HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1991, 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE - ECONOMIC STUDY SCOPE���H�►n��iliii►illllllli�' llllll city of san -Luis OBIspo
Oftims COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
A
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - economic study scope
ro
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff and the Planning Commission concerning
an appropriate scope and budget.
DISCUSSION
On September 25, 1990, the City Council referred back to the
Planning Commission the draft general plan Land Use Element
update, with direction to further evaluate 13 topics, plus some
preliminary council editing. Also, the council asked for an
economic evaluation, to be used in further considering the
update. Staff understood the council's request to be primarily
for an economic evaluation of the draft update and some of the
alternatives which have been discussed, focused on feasibility
and internal consistency.
The commission dealt with two of the referred topics on November
15, and results will be transmitted in a future package. On
December 11 and 27, the Planning Commission considered draft work
scopes for the economic study, prepared by staff. The December
11 draft was closely focused on staff's understanding of the
specific information requested by the council at its September
25, 1990, meeting. Several commissioners and members of the
public thought that draft was not adequate. In response to oral
and written comments, staff presented a revised and expanded work
scope at the commission's December 27 meeting.
After much discussion, commissioners decided that there was not a
consensus nor a clear majority preference for how to approach the
economic study, and that further direction from the council,
developed at a joint meeting with the commission, was essential
before putting more effort into developing a work scope.
The following basic concerns have been stated during the
commission's discussions:
1. To the extent that the following aspects of planning can be
separated, which should we do first: (A) develop a vision of
our desired San Luis Obispo, or (B) select economic
strategies which will move the community from where it is
toward some currently described or newly described vision?
2. How will we include environmental impacts in our decision -
making at this stage? Will we study the costs which
11911IIU city of San tuts OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
residents bear, but which they sometimes do not pay direc
in dollars, such as through experiencing additional
pollution and congestion?
3. Will we look at the economic consequences of "alternative
futures," and use the results as the basis for a new Land
Use Element draft aimed at maximizing financial benefits?
Attached is the draft work scope which the commission considered
December 27. Questions 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 relate most
closely to what staff believes are the primary council concerns.
This meeting is an opportunity for the council to clarify its
desired scope for the economic study and how the results should
be used in further work on the general plan update. The City
Council will approve a work scope before consultant proposals are
requested.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No budget has been established for the economic study.
The-City Council budgeted $100,000 for outside technical help
with the general plan update. This amount is in addition to
money spent for a study of downtown retailing and circulation
element preliminary environmental review. So far, none of the
$100,000 has been spent, though the council has committed $15,000
of it to a joint study with Cal Poly of student housing. Staff
had assumed that the remaining $85,000 would be spent on economic
and environmental review of whatever update the council endorses.
Now that the economic evaluation is to precede selection of "a
project" for environmental review, a different approach is
required. A broad economic evaluation,, by looking at indirect
costs and benefits, would incorporate much environmental
information. Perhaps the remaining $85,000 could be split, with
$60,000 for this round of economic /environmental review, and
$25,000 to actually complete an environmental impact report once
a project description is available.
There may be additional money available from carryover of other
budgeted but unspent funds for the Community Development
Department.
Staff suggests that the Commission and Council determine which of
the items in the draft work scope they want to keep in the
Request for Proposals (RFP) and which they do not want. After
the council- approved RFP is circulated to prospective
consultants, we will receive their preliminary cost estimates.
Staff anticipates a cost in the range of $40,000 to $60,000. if
the bids exceed that range, staff will return to the council to
consider modifying the work scope to reduce the cost, or
allocating additional funds, before awarding a contract.
����i� ►bNlI►IIIIIIIIIII►►►`�IIIIII city of San Luis OBlspo
MNrom COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
At one time, we had hoped to closely coordinate environmental
review of the city's general plan update with the county's update
of its plan for the San Luis Obispo area. It now appears that
the county update will proceed ahead of the city's. While a
single EIR probably is not feasible, the city will be able to use
much of the information on environmental setting from the
county's update EIR.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may continue action.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff and the Planning Commission concerning
an appropriate scope and budget for the Land Use Element update
economic study.
