -42 9.1.2 The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange or overpass (project C.1) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report for the interchange or overpass project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California Department of Transportation. Page 2 -43 9.1.5 San Luis Ranch (formerly Dalidio Development. As part of any proposal to further develop the San Luis Ranch (formerly Dalidio Area, the alignment and design of extensions of Froom Ranch Way 12 Other Input Attachment 2 and Calle Joaquin connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) shall be evaluated and established, if consistent with the Calle Joaquin Master Plan and approved specific plan. Truck Transportation Pages 2 -49 through 2 -51 Page 2-49 10.0.1 The City shall require STA -sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 5 and actively patrol trucks cutting through neighborhoods. Air Transportation Pales 2 -52 through 2 -54 Page Endorse PC deletion of 11.0.2 through 11.0.4 (including partial policy 7.2.3) Page 11.0.1 The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services in compliance with the adopted San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan. Page 2 -53 11.0.5 The City should eneaufage shall work with the County to continue to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use Element, consistent with the California State Aeronautics Act. Page 2 -54 11.1.4 Delete, as did the Planning Commission Rail Transportation Paves 2 -55 through 2 -56 Page 2-55 Introduction The S°uthefft--Union Pacific Transportation Gempan-y—jRailroad owns and maintains a railroad tracks that extends through the county. Pie 2 -55 12.0.1 T Passenger Rail Service (heading) Page 12.0.2 The City shall support regional, State and... Page 2-55 12.0.3. Train Station and Transit Service Connections (heading) The City shall work with the Train Station management to upgrade the facility and visitor services, and shall provide transit service to and from the Train Station in accordance with its Short Range Transit Plan. Page g -55 12.0.4 The City supports using the railroad right -of -way to help meet multimodal inter -city intra -city transportation needs. Page 12.1.1 The City supports maintaining and increasing daily train service.... NEW Freight Rail Service 13 Other Input Attachment 2 The City shall advocate the improvement of safety and inspection standards for freight cars, which are often used by freight trains to transport hazardous materials through the City. NEW Idling trains Trains should turn off motors when parked. The City will work with the Air Pollution Control Board to address strategies for reducing air pollution from idling trains. Circulation Element Implementation and Program Funding Pages 2- 64through 2 -66 Page 16.0.4 Funding for street projeets and parking struetures shall n Reword as follows: Utilization of General Fund resources for street projects shall take into account the City's commitment to fund its alternative mode programs or projects. Page NEW POLICY The City shall encourage SLOCOG to consider initiating a county wide revenue measure devoted to local transportation funding on the basis of population, so that San Luis Obispo County becomes a "self- help" county. 14 MEMORANDUM City of San Luis Obispo- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: January 13, 2014 TO: Mayor & Council VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Land Use and Circulation Element Update – Task Force Motions with Meeting Dates The Task Force took action both through consensus and through motions as they reviewed and edited the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements. The Council requested Task Force votes be provided for context as the Council considers the draft elements. The attached document updates the agenda correspondence previously provided with dates the motions were made (highlighted after each item) so that minutes from the respective Task Force meeting may be referenced where desired. Please contact Kim Murry at kmurry@slocity.org with any questions. Received January 13, 2014 SLO City Clerk Agenda Correspondence Date: 1/7, 1/14, 1/28 Item: PH1 LUCE Task Force Motions 2 Table of Contents Task Force Motions – Land Use Element .............................................3 Introduction and Goals ............................................................................................................................. 3 Land Use Designations .............................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1 – Growth Management............................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2 – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods .......................................... 7 Chapter 3 – Commercial & Industrial Development Policies ................................................................... 9 Chapter 4 – Downtown ........................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 5 – Public & Cultural Facilities................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 6 – Resource Protection ............................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 7 – Airport Area ........................................................................................................................ 15 Chapter 8 – Special Focus Areas ............................................................................................................. 16 Chapter 9 - Sustainability ........................................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 10 – Healthy Community .......................................................................................................... 21 Task Force Motions – Circulation Element ........................................ 22 Chapter 1: Introduction, Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2 – Traffic Reduction ................................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3 – Transit Service ..................................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 4 – Bicycle Transportation ........................................................................................................ 27 Chapter 5 - Walking ................................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 6 – Multi-modal Circulation (replaces Chapter 8, Traffic Flow) ................................................ 28 Chapter 7 (Chapter 6 in TF version) – Traffic Management ................................................................... 29 Chapter 8 (Chapter 7 in TF version) – Neighborhood Traffic Management ........................................... 30 Chapter 9 – Street Network Changes ..................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 10 – Truck Transportation ........................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 11 – Air Transportation ............................................................................................................. 31 The Task Force made no changes to this section. .................................................................................. 31 Chapter 12 – Rail Transportation ........................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 13– Parking Management ......................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 14 – Neighborhood Parking Management ............................................................................... 32 The Task Force approved this section as proposed. ............................................................................... 32 Chapter 15– Scenic Roadways ................................................................................................................ 32 Chapter 16– Circ. Element Implementation ........................................................................................... 32 LUCE Task Force Motions 3 Task Force Motions – Land Use Element September 18, 2013 – December 10, 2013 Introduction and Goals  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Richardson, to approve the LUE Introduction and Goals as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Richardson, to approve the following existing wording for the last paragraph of the Introduction: “Policies in the Land Use Element and the General Plan Land Use Diagram are designed to be consistent and complementary with all other General Plan elements.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 11:2 vote. Community Values  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to send this section back to staff for rewriting including presenting the information in bullet points without including conclusions. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Member Brown proposed this new goal: “These policies and programs shall serve as a blueprint, guiding the City and its various entities in priority setting and resource allocation. It is LUCE Task Force Motions 4 understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation, but shall not change the goals and intent.”  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Whitney, to adopt this new goal as part of the LUE update and place it as the second point under Approach to Planning in the Introduction for Community’s Goals. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. City Form – San Luis Obispo should: Goetz suggested: “Create compact mixed use neighborhoods that locate housing, jobs, recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to each other.” Member Rademaker added “maintain existing and….”  On motion by Member Goetz, and seconded by Member Crotser, to insert this language in the City Form section. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Rowley, Saunders and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 10:3 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Rademaker, to add a new bullet to Community’s Goals, Environment about encouraging energy efficiency and practices in the City’s urban design. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the remainder of the section as amended and with the direction given to staff. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force member Rowley RECUSED: None LUCE Task Force Motions 5 ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the following sections of the Introduction to the Land Use Element in the December 10, 2013, Transmittal Memorandum as amended: Public Participation, Background to the 1994 Land Use Element, Background to the 2014 Land Use Element, Community Values, Preamble to the Land Use Element and San Luis Obispo’s Vision. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Land Use Designations Figure 1: County Land Use Designations Map (p.4) and Land Use Designations Outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area (pp. 34-36)  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to eliminate any reference to density for this county open space land. AYES: Task Force Members Crotser, Juhnke, Rademaker, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Quaglino, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion failed on a 4:9 vote.  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Brown to define a maximum density for each area, indicate that there is a presumption of no housing in open space, and place UOS after UAG in the chart on pages 34-36 of the December 10, 2013, Transmittal Memo. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 6  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to approve as presented the County Land Use Designations Map (p.4 of the Transmittal) and Land Use Designations Outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area (pp. 34-36 of the Transmittal) with the amendments made in the prior motion. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote.  On a motion by Task Force Member Brown, seconded by Member Bremer, to support the organization of land use designations into a table format as shown in the draft Land Use Element. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Member Crotser to support the density increase in Medium High Density Residential from 18 du/acre to 20 du/acre. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino ABSTAIN: Task Force member Rowley DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 11:0 vote with one abstention.  On a motion by Task Force Member Rademaker, seconded by Membe r Whitney to not support minimum densities for Medium and High Density Residential land use designations. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: Committee Member Crotser RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 11:1 vote LUCE Task Force Motions 7 Chapter 1 – Growth Management  On a motion by Task Force Member Meyer, seconded by Member Bremer to delete Policy 1.4 (Jobs-Housing Relationship). AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On a motion by Task Force Member Brown, seconded by Member Goetz to approve the Growth Management Chapter with revisions and direction as noted. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. Chapter 2 – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods  On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Brown to revise the introduction to read: The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance the City’s neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their identity and promote a higher quality of life within each neighborhood. AYES: Committee Members Rowley, Meyer, Saunders, Crotser, Richardson, and Bremer NOES: Committee Members Dandekar and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 6:2 vote.  On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Rowley to put in additional language to describe housing types, replace “vibrant” with “quality” and remove next to last bullet on page 1-52 that refers to network of facilities. AYES: Committee Members Crotser, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: Committee Members Bremer, Dandekar, Richardson, Whitney, and Meyer LUCE Task Force Motions 8 RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion fails on a 3:5 vote.  On a motion by Task Force Member Dandekar, seconded by Member Bremer to put in additional language to describe housing types and replace “vibrant” with “quality” but to retain the bullet item referring to interconnectedness. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Richardson, Whitney, and Meyer. NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT:Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke. DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passes on a 6:2 vote.  On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Bremer to endorse Policy 2.2.1 language as proposed in draft element. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Richardson, Whitney, and Meyer NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT:Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passes on a 6:2 vote.  On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Richardson to endorse Policy 2.2.9 language as proposed in draft element with revisions to subsection I and E and correction to citation in subsection H as discussed. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Richardson, and Meyer NOES: Committee Members Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passes on a 5:3 vote.  On motion by Committee Member Richardson, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to support the new policy 2.4.2 with a minor revision to remove the word “significantly” on line two of the policy. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Meyer, and Richardson NOES: Committee Member Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke. DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 5:3 vote LUCE Task Force Motions 9  On motion by Committee Member Richardson, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to support the new policy 2.4.2 with a minor revision to remove the word “significantly” on line two of the policy. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Meyer, and Richardson NOES: Committee Member Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 5:3 vote.  On motion by Committee Member Richardson, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to support the Policy 2.5.2 as proposed in the legislative draft. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Meyer, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Committee Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Saunders ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 6:1 vote (Saunders abstained).  On motion by Committee Member Dandekar, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to approve the Residential Neighborhood chapter with changes as noted throughout the Task Force discussion. AYES: Committee Members Rowley, Meyer, Saunders, Crotser, Richardson, Dandekar, Whitney, and Bremer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 8:0 vote Chapter 3 – Commercial & Industrial Development Policies  On motion by Member Rossi, seconded by Member Quaglino, to develop a program to allow visitor-serving uses in office zones adjacent to commercial properties in the Downtown and Monterey Street. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Multari, Quaglino, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 LUCE Task Force Motions 10 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion by Member Whitney, seconded by Member Brown, to remove the reference to “sea cruises” in 3.9.8.D. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Crotser, Dandekar, Quaglino, and Rossi RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 The motion passed on an 8:4 vote.  On motion by Member Rossi, seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the Commercial and Industrial Development section of the Land Use Element with the modifications agreed to above. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to approve all of the Commercial & Industrial Development changes, except CI 4, listed on page 19 of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve CI 4 as presented on page 19 of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 11 Chapter 4 – Downtown  On motion by Member Multari, seconded by Member Crotser, to use language in 4.1 that states, “Entertainment facilities such as nightclubs and theaters shall only be in the Downtown.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Dandekar and Quaglino ABSTAINED: Task Force Member Rossi RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 The motion passed on a 9:2 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Quaglino, to delete the fourth bullet point in 4.3 and have staff reformulate the sunlight guidelines, motion also to include direction regarding word changes of “well-lit” and “interesting.” AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Juhnke, to approve the following wording for 4.11: “Downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places shall respect views of the hills. In other locations Downtown, views will be provided parallel to the street right-of-way, at intersections where building separation naturally makes more views available, and at upper-level viewing decks.” AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Meyer, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 8:5 vote.  On motion by Member Goetz, seconded by Member Juhnke, to add a bullet point to 4.14.4 about proximity of housing to convenient transit connections. AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Rademaker, Richardson, and Rossi, NOES: Task Force Members Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney LUCE Task Force Motions 12 RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 9:4 vote.  On motion by Member Rossi, seconded by Member Multari, to make two changes to the first paragraph of 4.14.4 Building Height: 1) replace “set back” with “step back”, 2) replace “60 feet” with “50 feet”, 3) remove “vertical” from the first sentence, and 4) replace “shall not obstruct” with “shall respect” in the second sentence. AYES: Task Force Members, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker , Richardson, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Meyer, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 7:6 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, seconded by Member Juhnke, to approve the Programs section with the above noted changes. AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to put a period after “late night drinking establishments” and delete the list of criteria in DT 7. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: Task Force Member Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.  On motion by Member Quaglino, and seconded by Member Crotser, to replace “shall consider” with “shall” in DT 8. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson LUCE Task Force Motions 13 DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 11:2 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the remaining items in the Downtown section of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting as presented with the exception of replacing “over” with “rather than” in DT 2. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve the Safety-related Policies and Programs section on pages 3-4 of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting with these changes: 1) the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design program to read as suggested above, 2) the order of the bullets in the same program be changed so that “Visibility into entry and access points on non-residential buildings” be the first bullet, 3) that the next program will read “The City, working with the Downtown Association, businesses, landlords and residents will develop emergency callboxes at strategic locations in the Downtown” and 4) adding a program that states “The City, working with the Downtown Association, Downtown businesses, and residents shall develop a program to encourage lighted storefronts and street frontages throughout the night.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 5 – Public & Cultural Facilities  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Crotser, to change the wording of 5.8 to read “The City shall continue to encourage inclusion of public art in all projects as appropriate.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None LUCE Task Force Motions 14 ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the policies and programs in the Public and Cultural Facilities chapter as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 6 – Resource Protection  On motion by Member Juhnke, and second by Member Brown, to approve 6.3.1.1 Madonna Inn Area as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote.  On motion by Member Quaglino, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve 6.2.7.J and 6.2.7.K as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Multari ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the Resource Protection chapter as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi LUCE Task Force Motions 15 DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Quaglino to replace the words “previously developed” with “urbanized” in the first paragraph and to delete A-D in the existing policy. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve Resource Protection programs as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 7 – Airport Area  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Juhnke, to refer proposed updates to policies 7.1. and 7.2, and the two added policies to the Council with the statement as follows: The Task Force supports the City Council’s efforts to have fact base d consideration of noise and safety zones and recommends the Council consider the proposed airport policies and their legal ramifications. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Brown, to include the County Airport Land Use Plan program with the previous four policies discussed earlier for consideration at the City Council level. LUCE Task Force Motions 16 AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote.  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Rossi, to approve the rest of the airport chapter as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 8 – Special Focus Areas  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the language about the CalFire/Cal Poly property, North side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll), and the Alrita properties as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. 8.2.1 Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Richardson, to approve the section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:1 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 17 Mid-Higuera, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-in Theatre Area, Pacific Beach Site, Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area, LOVR Creekside Area, Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site  On motion by Task Force Member Rossi, and seconded by Task Force Member Quaglino, to approve the above sections as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Interim Open Space zoning  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Richardson, to endorse the approach to replace the Interim Open Space zoning with policy direction as part of Special Focus areas for all the properties except the Alrita property and the property on the north side of Foothill. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote. Introduction  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Special Focus Areas introduction section as amended to include the addition of “environmental site constraints” to A, and to split the last paragraph on page 1-123 into two with the second paragraph beginning, “The additional special planning areas…”. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 10:2 vote. Margarita Area Specific Plan  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Crotser, to revise the MASP section to state, “The City shall consider the Margarita Area Specific Plan as potentially appropriate for additional residential development.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney LUCE Task Force Motions 18 NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. DALIDIO Chart  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Bremer, to change the chart to allow 500 maximum units for housing, leave the commercial at 200,000 sq. ft. maximum, change office to office/high tech, remove maximum acreage for parks, allow visitor serving up to 150 rooms, change bullets to letters, change community serving to neighborhood commercial, and provide clarifying language regarding Prado Road infrastructure . AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. DALIDIO  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Whitney, that offsite mitigations for the 50% open space not be allowed. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion failed on a 4:9 vote. DALIDIO Chart  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Richardson, to add a footnote to the chart stating that in appropriate circumstances it may be acceptable to substitute not more than ten percent of required open space off -site. AYES: Task Force Members Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Meyer, Multari, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion failed on a 5:8 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 19 DALIDIO Chart  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to add a footnote to the chart stating that in appropriate circumstances it may be acceptable to substitute not more than a small portion of on-site open space for offsite open space. AYES: Task Force Members Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Meyer, Multari, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion failed on a 6:7 vote. UPPER MONTEREY  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Whitney, to approve recommended wording changes for 8.2.2 and include safety to the list of items to be addressed in a master plan, and inclusion of residents in adjoining areas as well as business and property owners in developing the master plan for the area . AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. UPPER MONTEREY  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Juhnke, to include evaluation of Ordinance 1130 as part of the master plan and design guideline development. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Madonna on LOVR  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Juhnke, to delete the percentages for 8.1.5 except the 50% for open space/agriculture and assign the designation CN/CR. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None LUCE Task Force Motions 20 ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown, Rossi and Saunders DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 11:1 vote. Avila Ranch  On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Junke to add a bullet point to indicate provision of a neighborhood park, to modify the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude the area or designate it as a special planning area with the AASP, to remove the percentages, make this area plan consistent with others by providing for a minimum 50% for open space/agricultural but include an asterisk noting that up to one-third may be provided offsite or through in lieu fees consistent with the Airport Specific Plan, open space requirement can be reduced to 30% if RHNA housing affordability levels are met on -site, shorten the first bullet point with a period after “affordability levels,” add “open space” on the first line of the third bullet. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown, Rossi, Rowley and Saunders DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 11:0 vote. Chapter 9 - Sustainability  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to approve this section as amended, with the exception of the preamble and 9.6. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote.  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve adoption of the preamble and 9.6 as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 LUCE Task Force Motions 21 The motion passed on a 13:1 vote. Chapter 10 – Healthy Community  On motion by Member Meyer, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the Healthy Community chapter including a new clean air policy and a program to develop a resource guide to facilitate design that promotes healthy and active lifestyles. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 12:1 vote.  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve the Review and Amendment and Implementation sections as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 22 Task Force Motions – Circulation Element September 18, 2013 – December 10, 2013 Chapter 1: Introduction, Goals and Objectives  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the following new goal in the Circulation Element: Introduction, Goals, and Objectives: “Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve modification of the modal share splits to be 50% for vehicles, 10% for public transit, 20% for bicycles and 20% for walking, car pools and other forms; and also to direct staff to provide more data to the Planning Commission. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Dandekar, Juhnke, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 9:5 vote. Members Juhnke and Saunders stated that their no vote is based on frustration about not having the data to back up the modal splits. Member Saunders stated that she regretted not having the opportunity to vote just on the bicycle share.  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve Figure 1 Modal Split Objectives as presented except for the changes to the modal split approved in the last motion. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Dandekar, Juhnke, Richardson, Rowley, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 8:5 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 23 Chapter 2 – Traffic Reduction  On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Rowley, to not delete the first sentence in the Introduction on page 2-12. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 13-0 vote.  On motion by Committee Member Multari, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to accept the recommended changes in wording for 2.0.1 Multi-level Programs. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-2 vote.  On motion by Committee Member Rowley, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to support the recommended changes but to remove the wording “when appropriate” from 2.0.2 Flexible Work Schedules. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Committee Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on an 11-3 vote.  