Attachments: Draft work scope
Memo concerning 13 referred topics
gmD:scope -cc.wp
ROUGH DRAFT #2
WORK SCOPE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ECONOMIC STUDY
Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo (resident population about 42,000) is the county seat and a
trade and service center of San Luis Obispo County (population about 222,000), on
California's beautiful central coast. The city's relatively stable and prosperous economic
base is primarily government services (including Cal Poly State University, enrollment
about 17,500), tourism, retail trade, and professional services. Retirees and self -
employed people relocating from metropolitan areas appear to make up a growing share
of city and county population. As such new residents bring along their housing equity,
the city's housing costs have been linked to those of metropolitan areas where incomes
are generally higher.
From 1980 to 1990, the city's population increased by 23 percent, while the population
of the whole county increased by 43 percent. The difference in growth rates reflects an
increasing relative concentration of jobs in the city, with growth of "bedroom
communities," at a distance of 10 to 20 miles from the city, and rural residences. City
and county populations are both projected to increase at lower rates in the next decade,
but still at different rates.
San Luis Obispo still has many of the desirable qualities of a small town. Throughout
the county, while much open land remains, and air quality is better than in more
urbanized areas, the amount and pattern of development are reducing these desired
qualities. San Luis Obispo provides a relatively high level of public services, including
law enforcement, recreation, and transit.
Many citizens believe that controlling the amount of development is itself an important
service provided by the local government. Others see countywide growth as inevitable,
and believe that the city should continue to provide a high level of urban services, and
expand services, funded largely by accommodating activities that are now net revenue
producers in greater proportions than those which are not net revenue producers. To
the extent that this approach means job opportunities increasing faster than housing
opportunities, the undesirable effects of commuting are likely to get worse, lacking
effective mitigation. The city and county have "growth management" measures in place,
though citizens are divided over their effectiveness and fairness.
The city faces several significant resource thresholds for additional development,
including water supply and treatment capacity, wastewater treatment capacity, and levels
of service on existing roads. The county as a whole is hard pressed to achieve state air
quality standards while accommodating substantial development.
The city has maintained a vital and balanced downtown. However, its role is changing
from a general retail center to a center of entertainment, specialty stores, and
government services, which themselves are vulnerable to future changes.
Economic study scope Rough Draft 2
For the last three years, the city has been working on updates of the Land Use Element
and the Circulation Element of its general plan. Also, the county is updating its Land
Use Element for the San Luis Obispo area, and for some other county subareas from
which city workers commute. While the city was working on the update, several major
development proposals were submitted, some generally conforming with the current
general plan, and others proposing significapt departures from current policy. While the
update began during a time of rapid growth and increasing prices and revenues, recent
recessionary trends in the national and state economies have prompted renewed interest
in city policies that affect economic stability and change.
The draft update had the following development capacities:
Item
Existing
Draft Plan
Development Capacity
Increase
(Jan. 1990)
Amount
Number
Percent
Total dwellings (number)
17,800
23,000
5,200
29%
Retail (million sq. ft.)
3.19
4.50
131
41%
Office (million sq. ft.)
1.32
2.29
0.97
73%
Service commercial /industrial
(million sq. ft.)
2.59
3.56
0.97
37%
Motel rooms (number)
1,780
2,380
600
34%
The draft Land Use Element update called for controls on the rate of commercial
development, which would mean smaller increases than outlined above during the
planning period. The draft also proposed measures to bring closer the plan's eventual
capacities for residential and for nonresidential development, and increased
responsibilities for new development to include, or help fund, solutions to some of the
problems intensified by growth, such as housing affordability, availability of child care,
and air pollution. The draft called for development to pay the costs of additional public
facilities needed to serve it, unless the city deliberately chose to subsidize certain
developments to achieve community goals. The draft has prompted criticism on grounds
of philosophy - -the proper role of government in the economy -- and practicality - -will
the proposed measures achieve the intended results?