On motion by Committee Member Multari, seconded by Committee Member Brown to amend the draft language to “The City shall encourage employers within the city limits to work with the County to encourage employers outside the City limits to participate in trip - reduction programs, including commuter benefit options to reduce the amount of commuters who drive alone in their vehicles. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney LUCE Task Force Motions 24 NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 13-0 vote (Rossi abstained; Crotser absent).  On motion by Committee Member Rademaker, seconded by Committee Member Juhnke, to accept the proposed wording for 2.0.4 Downtown Congestion with the addition of the language “establish and” prior to the word “promote.” AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 14-0 vote (Crotser absent).  On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Bremer, to use the following language in 2.1.1: “The City shall participate and cooperate with county agency efforts in establishing countywide trip-reduction programs.” AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Members Rossi and Whitney ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-0 vote (Rossi and Whitney abstained; Crotser absent).  On motion by Committee Member Rowley, seconded by Committee Member Rademaker, to accept the recommended deletion to the wording of 2.1.2 Average Vehicle Ridership. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney. NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Members Brown and Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-0 vote (Brown and Rossi abstained; Crotser absent). LUCE Task Force Motions 25  On motion by Committee Member Quaglino, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to approve recommended changes for 2.1.3 Trip Reduction. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 13-0 vote (Rossi abstained; Crotser absent).  On motion by Committee Member Multari, seconded by Committee Member Richardson, to approve the following wording for 2.1.4 City Trip Reduction: Th e City shall maintain and, where cost effective, improve its trip-reduction plan for City employees. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: Committee Member Whitney RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Brown ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-1 vote (Brown abstained; Crotser absent).  On motion by Comm. Member Saunders, seconded by Comm. Member Rademaker, to retain the references to air quality in 2.0.5 with original language. AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rossi, and Meyer RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion failed on a 5:10 vote.  On motion by Member Juhnke to recommend language for 2.0.5 as follows: The City will support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades below legal standards, or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent measures to achieve its transportation goals. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 LUCE Task Force Motions 26 The motion passed on a 14:1 vote. Chapter 3 – Transit Service  On motion by Task Force Member Brown, and seconded by Task Force Member Quaglino, to support the Transit Services section revisions as discussed with the exception of Program 3.1.3. AYES: Members Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Members Bremer, Juhnke, and Rossi DATE: 10-2-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion by Task Force Member Brown, and seconded by Task Force Member Crotser, to support Program 3.1.3 as written. AYES: Members Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Members Bremer, Juhnke, and Rossi DATE: 10-2-2013 The motion passed on an 11:1 vote.  On motion by Member Brown, seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve 3.0.6 as presented (with correction of letter assignments A-D under 3.0.6). AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 27 Chapter 4 – Bicycle Transportation  On motion by Task Force Member Quaglino, and seconded by Task Force Member Brown, to support the Bicycle Transportation policies revisions as discussed. AYES: Committee Members Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Bremer, Juhnke, and Rossi DATE: 10-2-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. Task Force members revised Policy 4.0.3 in light of the discussions and agreed to add language to 4.0.3: The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way as they become available.  On motion by Task Force Member Quaglino, and seconded by Task Force Member Rademaker, to approve the programs discussed and agreed upon in 4.1 and the revised policy 4.0.3. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote.  On motion Member Rossi, seconded by Member Brown, to recommend deletion of 4.0.7 and the addition of the new program and the two new policies listed above. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 28 Chapter 5 - Walking  On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the policies and programs in Section 5 as discussed and agreed upon. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider existing neighborhood character, including topography, street design, existing density, and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation of sidewalks .  On motion by Member Saunders, seconded by Member Brown to use Member Multari’s language listed above for this new policy. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. Chapter 6 – Multi-modal Circulation (replaces Chapter 8, Traffic Flow)  On motion by Member Rowley, seconded by Member Juhnke, to change the minimum LOS standard for bicycles from C to D and add this word “shall” before “maintain level of service minimums” in Policy 6.0.B. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: Brown and Meyer RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 13:2 vote.  On motion by Member Rademaker, seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the footnote language as amended for Table 6.0.1 as follows: LUCE Task Force Motions 29 Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when it is determined that sidewalks are not consistent with neighborhood character, including topography, street design, and existing density. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote.  On motion by Member Juhnke, seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Multimodal Priorities section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Rossi DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Chapter 7 (Chapter 6 in TF version) – Traffic Management  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to remove “desired” where it appears in the Circulation Element description table. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote.  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rossi, to approve the Description and Standards for Figure 2 with the following changes: retain the sentences struck out in Note 1, add wording to indicate that the traffic counts are done when schools are in session, correct the end of the last sentence in Note 1 to read “up to 15%,” delete “desired” in the Circulation Element table, and define the street segments of Broad Street. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None LUCE Task Force Motions 30 DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Chapter 8 (Chapter 7 in TF version) – Neighborhood Traffic Management  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve section 7 as amended and with those sections referenced that will return for further discussion at a future meeting. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Policy 8.1.2  On motion by Member Richardson, and seconded by Member Dandekar, to delete the new policy and replace it with the first sentence of the old language: “The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes exceed standards set by policy 5.2. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Chapter 9 – Street Network Changes  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Rowley, to approve Section 9 as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 31 Chapter 10 – Truck Transportation (Policies are numbered 9 in TF-LUCE draft)  On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Rowley, to approve Section 9 as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz , Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 11 – Air Transportation The Task Force made no changes to this section. Chapter 12 – Rail Transportation  On motion by Member Quaglino, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Rail Transportation section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on an 11:1 vote. Member Rowley stated she voted no because she does not believe the intent of the word “support” in 10.0.2 is clear. LUCE Task Force Motions 32 Chapter 13– Parking Management  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the Parking Management section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. Chapter 14 – Neighborhood Parking Management The Task Force approved this section as proposed. Chapter 15– Scenic Roadways  On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Scenic Roadways as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 16– Circ. Element Implementation  On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the Circulation Element Implementation and Management section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Rowley, Whitney, and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 10:3 vote. JAN 14 2014 Kovesdi Consulting Land Use & Environment "Building Legacies" January 14, 2014 AGENDA To: City Council Members ORRESPONDENCE From: Rachel Kovesdi D.��Item# i Re: Dalidio (San Luis Ranch) Open Space /Agriculture ;2-01 L/ We are asking your Council to incorporate a provision to consider a small portion of the required Open Space /Agriculture to be relocated off -site, through the Specific Plan process. We believe that it is in the City's best interest, as well as the project's, to keep doors open to creative planning options. Please consider: • The City Council should maintain its discretion through the Specific Plan process to consider alternatives in order to balance City goals and objectives. • We are NOT requesting a reduction in total acreage or percentage of this component, only the opportunity to analyze whether there is more valuable open space that the City may want to preserve, in addition to the on -site ag /open space component. • The current conceptual site plan maintains 66.5 contiguous acres of organic farmland (to be operated with SLO City Farm). • When the LUCE Task Force deliberated on this issue, only two of its members were specifically against relocating any portion of the ag /open space component off -site. The other members determined that maximum acreage off -site, mitigation ratio, type and locations of land appropriate for consideration are policy questions for the Planning Commission and City Council to determine during Specific Plan process. • The City's Natural Resource Manager has identified a number of properties that may be more valuable to the City than additional acreage on the project site. The Planning Commission and City Council will have full discretion as to whether any of the potential options and multipliers presented are sufficiently valuable to allow for the relocation of a small percentage of the project site's ag /open space. • The LUCE EIR should include an option for a small portion (up to 10 acres or 15% of the required ag /open space) to be located off -site - even if that alternative is ultimate rejected - so that comprehensive information is available during a joint City Council /Planning Commission pre -app study session for the project's Specific Plan. • We 're requesting that the following language be inserted in the Performance Standards: "A small portion of on -site open spate /agriculture (up to 10 acres or 15% of the required ag /open space) may be relocated off -site by the City Council through Specific Plan approval." Kremke, Kate JAN 14 2014 From: Goodwin, Heather Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:42 AM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: City Council LUCE item on 1 -14 -14 agenda AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Agenda correspondence Date !/ Item# Begin forwarded message: ) V, From: James Lopes <jameslopeskcharter.net> Date: January 14, 2014 at 10:39:22 AM PST To: Anthony Mejia <amejiakslocity.or > Cc: Heather Goodwin <hgoodwinkslocit y�org >, Kim Murry <kmurrX(a]slocity.org> Subject: City Council LUCE item on 1 -14 -14 agenda Dear Mr. Mejia, I am requesting the City Council to continue the hearing on the Land Use and Circulation Elements on tonight's agenda to a date certain, to afford time for staff to extensively announce the hearing, respond to my and others' comments, and time for council's adequate consideration. Would you please inform the council by copying this email to them? The LUCE has been in the review of a dedicated task force for over 15 meetings, and the Planning Commission held two hearings on the Land Use Element. Although the work of these essential volunteers has to be commended and admired, these meetings were opaque to the public largely and admittedly to me specifically. Task Force topics were bounced around in a confusing manner, and legislative drafts were hard to find. And, the hearing tonight comes right after the busy holiday season. Planning Commission hearings were held right in the middle of the season (Dec. 12 and 16)! This is an important matter, and extensive public outreach is needed beyond city website and email lists. While some articles announced a workshop, this hearing has not had advance warning in the newspaper, unless you are devoted to the legal ads. Being on the LUCE email list, I received an email yesterday about the hearing tonight. The draft LUE was included with the email, so I spent hours commenting on issues in a letter that the council will receive today. However, we know they are not going to be able to analyze, much less have staff review and make recommendations, on all of my comments today. I am requesting the continuance to give time for council to refer all comments to staff for a one to three week review and staff report for a second hearing one month or so from now. This continuance probably would not jeopardize the grant for the LUCE update, which requires a Draft LUE and Draft EIR by June. If this continuance could jeopardize that deadline, I ask that, instead of continuing this hearing, the council "table" the comments it cannot in good conscience consider and act on tonight, until the Land Use Element is reviewed again after the Draft EIR. This review would not only be for EIR mitigations and alternatives, but for late- coming participants and comments that are not in the scope of CEQA requirements for the EIR. Important policies need to be added or reviewed in the Draft LUE, and these 1 salient non -EIR issues should also be addressed in a final round of hearings after the Draft EIR is published. With either approach, the council might want to require that an extensive media outreach effort be made between staff and the newspaper and other outlets, before another hearing. As a former public land use planner, I am aware that general plan updates usually need several hearings to air all concerns and review detailed proposals. This City should embrace that reality and begin outreach especially as the Draft EIR is published, for broader community involvement in a final round of public hearings on all issues. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Jamie Lopes James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805 - 781 -8960 2 1336 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 city of SAn luiS OBispO Community Development Department Planning Division January 14, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared by: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Land Use Element update: Updated Resolutions To address potential conflict of interests on the part of Council members, two areas of the Land Use Element will be separately discussed prior to Council consideration of the remainder of the Element. To recognize those separate actions and allow one Council member to return after his item of potential conflict is resolved, separate Resolutions have been developed to replace Attachments #6 and #7 of the staff report. Those Resolutions are attached for Council use in tonight's special meeting. Resolution1 - General Hospital RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT 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, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven 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 goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element 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 draft Land Use Element after 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 14, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Resolution1 - General Hospital Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the policies related to the General Hospital site shown in Attachment A in the Draft Land Use Element as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of , seconded by AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Council members Carpenter and Ashbaugh The foregoing Resolution was adopted this Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mej ia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J.Christine Dietrick_ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney and on the following vote: 12014, Resolutionl - General Hospital ATTACHMENT A 8.3.3.5 General Hospital Site The General Hospital site includes County -owned property including the old hospital building (which is planned to remain as an office / treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands behind the hospital building that are inside the City's Urban Reserve line will be designated as Public (for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas. The remaining site outside the City's Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The City shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban reserve line as part of any development proposal. The undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will remain designated for Public uses. Resolution 2- Foothill RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT 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, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven 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 goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element 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 draft Land Use Element after 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 14, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Resolution 2- Foothill Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the policies related to the North Side of Foothill site shown in Attachment A in the Draft Land Use Element as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of . seconded by AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Council member Ashbaugh The foregoing Resolution was adopted this Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mej ia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J.Christine Dietrick Christine Dietrick, City Attorney and on the following vote: , 2014. Resolution 2- Foothill ATTACHMENT A 1.12.7B Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill property, and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area preserved as open space. 8.3.3 Special Planning Areas North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under 1.12.7 and open space buffers in accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element policy 8.3.2. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive. Density shall be limited to 7 units /acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution 3 - LUE minus Airport Chapter RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT 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, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven 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 goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element 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 draft Land Use Element after 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 14, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. Resolution 3 - LUE minus Airport Chapter Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the goals, policies, and programs in the Draft Land Use Element (without Chapter 7: Airport) as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this __ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ /s/ J.Christine Dietrick Christine Dietrick, City Attorney , 2014. Goodwin, Heather From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:21 AM To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: FW: LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Agenda correspondence for 1 -14 and 1- 28 -14. Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 JAN 13 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ` - -7 - Item# T'h I i-, +.14 I- Z$ —ILf From: Peg Pinard [pinardmat @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 6:11 PM To: Murry, Kim Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Jeanette Trompeter; Dave Congalton; Allan Cooper Subject: LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Kim Murry Please distribute this to the LUCE members before Wed. meeting. Thank you. Dear LUCE Members, The Old Town neighborhood is directly adjacent to the downtown and is obviously going to be the neighborhood most impacted by proposed changes to the downtown. I am writing as a long time resident and an advocate for the Old Town neighborhood. Once again your agenda includes plans that will impact our neighborhood and whose residents have no idea that this discussion is even going on. Since absolutely no outreach to our neighborhood has occurred, as is mandated in the city's constitution, it's General Plan, and reaffirmed over and over again by multiple city councils, you are having this discussion without any benefit of knowing the existing problems for the neighborhood and their experiences living so close to downtown. Your input would be so much more helpful if you could be addressing the issues that currently plague us and building from there. How can you `build' something useful if the current foundation is crumbling? I'll give you some examples in a minute, but first I'd like to address a core issue that seems to be forgotten and, since that is happening, renders a lot this update `planning' practically moot. Some background information may be helpful. In the early 70's (yes, some of us do go back quite a ways!) there were multiple conflicts between the neighborhoods surrounding downtown and the downtown itself. One issue was zoning - as there was a push to convert existing, comparatively inexpensive housing, into offices. Those of us who joined the bicentennial momentum of `preservation' of historic resources wanted to preserve the `neighborhoods' that we had sunk our major investments into. It was not our vision to have empty office buildings sitting vacant after 5 o'clock every day, and all day on weekends and holidays, surrounding our otherwise family- oriented homes. Attempted changes in zoning was one battle. Another was circulation. Families did not want to have a freeways in front of their homes (especially when they were putting their heart and soul into restoring them) and yet, moving lots of traffic quickly around the downtown was a primary city goal. This resulted in more and more fast moving, one - way streets. These were just two of the many issues that needed to be resolved if the city wanted to have a viable neighborhood surrounding downtown. And THAT was the key question! As those of you who are planners may recall, the number ONE requirement for a safe and healthy downtown was the existence of people who lived in and around the downtown. Without the presence of residents surrounding downtowns, there arose a `no man's land' that people generally felt unsafe passing through. In isolation, the old downtowns were seen as, basically, unsafe. Transient populations did not provide the same investment in "neighborhood watch" practices that home -owner occupied residences did. Residents from Old Town, especially as they went out for an evening stroll, pushed strollers, walked dogs, etc. were the 'eyes and ears' of the town and provided that sense of safety that other cities would give their eye teeth for - and, who were scrambling to find ways to recreate it, That was one advantage SLO had over the other cities, it was still that kind of `lost in time' community that hadn't yet seen the demise of its downtown. The downtown business owners and the neighborhood residents got together and, basically, recognized this unique and vital symbiotic relationship. Businesses agreed to take the pressure off the neighborhoods for being targets for spot- zoning and that's how west side of Pismo became the dividing line between commercial /office zoning and residential. The push for speedy traffic through the neighborhoods was also removed as the circulation plan and safety and resident livability became the goal instead. The neighborhood became very supportive because, after all, access to a safe, healthy downtown was why we moved here! Our presence accomplished many of the other city goals, like easing traffic congestion and improving air quality since we could walk to wherever we needed and leave our cars at home. This was a true definition of a WIN -WIN with the entire community benefitting in the long run. The reason I'm going into this in such detail (though believe me, I could bend your ears for hours with A LOT more) is because, as I see it, over these past few years, actions from the city and its `committees' have been unnecessarily ignorant of what we worked so hard for. It appears that what we accomplished is now being taken for granted - and, when things are taken for granted and not understood why they were put in place to begin with, then, sadly, you lose them. The census during the last General Plan update showed the number of non -owner occupied residences for the city being around 60 %. The proportion was higher surrounding downtown - so this was a delicate balance to work to maintain if the city was to keep a stable neighborhood surrounding its downtown. An important statistic at the time was to realize that it wasn't just the number of people compressed into a neighborhood that made a difference as crime statistics were a lot higher in the denser R -3 neighborhoods than in R -I or R -2. The idea that just increasing density provided that sense of safety was completely debunked. Well, here we are, and the latest population statistics showed the city as having near 70% of its housing now being non -owner occupied. What is so interesting is that most of these former residents didn't move away because of jobs or other reasons people move. Many simply moved to other areas in the county. The reason given most often for why they moved was that they had "had it" with the city! The many reasons people gave are gist for another discussion but, the point I'm trying to make here is that this city now has a population distribution resembling Isla Vista. The halo is off that sense of safety and family friendly - for not only the downtown, but also its surrounding neighborhood. The incredible proliferation of bars, of drunks and drunken behaviors, noise — and yes... especially of leaving the residents'out -of -the -loop' has had very real consequences. Many Old Town residents testified at the council when they finally heard about the new punitive laws and potential $10,000 fines they were going to be subjected to under the proposed "Historic Preservation Ordinance" and yet many of their concerns were ignored. The council promised that it would address those problems and that simply never happened. Not long ago, as a neighborhood, we submitted an official petition to the council asking to have time on an agenda with them regarding a whole range of problems we were having - and we were turned down. The council's response was that they "weren't interested ". Since then, a number of these long time families have also moved out of the city. I have heard comments from some of your committee members, from staff, and even council members that it looks like "people don't care" since they aren't coming to meetings. Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Residents tried - and were either ignored or turned down. The city's own consultant for the evaluation of the community development department said that it needed to do more in outreach and yet, after using taxpayer dollars to get that advice, they still completely ignored it. There were NO real meetings in the neighborhoods as required by the General Plan or council direction. It is with great sadness that I'm writing this to you. People can only be beaten down so many times before they give up. And, as other cities can testify, once you lose your stable, owner - occuppied population, you lose a lot more than mere numbers. As promised, for whatever good it will do, here are a couple of the problems that residents are facing. You could lean a lot more if you asked them. 1) There is a spillover of people (downtown employees and tourists) parking their cars in our historic neighborhood which is already impacted with its own lack of off - street residential parking. People have added rentals where they didn't provide any additional parking to accommodate them. And, we have many existing houses with multiple residents, each with his/her own car and insufficient off - street parking to accommodate either them or their guests. In the past, our neighborhood presented a petition to the city asking for a `parking district' (signed by over 70% of the residents— and where the requirement for creating a parking district was for only a simple majority) - and we were turned down. However, the issue continues and we would appreciate this being addressed in the downtown pedestrian plan and /or other parts of the update. 2) Just having some "space" in front of our homes doesn't necessarily translate into viable parking places for downtown employees or tourists, as witnessed by these pictures. If the `space' looks like anything more than single parking place then two will try to fit into it. This results in drivers `pushing' it and parking their cars into red lined areas that are needed for residents to be able to get safely in and out of their own driveways. In the older sections of town driveways are usually very narrow and there needs to be safe turning radii. The other picture shows how this parking problem impacts even pedestrian sidewalk pathways. HI: 3) Just so you'll understand a bit more why people aren't coming to meetings they don't even know about and are moving away instead, here is another recent example. Our residential neighborhood was never included in the discussion (or even notified that this was being considered) that the city's long- standing, existing policy of keeping utility boxes in the neighborhoods as unobtrusive as possible was being changed. We awoke one morning to be `graced' with someone's idea of `art' that the city deemed appropriate for our children and grandchildren to have to look at. How would you like to have this in front of your home? One's home is usually a family's major investment and yet we were never even asked if this is something we would like in front of our homes. If residents had agreed that a change in policy was warranted, I'm sure they would have come up with designs more in keeping with the historical context in which they are located. The message was loud and clear that residents simply don't matter anymore. IQ When your discussion and staff report says "in and around" downtown, and you didn't start with asking residents in the neighborhood what the existing problems are that need solving, well, I don't see that `format' as adding to the livability for residents who have already invested their life savings here. I am painfully aware that much of what has damaged and weakened our neighborhood is water under the bridge at this point, however our family and neighbors ask that, in this update, you are aware of the history of our neighborhood, the work we have done to preserve it as an asset to the community, especially the downtown, and carefully examine all proposals for the downtown pedestrian plan for further impacts on our already weakened neighborhood. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Co- founder "Old Town Neighborhood Association" Owner and restorer of the historic Myron Angel House We placed our home on the National Register of Historic Places thus enabling the city's first Historic District. Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo Former, Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ("IIA; Of SAI) WlS O1,l';l)0 qgo Palm Street San f (As Obispo, CA 93401 t:el 1805 781.1102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:28 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Support Circulation Element Update From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:25 AM To: Paul Reinhardt Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Support Circulation Element Update SC III liom mV Vciv.on Win;loss 4G I.I F Smailphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Paul Reinhardt Date:01 /28/2014 7:15 AM (GMT- 08:00) RECETVED JAN 28 2014 LO CITY CLERK AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date lk item# }a llmz� To: "Marx, Jan" , "Smith, Kathy" , "Ashbaugh, John" , "Carpenter, Dan" , "Christianson, Carlyn" Subject: Support Circulation Element Update Please support the Circulation Element Update. We need to focus on getting people out of their cars. Increasing the network of bike ways. Thanks for your work, Paul Reinhardt San Luis Obispo, California Life Is Flow Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, January 07,20L4 L:12 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: PHI- LUCE Update Minority Repoft PHL LUCE Update Minority Report 7-7-20L4.doc R iVËD JAN 0 7 2014 ct_Ë AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE t- ¡rt -tv | - 2Ø-t1 t_cj Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk {..:1,-v {)lì stn lu¡s $11r.çp(ì qr¡o Paim Strcct San Luis Cbispo, C g34or tel | 8o5 78:.7ro: From : Sa ndra Rowley Imailto : macsa r99@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 20L4 L2:4I PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek Subject: PH1 LUCE Update Minority Repoft Attached please find the TF-LUCE Minority Report for tonight's meeting. Thank you, Sandra Rowley January 7 ,20L4 SUBJECT: Task Force LUCE Minority Report Regarding Process and EIR lnput Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, Prior to presenting our Minority Report we would like to express our gratitude to the 2OO8 and 2OL2 City Councils for their affirmation of the importance to the City of residents and established neighborhoods. Both councils directed that the process of updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based. Both councils directed that staff use legislative drafts to make proposed changes clear to residents, and both councils directed that the process start with primarily resident involvement. INTRODUCTION Each of you was elected by the residents of this city to look out for their welfare. We hope you will keep this in the forefront of your mind as you provide inputtothe EIR process and, later, when you review the Land Use Element (LUE) update and the Circulation Element (CE) update. PROCESS We are extremely disappointed that Council direction was not routinely followed 1. Meetinss in the neishborhoods . Although two Councils were very clear that this process begin with meetings in the neighborhoods, such meetings never occurred. lt appeared they were not part of the update plans. When reminded (severaltimes) of the requirement for neighborhood meetings, staff instead set up roving workshops where residents, city-wide, could drop in throughout the day. This process did not allow for individual residential groups to assemble and provide their comments and concerns and it severely diluted each neighborhood's input When queried about holding meetings at various elementary schools for neighborhoods in the area we were told the SL00 cost was too expensive. However, there were sufficient funds available to pay half of the SL0,000 speaking fee for Peter Kageyama and purchase at least twenty copies of his book, For the Love of Cities. The City sponsored an Economic Task Force to "inform" the LUE/CE. The Sierra Club asked for an Environmental Task Force; their request was denied. Residents didn't know they needed a Task Force because the General Plan is very clear about the City's requirement to ensure early involve- ment of residents and to hold meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. 2. Survev. Both Councils directed that the questionnaire be based on the 1988 questionnaire and include updated questions as needed. lnstead questions were altered to the point that an accurate comparison could not be made. The reason given for the changes was to remove inflammatory language; however, substantive changes were, also, made. 3. Recorded votes, not consensus. Had it not been forthe 2OL2Council's specific direction, it is possible that assenting and dissenting votes would not have been recorded. lnitially, as well as 1 periodically thereafter, it was necessary for staff and other task force personnel to be reminded of the requirement to proceed by recorded vote and not by consensus. On September L8, 20L3, the Task Force received the first, partially completed, element from the consultants to review. Shortly thereafter repeated consensus "straw votes" were taken followed by official votes for each section because it was faster. 4. Council directed that definitions should be consistent with the present LUCE and anv proposed . The current definition of "infill" in the General Plan Glossary is development on vacant (emphasis added) sites which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when this element was adopted. "lnfill" is now used to denote development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. A partial explanation of what this means can be found in the following statement that refers to new housing built within an existing neighborhood: A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable. This implies that the San Luis Drive neighborhood and other established neighborhoods will be retrofitted with a mix of housing types, a range of density and new commercial development, including a grocery store. 5. Use of the LUE and CE Goals to suide the deve ment of new oolicies and orosrems or revise existing ones. The Task Force and Planning Commission voted unanimously for the existing Goals in both elements to be the "Guiding Principles" for the development of new policies and programs. Council agreed. Thus, all proposed changes were to support the existing Goals prior to being provided for Task Force review. However, after approving some of the text changes, the Task Force was advised that some of the Goals might need to be revised in orderto conform to new policies or programs. 6. documentation of said need. Documentation of need was often not provided. Many substantial changes had "style" or "clarity" shown as the reason for the change. 7. Lesislative Draft. Both Councils directed that a legislative draft be used. The 20L2 Council further directed that everyone needs to know at every stage exactly what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by whom. Several task force members thought the Task Force would be reviewing the elements and preparing the legislative draft. However, that was not the case. The consultant team drafted all of the policy language in the legislative drafts. Then their proposed policy language was provided to the Task Force for consideration, putting Task Force members in the position of being reactive instead of proactive. MAIN DRIVER FOR THE UPDATE PROCESS We believe the update process was driven primarily by the grant application, not by the Council. The grant's primary focus was on infill, but infill was not mentioned in the 2008 Council's direction. The 2008 Council directed that the process was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based, but that was not in the grant application. lt does not appear that the inclusion of infill was a requirement for grant approval because grant requests by other cities for General Plan updates that were approved at the same time as our grant request did not focus on infill nor on complete neighborhoods as ours does. 2 COMMUNITY OUTREACH We are, also, extremely disappointed in the community outreach process. The process that was chosen did not result in significant input from city residents. We think one of the reasons residents were not involved was the absence of meetings in the neighborhoods that, among other things, would have informed them of the process and their part in it. ln generalthere was low resident attendance at workshops (about 50 each) and open houses (about L2 each). Attendance was higher at the Future Fairs with, we think, L25 being the highest number of attendees. This is a very small percentage of the City's 44,000 residents. The turnout of residents from neighborhoods that could be affected by proposed land use and/or circulation changes was not good either, Of approximately 38 neighborhoods that could potentially be affected by proposed update changes, only six were sent post cards and only on one occasion (after repeated queries to staff asking whether any of the affected neighborhoods would receive notification). Unfortunately, the post cards were unclear about what was being proposed and few residents responded. A few neighborhoods were energized, incidentally being informed on a someone-who-knew-someone basis... of those, four of the five were able to influence the outcome to some extent. When staff was asked why notification post cards were not sent to all affected neighborhoods, they said it was because of the cost. However, recently, informatively worded post cards were sent by the Police Department to every, or at least most, addresses in the city notifying residents of double fines during WOW Week. Apparently meaningful notification can occur. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During the meetings that were held at the library, the only public comment allowed occurred at the end of the meeting, afterthe Task Force had discussed, deliberated and, in some cases, voted. Needless to say, after three or four meetings, attendance by the public was minimal. Meetings at City Hall were handled differently, with a public comment period at the beginning and several opportunities to speak throughout the meeting. Attendance improved, but it was still not good. A large percentage of the meetings had only a handful of residents or less. Participation was not easy for the public because, unlike Council agendas, Task Force agendas only generally described items/areas to be covered; it was not until later meetings that more specifics were shown. Occasionally, the Task Force did not know what it would be covering untilthe meeting began. ln many cases too many sections were agendized and the Task Force did not complete all of them in the allotted three hours. Probably as a result of the lack of notice of topicsto be covered and the inabilityto participate initially, there was minimal public input provided during meetings. City staff and consultant input were the primary sources of information that we considered. TASK FORCE ADVOCACY The vast majority of the task force had no history of being advocates for the preservation of the City's established neighborhoods. However, many of the task force members were board members of and/or active in organizations that advocate for real estate development interests. aJ SUMMARY ln our opinion, the process failed to follow Council guidance at every step of the process The City never received meaningful input from residents of the various neighborhoods concerning problems they want corrected or characteristics they liked about their unique neighborhoods and wanted to have protected, what city-wide problems they wanted to have corrected or what they considered to be City assets that needed to be protected. NEXT STEPS 1. Focus on what residents said on the survey. Responses were received from about 2,200 resident households and San Luis Obispo business owners. 2. Bring Neighborhood Mapping back to Council and do away with the Area designations (Staff Report, April 2, 20L3) 3. Provide input for the EIR preparation as follows: a. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the City's established neighborhoods. b. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the potential for increased noise impacts by student/young adults on the City's established neighborhoods. c. Ensure that early and meaningful notice to City residents is part of the EIR community outreach process in accordance with our above comments. Respectfu I ly submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney 4 i i JAN 14 2014 i TF -LUCE Minority Report January 14, 2014 AGENDA SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Review � `[ _)f -RESPONDENCE INTRODUCTION We are not opposed to new neighborhoods of diverse character, mixed uses an, d /n easeVMs /ty being created through annexation. Nor are we opposed to new neighborhoods being created in undeveloped areas within the city specifically identified for increased density and development. We are, however, opposed to adding mixed uses, a variety of housing types and creating a range of densities in our established neighborhoods. The Task Force was assured early -on that our established residential neighborhoods would be protected. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. Proposed changes to the LUE encourage increasing both density and non - residential uses in the city's established residential neighborhoods — even if those neighborhoods oppose the density and use changes. This seems to be consistent with enabling the large -city planning theory of "complete neighborhoods" (appropriate for San Francisco's large neighborhoods) to be inappropriately applied to the significantly smaller neighborhoods of a small city of 44,000. ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS For the past twenty years residents of San Luis Obispo have depended on the protections for established neighborhoods that are found in the current Land Use Element (LUE). These neighborhood protections assume even greater importance as our City's exceptionally low number of owner - occupied residences continues to decline. Neighborhood protections were weakened or eliminated by expanding the definitions of words, by removing content that provided protection for established neighborhoods and by adding goals, policies and programs that encourage compact, mixed -use neighborhoods with a variety of housing densities in all residential zones. We believe that established neighborhoods must be protected from such retrofitting. GOALS Two Community Goals were added that we strongly believe must be modified in order to better reflect the desires of city residents and foster or maintain the stability of our established neighborhoods. Our recommended additions to these goals are shown as underlined text. 1. Goal #10 (page PH1 -46). Support statewide and regional efforts that the City deems to be locally appropriate to create more sustainable communities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and develop transportation systems that support all modes of circulation to meet the needs of the Cam. 2. Goal # 34 (page PH1 -48). Create compact, mixed -use neighborhoods within the City's expansion areas that locate housing, jobs, recreation, and other daily needs in close proximity to one another. DEFINITIONS 1. Infill. Infill is defined in the General Plan as "development on vacant sites (emphasis added) which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when this element was adopted." Infill Housing is defined as "Development of housing on vacant lots (emphasis added) within the City limits on property zoned for such uses. (See General Plan Glossary) However, in paragraph 2.1.1* (page PHI -80 of the draft), it appears that "infill" is being used as a generic term that also includes "redevelopment, rehabilitation* and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." In January 2012, Council directed that definitions of terms should be consistent with the present LUCE and any proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in public hearings. For clarity and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation, we believe it is critically important to include the definitions of "infill" and "infill housing" in the body of the LUE as well as in the Glossary. We, also, believe the concepts "redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse" should not be applied to our established residential neighborhoods. 