Need for Help
The City Council has asked for an economic evaluation of implementing the draft Land
Use Element update, and of the options which the council has referred to the Planning
Commission. Because San Luis Obispo has experienced the strong feelings held by
those who can be categorized as "environmental advocates" and "development
advocates," the City Council and Planning Commission prefer to have the economic
study done by detached professionals, with expertise and experience in economic analysis
related to local government policy.
Economic study scope Rough Draft
Focus
3
The study will focus on how the type and amount of growth envisioned by the update,
along with the proposed funding approaches, would result in costs or benefits to the
majority of residents. Answers to the following questions will fulfill the city's needs for
information. The order of the questions has no importance, though they are grouped by
broad topics.
Community composition and distribution of costs and benefits
1. How would implementation of the draft update affect employment and income
within the community?
2. What would be the impacts on unemployment, migration, household size, and the
income and age structure of the city's population?
3. For a typical existing household, what would be the costs and benefits of going
from the existing levels of development to the proposed levels? (This evaluation
should include benefits in the form of any added income or additional amenities,
as well as costs in the form of taxes or fees, and loss of amenities.)
4. What will be the impact on costs of existing housing, in comparison with more or
less constrained growth? How will the effects of changed costs be distributed?
5. What types of commercial development tend to recycle spending /income within
the community, as opposed to exporting it?
6. Would implementation of the update make the city more or less dependent on
economic forces and resources over which it has little or no control?
7. Would implementation of the draft update cause significant costs or benefits for
other communities within the county?
8. How would implementation of the proposed policies affect the city's retail trade,
both absolutely and in relation to the rest of the county? Would retail sales
leakage to or from nearby communities increase, decrease, or remain about the
same?
Local government budgets
9. Considering the full range of government services (city, county, and school
district), how would the relationship of government costs to government revenues
at build -out of the plan compare with current conditions?
/_41
Economic study scope Rough Draft 4
10. How would implementation of the proposed policies affect the city's ability to pay
for the services, amenities, and programs outlined in the update?
11. How can the city most effectively structure fees or assessments so that the type,
amount, and pace of new development called for by the update. would pay its
way, considering the resource thresholds the city faces?
12. Specifically, what would be the impact on city government costs and revenues,
over the period 1990 to 2020, of having commercial building space grow at (A)
the OS% average annual rate called for in the draft, (B) about 2.0% per year,
corresponding with projected countywide population growth.
(One series of revenue projections should assume that the city's share of sales
taxes collected by the state will continue to be disbursed based on their points of
origin. For comparison, another series of projections should assume that there is
a change in the basis of subvention, such as half -way through the planning period,
shifting from point -of -origin to resident population.)
Feasibility and internal consistency
13. What is the economic feasibility of having major expansion areas provide
substantial portions of total housing affordable to low - and moderate - income
people, as called for by the update draft? (A "pro forma" for an expansion area
may be useful.)
14. What will be the impacts on business viability, considering the growth limiting
measures and impact fees of the draft update, on:
A. Existing business to be maintained within the city?
B. Existing business wanting to expand within the city?
C. New businesses wanting to locate within the city?
15. Would the text and map growth policies allow expansion of government land use
in ways that would preclude expansion of private business? If so, what would be
the impact, if any, on government revenues?
16. What is the feasibility of continued agricultural use within the city, particularly
within the Dalidio area? How could the city most economically assure continued
agricultural use of this area? (This highly visible area contains nearly 200 acres
of prime, cultivated farmland, though it is nearly surrounded by urban
development and major roads.)
1-7
Economic study scope Rough Draft
17. To what extent has retail and tourist development experienced by the city since
acceptance of the 1983 "strategic planning" report helped fund environmental
protection or achieve other general plan goals?
18. To what extent will the planned growth make protection of the environment,
including open space, more expensive than if less growth was called for?