2. Neighborhood Enhancement. Although no definition of enhance or enhancement was in the General Plan, Webster's defines it as "to make greater, as in cost, value, attractiveness, etc.; heighten, improve, augment, etc." Common interpretation with regard to our neighborhoods is that it means improving the quality of life so that all residents can have the peace and quiet they need in order to enjoy their home and neighborhood. Paragraph 2.1.1 (page 131-11 -80, see note 1) states that "Neighborhood Enhancement" is "infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation ** and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." It states that the City should promote these activities, but does not define "contributing positively" nor clarify to whom. Although this paragraph was quoted above, under Infill, it is restated here to demonstrate how words that conveyed one meaning in our current Land Use Element have been reused, but now have a different meaning. This paragraph should be deleted. What contributes positively to the various existing neighborhoods is extremely subjective. These proposed "enhancements" may not be considered appropriate or desirable to the City's many, unique established neighborhoods. 3. Neighborhood Amenities. Paragraph 2.1.6, "Neighborhood Amenities" (page PH1 -79) is a list of characteristics, not a list of amenities. Neighborhood amenities are things like parks and nearby schools. The Task Force spent the greater part of one meeting discussing the desirable characteristics of residential neighborhoods and concluded that only one can be applied to all neighborhoods, safety. * Note 1: Paragraph 2.1.1 on PHI -80 appears to be misnumbered and probably should be numbered 2.1.7. * *Note 2: An FHA home rehabilitation program allows, among other things, a one - family dwelling to be converted to up to a four - family dwelling. It can be used by prospective homeowners or investors. 2 The proposed list of neighborhood "amenities" includes in the first bullet point "a mix of housing type (and) styles, density and affordability." This bullet point must be deleted. Mixing housing types is a planning concept, not an amenity. A mix of housing styles, depending on the disparity in mass, scale and height, solar access and overlook /privacy issues , may or may not be an amenity in a neighborhood. A mix of densities within our established R -1 and R -2 neighborhoods is not seen as an amenity, especially by residents of impacted neighborhoods. And affordability is primarily based on market rate. The things these items have in common is that they are all characteristics of "complete neighborhoods." We see deletion of this bullet point becoming more important because the proposed policy 2.4.2, Density Changes (page PHI -89) states, "The City shall approve re- zonings that increase density in existing residential areas only if it finds that the following are not adversely impacted: neighborhood character and identity; compatibility of land use; impact on services and facilities (including schools). In addition, the City shall find that proposed density changes meet policies related to neighborhood amenities (Policy 2.1.6); compatible development (Policy 2.2.9) and residential project objectives (Policy 2.2.11) (emphasis added)." We see these policies as intertwining and building on each other to allow, maybe promote, up- zoning in our established residential neighborhoods. 4. Compatible Development. Paragraph 2.2.9, Compatible Development, (page PHI -82) states that compatibility shall be evaluated using the criteria provided. One of the criteria, sub - paragraph H, states "A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable." The explanation accompanying this addition is that the paragraph was revised to expand the definition of compatibility. We do not think the definition of compatibility needs to be expanded; we think the result of doing so would be detrimental to our established residential neighborhoods. Therefore, we think sub - paragraph H should be deleted. 5. Interim Open Space. Interim Open Space was deleted in this update. We strongly recommend that it be retained. As new and unforseen situations and opportunities arise in the future, this is a unique designation that should be available to the City as a "tool in the land use tool box." It allows the City the critical flexibility that other land use designations do not have. 6. Lastly, we need a well thought out, resident - initiated definition of "quality neighborhoods." That term seems to mean one thing to residents and another thing to non - residents. SUMMARY Although the Task Force rejected "Complete Neighborhoods" as not being appropriate for San Luis Obispo and Council eliminated the "Neighborhood Areas," the concepts associated with "complete neighborhoods" permeate the draft LUE. It was impossible in the time available to identify every instance where such concepts were inserted into the document. However, staff and consultant personnel are sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to find and remove the language that states or implies that the concepts and changes associated with "complete neighborhoods" should or must be applied to our established neighborhoods. This should be done before the EIR review is begun. 3 Adding goals, policies and programs that promote and provide for the retrofitting of the City's established residential neighborhoods with mixed uses and a different variety of housing densities and types could place residents in a virtually untenable position. They would be required to try to defend their neighborhoods against new City policies that promote and provide for neighborhood changes that residents of that neighborhood may strongly oppose. The right of established neighborhoods to protect their unique character should not be weakened by such proposed new changes to the LUE. There has been no outcry from the City's established neighborhoods to initiate such changes, nor has there been any input from any neighborhood organization supporting such changes. RECOMMENDATIONS We strongly encourage Council to: 1. Modify Goals # 10 and 34 as shown on page 1, above, and revise the draft LUE as necessary to conform to the goals. 2. Delete the paragraph 2.1.1 that is on page PHI- 80 (that probably should have been numbered 2.1.7). Also, direct that the current glossary definitions of "infill" and "infill housing" be used within the body of the LUE as well as retained in the General Plan Glossary. 3. Ensure that "mixed uses, a variety of housing types and a range of densities" are not added to paragraphs related to our established residential neighborhoods. 4. Delete the first bullet point in paragraph 2.1.6 and change the heading to "Neighborhood Characteristics." 5. Delete sub - paragraph 2.2.9 H. 6. Delete paragraph 2.4.2. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney 4 Goodwin, Heather Subject: Attachments: FW: Water Delivery Outside City council water wheeling.doc RECEIVED JAN, 2 S 2014 :IT SLO _.1 t:R - - - -- Original Message---- - From: rschmidt @rain.org [mailto:rschmidt @rain.org] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:54 PM To: Marx, Jan; dcarpen @slocity.orR; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Water Delivery Outside City Dear Council Members, Attached is a letter on the subject of changing the General Plan to permit utility sales outside the city limits. This is a very very bad idea, a very very RADICAL idea. AGENDA Please don't do it. CORRESPONDENCE My reasons are in the letter. Date.101,& Item* II, )i- 1 I? Richard Schmidt Jan. 25, 2014 RE: Utility Service Outside City Limits To the City Council: I am shocked to learn a majority of the council are ready to toss out about 40 years of city policy and law prohibiting the sale of city water outside city limits. This is just so WRONG! When the city adopted an ordinance prohibiting extension of all city utility service outside the city limits in 1983, it was supported unanimously by Council LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES. It was something they all agreed on because they were smart forward- looking people.' The issues have not basically changed since then: extension of city services to outlying areas is SPRAWL- INDUCING and SHORTCHANGES RESIDENTS WHO HAVE FUNDED THESE UTILITIES. You may say, "It's only non - potable water," but that water induces sprawl just as surely as any other kind of water, for it enables developers to stretch potable water by an eight -to -one or greater ratio. Most urban uses don't require potable water: we can flush toilets as well as irrigate landscaping and perform industrial processes with non - potable recycled water. In fact, toilet flushing with recycled water is a chief strategy recommended in architectural circles for managing water sustainably. (Does it make any sense to use drinking water for diluting poop ?) • You'd do much better promoting toilet flushing, etc., with this water in new business and institutional settings where a dual plumbing system would be feasible. • You'd also do much better thinking long -term about the city's possible future need for this water for potable purposes in the future. Although the "policy" became "law" in its current form in 1983, 1 recall earlier policy formulations going back to at least 1970 which prohibited extending city utility service from that date. Some of you may be aware that I came to SLO in 1970 to be a government reporter for the daily newspaper, which in those days was a NEWSpaper, not the Chamber newsletter it is today. During my time covering SLO City Hall I recall several council discussions of requests to extend services beyond the city limits, and they resulted in a resounding NO, for the commonsense reasons enumerated in this letter. FOR YOU TO OVERTURN THIS POLICY WOULD TRULY BE A RADICAL COUNTER - GOOD - GOVERNMENT MOVE ON YOUR PART WITHOUT ANY PLANNING PRECEDENT IN THIS CITY'S HISTORY. It would move us back to a 1950s planning regime policy -wise. Back in the 1970s, City Engineer Dave Romero proposed just such a long -view scheme: spread treated water on the ground (we only had secondary treatment in that day, not the near - drinkable tertiary effluent of today), let it percolate down to the aquifer, then use windmills to pump it back out for domestic use. Percolating into the ground provides the final purification step in making this semi - purified water drinkable. (This is done on a large scale, minus the windmills, in conservative Orange County; are you aware of this ?) The city's current smugness about its bountiful water supply is without merit. Year before last was the driest on record in California. Last year was even drier. And this year — the way it's going -- could be still drier. How long till our reservoirs reach crisis point if this drought is the "new normal" rather than the assumptions on which reservoir capacities were calculated (using, we now know from historical tree ring studies, the wettest period in a millennium of California history on which to base those capacity assumptions)? Our recycled water is our most reliable water source. Why? The last thing we cut short, long after SLO's landscape looks like Barstow or Boron, is our domestic water use. Thus the recycled water will be there. When push comes to shove, we'll have to use it. Now, of all times, in the face of such climate uncertainty and its effects on surface water, is the least intelligent time in history to even talk about allocating any of our recycled water to others. As for fairness to city ratepayers, letting those who haven't contributed to our utility infrastructure benefit from our "waste" water just isn't right. They will have a "sure" source, while our dried -out reservoirs leave ratepayers in trouble. We've paid for it. It rightfully belongs to us, not to developers on the outskirts. It's just plain unfair to those who've footed the bill to create this water source to deprive them of it. I cannot believe that you actually think you can do this sort of thing, and then go to the voters asking for renewal of Measure Y. Please drop this very bad idea and get it out of the LUCE considerations. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Goodwin, Heather From: Marx, Jan FRECEEIV-D' Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:42 AM To: Goodwin, Heather; Mejia, Anthony O Subject: Fwd: PH1 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update 7 2014 Attachments: rgncouncil.ltr.doc T1 (Y.i aFL _.� Agenda correspondence AGENDA {—� CORRESPONDENCE i Sent fiom mq Ve6zon Wheless,[G LTE Smmtphone date l ` 7 —/ 1teCil#, P ` � u -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Carolyn Date:01 /06/2014 9:59 PM (GMT- 08:00) To: "Marx, Jan" , "Smith, Kathy" , "Carpenter, Dan" , "Ashbaugh, John" , "Christianson, Carlyn" Cc: "Lichtig, Katie" Subject: PHI Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members: Attached is a letter from RQN regarding the above - mentioned agenda item for Tuesday's Council Meeting. Thank you. Carolyn Smith RQN Secretary This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http: / /www.avast.com Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Sox 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 January 6, 2013 Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members: In accordance with Council direction on January 17, 2012, RQN requests that Neighborhood Mapping be returned for review and elimination of the seven areas into which the City was divided. Previously, staff indicated that dividing the city into seven areas was a useful tool for, among other things, reviewing circulation challenges or transit service needs and for assigning resources and providing notification to residents. Staff further noted that utilization of the seven areas was being explored by the Police and Public Works Departments. During Task Force deliberations the areas may have been useful; however, that is no longer the case. a. The nature of circulation and transit service within the city requires that the whole city be looked at when changes are contemplated to ensure a change in one location does not detrimentally affect another location. b. Police, Fire and Public Works have each defined their own area breakouts -- presumably based on their respective workloads and resources. The Police Department has divided the city into 13 zones, the Fire Department uses 4 zones, and Public Works has 8 zones. c. The requirement to provide notification is measured from the project site; thus, notification may or may not cross area boundaries, depending upon where a project is located. The notification requirement is the same with or without using "areas." Although some of our city's neighborhoods have common features with others, they each have their own distinct characteristics as well. For instance, the Oceanaire neighborhood (Laguna Neighbors) is in close proximity to Laguna Shores. However, it shares more of the same issues with the Alta Vista neighborhood than with the Laguna Shores neighborhood. The grouping of neighborhoods geographically blurs their distinctiveness and individuality and, we believe, does not contribute to neighborhood wellness. In addition, RQN has become aware of a currently popular planning concept called "complete neighborhoods." This concept is used in very large urban areas like greater Hartford, Connecticut, and the city of San Francisco. In San Francisco, for example, each of their "complete neighborhoods" was roughly the size of the City of San Luis Obispo. We have been advised that the LUCE Task Force was asked to consider dividing the city into "complete neighborhoods" several different times and repeatedly rejected doing so. RQN is extremely concerned with the possibility that this formerly useful tool will become the basis of dividing the city into separate "complete neighborhoods," not necessarily by our current planners, but conceivably by future planners who were not here in 2014 and do not understand that these areas were never meant to be "complete neighborhoods." The best way to ensure that does not happen is to eliminate the area designations now so there will be no confusion. Finally, it's very important to the residents of the City that any negative (not just positive) impacts to the existing established neighborhoods be identified and addressed in the EIR. Thank you for your attention to these important issues. Carolyn Smith RQN Secretary Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:18 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: LUCE Update & EIR Scoping Attachments: 140126 LUCE EIR Scoping - Eric Veium.pdf Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk tALN' Of wail IIU:; 01AIyJla 990 Pcalai Sheet. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 805.781.7102 =RECETVED AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date�''�- itPrrM# �'1 1%1114, From: Eric Veium [mailto:ericC&stockmans.com] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:35 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: LUCE Update & EIR Scoping Honorable Mayor and Council, Please see attached letter regarding the LUCE Update and EIR Scoping. Thank you for your consideration. Eric Veium Eric Veium, CEM Principal, Senior Engineer, Stockman's Water & Energy Mobile: (805) 715 -3555 1 Office: (805) 242 -8018 Fax: (805) 242 -6016 1 Email: eric@stockmans.com iiii STOCKMAN'S WATER 6- ENERGY Honorable Mayor and Council, I've come to realize that the supply of homes and the jobs /housing balance are absolutely central to the success of our community as a whole and to my generation's ability to create the life we want for ourselves here. When I am Downtown, where I work, I am energized by the busyness, the bustle, and the aliveness of people on the streets, in shops, and in restaurants. When I am home, in the Railroad District, I enjoy the people walking and biking by, hanging out in the triangle park, and coming and going from nearby restaurants, the train station, and the bike path. When I hike to the top of Terrace Hill, the city melts into an urban forest that is dwarfed by the morros and the natural beauty of our surrounding open space. I am blessed to call San Luis Obispo home. Many of my friends, graduates of Cal Poly, smart, ambitious, and community- minded, who share my passion for this place, have been too often forced to leave because of limited opportunities for employment and difficulty finding and affording a home. I am part of a generation of young people, new families, and innovative professionals who are the future of our community and economy. We want to live near our jobs and in vibrant pockets of energy and activity. We value the ability to go through our day without having to drive. And we want greater confidence that we can afford a home, develop a career, and raise a family here. This LUCE update is such an important opportunity for my peers and for the future of San Luis Obispo, request that your Council include within the scope of the LUCE EIR process the exploration of opportunities to increase housing availability, affordability, and diversity. These opportunities should include increased building heights and increased supply of a diverse mix of new homes. This request is directly supported by stated city goals for Jobs /Housing balance and GHG reductions. I also request that your Council reflect on currently held assumptions about housing and community and if necessary, reconsider and revise those assumptions to reflect the kind of homes and the kind of community that is valued by my generation and the generations that follow. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process. Please let me know how I may help Best Regards, Eric Veium Co- founder, Senior Engineer Stockman's Water & Energy 1009 MORRO ST. STE 206 OFFICE: 805.242.8018 INFO(a)STOCKMANS.COM SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 FAX: 8o5.242.6oi6 WWW.STOCKMANS.COM JAN 28 2014 From: Charlene Rosales <charlene @slochamber.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:00 AM To: Jan Manx Oanmarx @stanfordalumni.org); Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: SLO Chamber of Commerce re. LUCE EIR Attachments: SLO Chamber of Commerce re. LUCE EIR 1.24.14.pdf, SLO Chamber of Commerce Addendum re. LUCE EIR 1.24.14.pdf Mayor Marx and Council Members, Please find attached our recommendations regarding items for further study within the scope of the Land Use and Circulation Elements EIR. Thank you for your consideration, AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Charlene Rosales Date -,4.11 Director of Governmental Affairs 1 2t� San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 895 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p (805) 786 -2770 f (805) 543 -1255 www.slochamber. M : www.visitslo.com : www.slo- business.com facebook.com/slochamber: @slochamber 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO January 24, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Recommendation re. LUCE EIR Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to continue our participation in the City's important Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) update. This update is the community's opportunity to address current inequities regarding available housing, opportunities for economic growth, infrastructure for all modes of transportation, and address gaps for much needed community amenities. The amendments to the LUCE will provide important guidance for the coming decades of community development. As such, the Chamber would like to provide some additional comments that specifically address the critical need for additional housing capacity in our city. We are certainly not alone in recognizing the benefits of adequately accommodating those who wish to work and live in the same community. The lack of housing available for our workforce is consistently among the top needs identified by residents in annual city surveys; it is the long- standing top business challenge for local employers of all sizes; and it is the chief contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in our region. We have asked throughout this process that the City's jobs- housing goals as identified in numerous documents -- including the General Plan Annual Report, Climate Action Plan, and Economic Development Strategic Plan -- be more specifically addressed in the LUCE update. The city's stated jobs- housing target is 1.5 jobs per housing unit; according to the city's own reports, it appears that we are currently at an approximately 1.8 jobs -to- housing ratio. This performance gap is merely maintained in the current LUCE document. While our community may not achieve its target ideal balance, identifying potential tools to move us closer to this goal and understanding the implications of these tools is critical so that wise future planning decisions can be made. For this reason, the Chamber would like to submit the following suggestions for consideration with the scope of the LUCE environmental impact report (EIR): 1. Building Heights: After careful analysis of all the planning areas within the LUCE document, we have identified specific areas where additional building height may be appropriate to increase the availability of housing while discouraging sprawl. There are many considerations when increasing building height, such as impacts to view shed, however the EIR process can help identify impacts for Y 805.781.2670 slochamber,orq F 805.543.1255 visi!slo com E slochamber ®slochamber.org slo•buiness.com 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO future decision making. In some instances, the existing language already supports potential building height adjustments. Our request is intended to provide more specific direction to the EIR consultant in order to yield more beneficial analysis. While we are not specifically supporting heights to increase in each of these areas at this time, we want this topic to be studied within the scope of the EIR so that the community can make informed decisions long into the future. We have attached specific recommendations to this letter for consideration (See addendum). 2. The Chamber requests the City to consider a program to study height limits citywide and modernize zoning regulations to reflect these updates. We urge that the City direct the EIR consultant to study an alternative in the program EIR that produces specifically the City's own goal of a jobsihousing ratio of 1.5:1. It is imperative that the LUCE addresses our jobs- housing imbalance so that we can strive to minimize it over time. The jobs- housing relationship is at the heart of AB 32 and AB 375, the funding source of the Sustainable Communities Grant for this LUCE update. We urge you to more meaningfully address this inequity and request that you incorporate the study of the items identified above and in the attached language within the scope of the EIR so that we can move one step closer to our collective goal of improving San Luis Obispo economically, socially and environmentally. In conclusion, the Chamber would like to thank the City for embarking on this important undertaking and we appreciate the spirit of open collaboration shown us to date. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stacey White, Chair SLO Chamber of Commerce LUCE Task Force Cc: Eric Meyer, Chairperson, LUCE Task Force Michael Draze, Chairperson, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department T 805.781.2670 slochamber.org F 805.543,1255 visitslo com E siochamber ®siochamber,org sio- buiness.com 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO Addendum: Recommendations for Study within the Scope of the LUCE EIR 1.4 Jobs /Housing Relationship Recommendation for study: Add additional language to the jobs /housing policy The gap between housing demand (due to more job and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. The City shall strive to improve the gap between jobs and housing from the 2014 ratio of 1.8:1 towards the target of 1.5:1. Caltrans Site Recommendation for study: Increase height from 45 to 60 ft. While this area is within the Mid - Higuera Area, the unique qualities and opportunities provided by the site warranted special consideration in the General Plan. This area is planned for redevelopment from a Caltrans office and yard complex to a mixed use development. Commercial uses will be as described under the Tourist Commercial designation with some residential incorporated using a Medium High to High Density Residential component. Redevelopment plans shall consider the suitability of realignment of the Madonna /South Higuera intersection. The site should be developed to serve as a gateway into the community, with consideration of additional open space uses, retention and rehabilitation of the Master List historic structure, and retention of Heritage Trees on the site. Conference center -type uses are encouraged along with other appropriate tourist - serving uses as appropriate for the site.... Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered up to 60 feet with mixed use development. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area Recommendation for study: Increase height from 45 to 60 ft. This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners' request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill maybe extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street, The City shall work with property owners /developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations. T 805.781.2670 F 805.543.1255 E slochamber ®slochamber.org 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO Building height adjustments up to 60 feet in this area can also be considered with mixed use development that provides additional residential housing. Upper Monterey Recommendation for study: Add a section "i" to the list of actions in this area, with consideration of an increased height limit from 45 to 60 ft. in the area closer to Downtown i. Consider building height adjustments up to 60 feet with mixed use development in the lower Monterey area defined as Santa Rosa St. to California Blvd. Mid - Higuera Area Recommendation for study: Increase from 35 -45 ft. to 60 ft. The City will update the plan for this multi -block commercial area to reflect current needs and changes that have occurred since the 2001 plan was adopted. Building height adjustments up to 60 feet in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site Recommendation for study: Increase height from 35 to 50 ft. Located at the northwest corner of Board Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate 10 acre site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described under the Community Commercial and Office designations and residential limited to upper floors. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered up to 50 feet. Areas along the creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention to connectivity and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the development of this corner. Building Height (Downtown) Recommendation for study: Increase height from 50 to 60 f, for new buildings; increase height from 50 to 75 to 60 to 75 ft, for taller buildings New buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development, shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly -owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 60 feet in height. Tall buildings (60 -75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses, such as: v 805.781.2670 alocr;arnhcar.org F 805.543.1255 vlsasio coop E slochamber®slochamber.org shrblarsossz:orri 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO • Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels • Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement • Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirements • Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation • High residential density (e.g. above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentration of smaller dwelling units • Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and /or public art • Increased retail floor area, including multi -story retail • Directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategic Plan and other key policy documents • Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or historic preservation • Provide midblock or other significant pedestrian connections Margarita Area Specific Plan Update Recommendation for study: Add back more specific target for study that reflects prior project plans Location: The Margarita Area covers about 420 acres bounded by South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, and the ridge of the South Street Hills in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo. Purpose: Adopted in October 2004, the Margarita Area Specific Plan contains five key principles: open space and sensitive resource production, cohesive neighborhood creation, transit supporting land uses and densities, pedestrian environment, and minimizing infrastructure costs. The approved specific plan includes 868 residential dwelling units, as well as a business park, a neighborhood park, sports fields, and open space areas. Over 40 percent of the land area is designated as open space and 56 acres are designated as parks. The City shall consider this area as potentially appropriate to accommodate additional housing up to 1,200 units. Revision to the Margarita Area Specific Plan will be require if residential development in excess of that accommodated in the plan is proposed. T 805.781.2670 sloc;hamberorg F 805.543.1255 visitslo com E slochamber ®slochamber.org slo- buiness rom JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE � � Regarding: Draft Land Use Element Review Date �, Item# To: Honorable Mayor Marx & the City Cou cifY o From: Allan Cooper, Chair S.O.D. ® /,w F// yr On behalf of Save Our Downtown, I have read over the draft Land Use Element. I discussed the following with some of our members who were attending today's January 13, 2014 meeting and they all concurred with these comments. So far, we are very pleased with the work of the LUCE Task Force. We are therefore urging you to adopt the following new programs and policies (the underlines are mine): 1) New Program: The City shall prepare an inventory of uses in the Downtown Core. Particular attention shall be given to identifying uses at the street level as these uses directly impact the pedestrian experience and vibrancy of the Downtown. This information shall be used to target business support and attraction to achieve a desirable mix of uses in the Downtown. 2) New Program: The City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specific criteria for evaluating use permits for bars /taverns, night clubs and late night drinking establishments. 3) New Program: The City will modify its Community Design Guidelines to enhance Safety and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Changes shall include, but are not limited to, inclusion of design statements on: Enhanced lighting of building alcoves in Downtown area Wayfinding signs to better direct pedestrians and motorists in non - residential areas ❑ Visibility into entry and access points on non - residential buildings Design solutions that minimize the potential for graffiti 4) New Program: The City, working with the Downtown Association, businesses, landlords, and residents will consider emergency callboxes at strategic locations in the Downtown. 5) New Program: The City working with the Downtown Association, Downtown businesses and residents shall develop a program to encourage lighted storefronts and street frontages throughout the night. 6) New Program: All specific plans shall identi , design features utilized to enhance public safety. 7) New Program: The City shall conduct a nighttime safety audit of key areas of the City to see where deficiencies in environmental design may exist and should be improved. Key Areas should be defined as areas experiencing higher crime than City average by SLOPD. 8) New Program: The City shall implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan and other appropriate strategies for business retention and expansion with a focus on those providing head -of- household jobs. However, we urge you deem the Downtown Core not just the Santa Margarita area to be also worthy of your business retention and expansion strategies. 9) New Policy: City shall promote a healthy mix of downtown street -level businesses that emphasizes retail stores, specialty shops and food service rather than bars or taverns. Save Our Downtown is also urging you to support the following land use directives (some of which have been carried over with revisions from the previous Land Use Element): 1) The City shall work with the Downtown businesses and residents, the BID, and Chamber of Commerce to manage impacts from downtown drinking establishments, and if necessary, enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown is safe and pleasant. 2) The City shall develop a master plan for San Luis Obispo Creek in the Downtown area. 3) Public Art should be placed along pedestrian paths. Traffic calming and pedestrian safety should be enhanced, where appropriate, through such features as road tables, pavement changes, bulb outs and scramble intersection signals. Landscaping should mitigate harsh micro - climates. 4) The City shall update the Downtown Concept Plan by 2016 and shall regularly update the plan as required to address significant changes in or affecting the Downtown area including the opportunity for meaningful public input. 5) Provide midblock or other significant pedestrian connections 6) Continuous Storefront: There should be a continuous storefront along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk, except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries, and sidewalk cafes. 7) Walking paths along the creek in the Downtown core should be provided and extended as links in an urban trail system, provided this will not further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem. 8) Visual Resource Study: The City shall undertake a study of visual resources within the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new public -owned open places with access to views of important scenic resources. The City will consider acquisition of one or more of these open places as resources permit. A range of options for property acquisition, including development agreements, will be considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives. We do have few concerns remaining. Staff has been directed to explore the implications of combining the pedestrian plan with the bicycle plan. Even though the pedestrian plan and the bicycle plans should be coordinated with one another we would hope that these two plans would not be combined and particularly with regards to the Downtown Core. We also have some concerns with the following text: "The City will shall consider including features of "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center" (Downtown Concept Plan) in the approval of projects in the Downtown, recognizing that the plan is a concept and is intended to be flexible as appropriate." There is no mention of coordinating, far less integrating, the Downtown Concept Plan into existing Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines, engineering standards and capital improvement programs. At the very least, we believe that the 2016 update of this plan should be coordinated with the newly adopted Pedestrian Plan and that there should be mention of this in the amended Land Use Element. Thank you for your due diligence and please don't hesitate contacting us if you should have any questions. JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ;/ , Item #� +' /� ,r i l m m o1RAn of council E city of san Luis owspo, aammistuation Oeparitment DATE: January 14, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Land Use Element update: Additional input and recommendations Staff received several questions and recommendations regarding the draft Land Use Element subsequent to Planning Commission review. The questions are paraphrased below with staff responses and Planning Commission draft page numbers where applicable. Input regarding recommended changes are shown organized by chapter with new language in bold (to distinguish from the Task Force /Planning Commission new language which shows in underline) and deleted language is shown as strike -out. Questions: 1. What is the enrollment capacity envisioned by the current Cal Poly Master Plan? Current Master Plan envisions approximately 21, 000 students and about 3,200 faculty and staff. 2. Should I be concerned about numbering format in draft Land Use Element? Changes to draft Word document created "automatic numbering" errors which will be corrected in next version. Proper hierarchy will be established. 3. Page 1 -142: Section 8.3.3.9 Pacific Beach site and agenda correspondence received from the School District's attorney. Does staff have a response? Council is not considering any development application, imposing any dedication or exaction requirements, or taking any final action as it relates to the development of the Pacific Beach property at this point. Rather, Council is being asked to identify draft language clarifying the City's long term planning vision and desires for an appropriate and compatible land use of a portion of the property, currently zoned for public facilities, for further evaluation through the EIR. Accordingly, it is staff's perspective that any takings challenge would be premature and that there will be ample opportunity for staff and the Council to consider the application of legal nexus requirements and economic viability arguments in the context of a specific development application for the property. There is currently no application pending with the City. Moreover, a successful taking challenge requires proof of a legally significant deprivation of economic use of private property. At this early planning stage, it is staff's assessment that the change from a Public Facilities designation to one that accommodates Commercial Retail and housing at 36 units /acre provides an increased value for the property that would not adversely impact the current development potential of the property. The property currently serves recreational needs in the community and the Task Force and the Parks and Recreation Commission felt strongly that some park facility needed to be retained to help meet the needs of the community at large and to provide a buffer between new, more intense development from the adjoining single-family neighborhood. Again, all of these considerations and the application of relevant legal standards will be considered in the context of a specific development application by the school district and approval recommendations, including appropriate conditions and exaction requirements which would be made only in accordance with applicable land use law. Goals and Land Use Des %gnations Pa -ges 1 -18 throu.Qh 1 -33: Page 1 -20: Goal 34. Where appropriate, create compact, mixed use neighborhoods that locate housing. fobs recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to one another, while protecting the quality of life in established neighborhoods. Page 1 -25: CHART Definition of High Density Residential (HDR) "This type of development is appropriate outside of R -1 and R -2 zones near Cal Poly, in the Downtown... Page : CHART "O "_zone —eliminate " " (redundant) and eliminate "us pai4 of mixed us pr-qjeel-sll Growth Management Chapter Paws 1 -34 through 1 -49: Paee 1 -37: 1.6.4 The City shall epee discourage the County to er-°ff+° He new pafee s from creating new parcels within the Greenbelt... Page 1.6.7 The City shall work with the County, Cal Poly, other public agencies and nonprofits to protect significant trees, particularly native species, outside of City limits and in the greenbelt... 2 Page 1 -38: 1.7.2 (6th line down) conservation organization open space or agricultural easements... Page 1 -42: 1.10.2 Last sentence: "Cal Poly should actively engage the community during updates or amendments to the Master Plan and fully mitigate impacts to the City, including environmental and quality of life impacts to nearby neighborhoods. PUe 1 -43: 1.11.1 Delete word "pie" in first line. Pa eg_1 -43: Section 1.11.3 The City should analyze the cost /benefits of annexing Cal Poly. Page 1 -45: — 1.12.64 th line down - "...or increasing the cost of such services for current residents or for build out within the urban reserve line. Page 1.12.7 Open Space "1.12.7 C. Dalidio Area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) not yet annexed into the City shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one -half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open space." Page 1 -47: 1.15.4 "The City will continue to paAieipate monitor the County in reviewing and providing input on County projects or general plan amendments that have the potential to impact the City, the Greenbelt, or be inconsistent with City policies. Significant issues will be referred to the City Council. Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods P P—es 1 -50 throggh 1 -67. Page 1 -50: Add New Policy: Neighborhoods with significant pedestrian traffic should have walkable, continuous sidewalks. Page 1 -52: 2.2.1 "The City shall promote, where compatible with established neighborhoods, a mix...." Page 1 -54: 2.2.9 Reinstate deleted words in line one. Add after line one: "Multifamily development is not appropriate in all neighborhoods. Any multifamily development... Reinstate deleted section A. Page 1 -61: 2.4.2 The City shall not approve rezonings that increase density in existing residential areas unless it finds that the following would be improved: neighborhood character and identity... Page 1 -62: After last sentence of 2.5.1: The City shall work with Cal Poly to facilitate faculty and staff owning or renting housing in adjacent neighborhoods. Page 1 -65: 2.9.1 "The City shall work with Cal Poly to evaluate student and community housing preferences and consider revising development standards. 3 Page 1 -67: New Program. Neighborhood Wellness: Continue and enhance neighborhood wellness initiatives, continue to support proactive code enforcement, pursue a residential rental inspection program; improve street cleanliness; increase public safety enforcement, and support neighborhood led initiatives. Commercial and Industrial Development Pages 1 -68 through 1 -83 Page 1 -82: Section 3.5.7.5. The City shall provide incentives to encourage relocation of vehicles sales from the Downtown and Monterev Street areas to other compatible areas. Page 183: Last New program on page: The City shall regularly review the implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and other appropriate strategies for business retention and expansion with a focus on those strategies actually providing head of household jobs. Downtown Pages 1 -84 through 1 -95 Page 1 -87 4.0.1.1 Add a last sentence: The City shall encourage conversion of structures originally built as housing, but subsequently used as offices, back to residential uses. Page 1 -88: New Policy. The Downtown should remain the focus for nighttime entertainment, cultural events and related activities. It should be a � comfortable and safe place at all times. Page 1 -89: 4.0.7 The City shall strive to protect Downtown residential areas from cut - through traffic. Page 1 -95: New Program: The City shall encourage the formation of a Downtown neighborhood association. New Program: The City shall repair defunct drinking fountains and install new ones throughout the Downtown and especially near drinking establishments. New Program: The City shall encourage volunteer groups, such as the Urban Foresters and America in Bloom, to enhance and maintain the urban forest and landscaping features in the Downtown. New Program: The City shall increase Downtown green space and public parks, including pocket parks, as the numbers of people living Downtown increases. Public and Cultural Facilities Pages 1 -96 through 1 -101 Pa ems: 5.1.4 The City shall promote the location of the following uses in health -care areas on rohnson Avenue ne „ Bishop St (Figure 5). 4 Page 1 -101: 5.2.5 The City shall continue to work with the County to develop a plan for meeting additional..... Resource Protection Pages 1 -102 through 1 -117 Page 1 -113: Section 6.3.3 Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, all hillside areas are considered sensitive sites, therefore all development on hillsides requires architectural review. Special Focus Areas Pages 1 -125 through 1 -146 Page 1 -132: 8.3.2.4 Sp -2 Dalidio Specific Plan Area e. "Preserve at least one -half of this signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to San Luis Obispo as it existed in 1994." Maintain s;g„�agricultural and open space resources on site. Chart-66 acres =50% of 132 acres Page 1 -136: Delete second sentence in footnote. Page 1 -138: 8.3.3.2 b. aleng SapA., Rosa Stree Page 1 -138: 8.3.3.2 f. second sentence "These types of facilities would not be located on the east side of Monterey north of California Street, unless adequate buffers and noise mitigation measures are required to protect the creek and the established neighborhood east of the creek. Page 1 -142: 8.3.3.8 The site may need to be designed to accommodate the u,fffeless Ser -view Eenter realignment of Elk's Lane and /or flood control infrastructure. Sustainability Pages 1 -147 through 1 -149 Page 1 -147: 9.3.3 and allow fer CEQA str-e ,.,. lini g Page 1 -148: 9.3.7 E. ...and reduction or elimination of the use of turf. Collection and use site run off and rainwater harvesting in landscape irrigation is encouraged. Page 1 -148: New Policy: Renew the urban forest: Develop a long term tree planting program to beautify the city, mitigate increased residential density, address die -off, and combat air pollution and global warming. Page 1 -149: New Program: Urban Forest. Update master tree plan and develop recommendations to renew and maintain the urban forest and plant more trees. 9 Healthy Community Page 1 -150 Page 1 -150: 10.3.5 The City shall protect and maintain clean air, the urban forest, and natural open spaces. New Policies offered for consideration: Homelessness: Implement comprehensive strategies to address homelessness in our City in partnership with other entities. Encourage existing, improved, and expanded services (including advocating to the County and other organizations for delivery of case management, drug, alcohol, and detoxification services, and mental health services), support the establishment of a new homeless services center, and pursue good neighbor, safety, and quality of life programs (including restrooms), using technology as appropriate. The City shall establish an Open Space and Agricultural Advisory Board. Long -Term Fiscal Health: Preservation of Essential Services. Develop a comprehensive strategy for preserving essential services, adequately maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, and protecting the City's fiscal health.