Products
5
The answers to these questions will take the form of a series of concise factual reports
or issue papers, which will be presented to and discussed with the Planning Commission.
Time Frame
The city wants to receive initial products beginning in March 1991, and intends that the
Planning Commission will have used the results to prepare a report and
recommendation to the City Council by June 1991. [These dates may now have to slip to
April /May for initial products and July /August for commission action.
Budget
No budget has been established.
Information available
The City has available several sources of information, including the following:
Strategic Planning Program, Summary Report and Technical Report. A Survey of
Economic Resources (City of San Luis Obispo, with assistance by Angus
McDonald and Associates and Burns and Watry and Associates, September 1983).
City of San Luis Obispo Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (various years)
and Budgets (two -year cycle).
Land Use Element Update, Discussion Draft, including 'Development Summary"
spreadsheet (City of San Luis Obispo, February 1989).
Land Use Element Update, Planning Commission Draft (City of San Luis Obispo,
April 1990).
Downtown San Luis Obispo Economic Study (Recht Hausrath & Associates for
City of San Luis Obispo, 1988).
/—D
Economic study scope Rough Draft 6
Phase I of the Comprehensive Financial Management Plan: User Fee Analysis (City
of San Luis Obispo, with help from Vertex Cost Systems, November 1988).
Comprehensive Financial Management Plan: 1989 - 2000 (City of San Luis Obispo,
with help from Evanson- Dodge, May 1989).
Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Water Allocation Regulations (Willdan
Associates for City of San Luis Obispo, March 1988).
Environmental Impact Report for the Water Management Element and Water
Management Plan (City of San Luis Obispo, February 1987).
San Luis Obispo City-wide Circulation Study Draft, Working Paper. Circulation
Analysis (DKS Associates in association with Crawford Multari & Starr, for City
of San Luis Obispo, July 1990).
Draft Circulation Element (City of San Luis Obispo, July 1990).
gmD: scope -rwp
� -9
MEMORANDUM
September 28, 1990
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: LUE Update: topics referred by City Council
FROM: Glen Matteson VIA: Arnold Jonas
Associate Planner Community Development Director
As we discussed briefly on September 27, staff has been thinking of how best to
proceed with work on the topics which the council referred to you. Clearly, some
topics must wait for the "economic strategic study /plan." Consideration of others may
occur sooner.
Below, the topics are grouped according to their suitability for near -term, mid -term, or
long -term scheduling, as we see them. Also, the topics are ordered according to how
prepared we are to present information for further discussion. We realize that topics
are interconnected, and that discussion of one will lead into others, including some
which may not be on the list. However, this is a starting point. If the commission
concurs, we will proceed according to this outline.
Near term
The commission could work on these issues soon, because they are largely
independent of the economic study, and substantial information is available. Time
frame: October 25 through December 1990.
A. Apparent conflict between expansion of the South - Higuera /Prado social services
area (of the "tripolar" government offices approach), and low- intensity
recreational use of the drive -in theater area.
A closer look at the commission's recommendation may show that there is little or
no conflict, because there is room for government office expansion west of the
creek on other than the drive-in site.
B. Provision of adequate sites for expansion and relocation of auto dealerships.
Staff presented to the council a report on this topic, when the LUE update was
introduced.
/ -/ o
C. Approaches to determining residential densities (such as bedroom counts or
square footage).
Staff presented a report to the commission and council a few years ago, and could
update it quickly to include recent ideas.
D. Establishing pedestrian linkages throughout the city.
Can be considered along with the circulation element.
E. Coordination with the growth management ordinance being prepared by the
county.
The ordinance's environmental 'negative declaration" was effective September 25;
Board of Supervisors to consider adoption October 16; however, also relates to
economic study.
Mid -term
The commission could work on these issues before the economic study is done, since
they are largely independent of it, but consideration should wait for other background
information. Time frame: January 1991 through March 1991.
F. Use of privately owned land next to the Cal Poly campus, both inside and
outside the city, for additional student housing, including special zoning for
group housing next to the campus inside the city.
This will require taking a closer look at allowed and potential densities, and
existing neighborhood patterns. Staff can do this without outside help. (Cal Poly
may ask for a jointly funded study of student housing supply and demand,
including this topic.)
G. Designing the city to accommodate cars vs. other means of personal mobility.
The draft LUE already says much more than the current element. Before the
commission takes up this issue, staff will talk with the councilmembers who raised
it to see what additional features they had in mind This topic could involve
everything from the intensity and location of land uses to design of streets and
paths.
H. Traffic management and trip reduction measures for commercial and industrial
development.
The County Air Pollution Control District is developing rules for a countywide trip -
reduction program; a draft may be done around the first of the year.
/ - /I
Long -term
The commission should wait to work on these issues until the economic study is done,
or well underway. Time frame: February 1991 through May 1991.
I. The apparent contradiction between the city being a regional trade and service
center, and trying to balance job opportunities and housing opportunities.
J. Recent council policy direction concerning areas at the edges of the city
(examples: urban use for the Dalidio area; the airport area concept plan).
K Goals for re -use of downtown (Monterey Street) sites vacated by auto dealers,
including the type and intensity of development in relation to the commercial
core.
L. Evaluation of economic impacts and economic feasibility for:
- commercial growth controls, especially in relation to downtown
development and citywide retail development;
- fiscal impacts on city government;
- development fees;
- affordable housing (including the possible result of some occupants
paying more for housing so that others would pay less).
M. The viability of maintaining agriculture within the city.
gml: lue- work.wp
10—
i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ! A2 -9/ ITEM #=
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. California 93401
(805) 543 -1323 • FAX (805) 543.1255
David E. Garth. Executive Manager
RECEIVED
January 21, 1991
JAN 2 2 1991
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Q r�ro:
Add /Q FYI
c��PC 163 CDD DIM
Q'CAO ❑ FIN. MIL
GYACAO ❑ FIRECZw
`Z TrQVGY Q FIN DIR.
azwORIC. [I POLICE CFL
OMGMT 7EAN ❑ RBC DIM
RFADFME ❑.LMLD1R
�T, T • [�' Films_
Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers and.Planning Commissioners
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 810
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
Dear Mayor Dunin, Council and Commission Members:
We appreciate being.included in the ongoing discussions over
the City's draft LUE Update. We know the process has been
a lengthy one and the current issue of the scope of economic
analysis needed has been particularly trying.
As we have stated previously, we feel the Draft of the LUE
is flawed in that it does not cover at all the economic and
fiscal implications of the proposed land use plan and
policies. We believe as well that the assessment of the
economic and fiscal implications should be conducted by an
outside consultant to ensure technical adequacy and
objectivity.
The Chamber suggests the scope of work for determining the
economic and fiscal assessment should address the following
issues and /or questions:
1. Estimate of the operating costs and capital facility
requirements to service the proposed future community.
Estimates should be made for the following different
scenarios: annexation of the Airport Specific Plan area
and development in accordance with the approved "concept
plan "; annexation of the Dalidio property and
development with and without a significant commercial
component; other possible land use mix and annexation
alternatives.
2: Estimate the likely revenues generated under the
proposed land use mix and growth rate policies. Again,
alternatives should be considered, including those
described above.
Furthermore, revenues should be estimated if the
commercial growth rate is constrained as is currently ACCREDITED
CHAMBER OF COMMENCE
City Councilmembers Planning Commissioners 1/21/91 page 2
proposed and if.unconstrained as it has been in the
past.
This revenue analysis should consider the effects of
leakage if other areas develop regional shopping
opportunities competing with San Luis Obispo and if
County and other governmental offices needs are not met.
in this City.
Items 1 & 2 above can refer to and be built upon some of
the recent work relating to the City's long -term
financial analysis (1983 Strategic Plan & DT economic
analysis). The new analysis should focus on how
expenditures, capital needs and financing ability are
affected by different land use mixes and related
policies.
3. How does preferred level of service affect future
spending requirements? What reductions in levels of
service might result if future revenues do not keep pace
with needed expenditures?
4. Estimate likely future regional demand for
commercial services and outlets; what it will take to
maintain San Luis Obispo's historic role as the regional
community center; assess financial impacts on local
economy and the municipal fiscal picture of losing this
position.
5. Similarly, estimate likely future demand for County
and other governmental services; assess the ability of
the City to maintain its historic role as the regional
government center; assess financial impacts on local
economy and the municipal fiscal picture of losing this
position.
6. Outline and evaluate different ways to increase
funding, if projected revenues will fall short of future
expenditures. Include among the alternatives changes in
land use mix, commercial growth rates, and other
policies directed to type, amount and rate of commercial
development.
7. Assess job creation possibilities under various
scenarios; factors should include types of jobs likely
to be created, their salaries /wages, and whether the
jobs are likely to be met with the current work force or
draw from other regions.
8. Estimate ability of City to meet future labor needs
given the various housing growth options. This analysis
should consider different annexation and growth rate
alternatives. Factors to be considered are estimated
housing costs versus incomes, the effects of limiting
City Councilmembei� & Planning Commissioners 1/21/91 page 3
the number and /or rate of housing production, areas
likely to supply housing if the City cannot meet
expected needs and an overview of environmental and
economic impacts from commuting.
9. Discuss the role of a healthy economy on quality of
life,in terms of employment,increased quality and
variety of goods and services, greater municipal
financial flexibility, among other variables. How might
these factors change if policies to limit the location,
amount, type or rate of different commercial /office
development are effected?
10. What will be the impacts on business viability
considering the land use mix, annexation options and
growth rate policies on existing businesses, existing
businesses wanting to expand and businesses seeking to
locate here.
In addition to the above outlined points, we feel the study
should consider a matrix or table showing outcomes given
different annexation, land use mix and growth rate options.
We believe that such a study would give our community the
information needed to help us plan a sound future. We are
eager to see the analysis get underway and look forward to
reviewing the resulting product. Please let me know how the
Chamber can assist you with the General Plan LUE Update
process.
Thanks very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
gh n Mis w
Chamber President
MEETING AGENDA
DATE / -•U -9/ ITEM AGENDA
city O SAn WI S OBISPO
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
January 22, 1991
TO: Councilmembers Wi ss, Roalman and Mayor Dunin
FROM: Councilwoman R
SUBJ: YELLOW RIBBON DAYS
As you may know, at its meeting of Tuesday, January 22, the County Board of Supervisors
adopted a resolution proclaiming "Yellow Ribbon Days" - the display of yellow ribbons to
signify support of the men and women currently serving in our armed services during this
time of grave danger.
I respectfully request that the City Council consider a similar resolution at its meeting of
Tuesday, January 29, 1991.
Thank you.
PR:klc
c: John Dunn
Jeff Jorgensen
Ken Hampian
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER . SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93408 • 805 -549 -5450
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: LAURENCE L LAURENT, SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT TW
DATE: JANUARY 22, 1991
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING "YELLOW RIBBON DAYS"
SUMMARY
LAURENCE L. LAURENT
DISTRICT TWO
The current military confrontation in the Middle East has led to a forced separation of
family and friends causing a great deal of anxiety for many people, home and abroad.
RECOMMENDATION
That your Board adopt the resolution proclaiming 'Yellow Ribbon Days" and that the spirit
of "Yellow Ribbon Days" continue as long as the threat of grave danger exists in the
Middle East.
DISCUSSION
The display of yellow ribbons has always signified moral and emotional support in times
of-crisis and separation. The resolution proclaiming "Yellow Ribbon Days" will encourage
all residents of San Luis Obispo to show that moral and emotional support to not only the
San Luis Obispo County servicemen and women but to all of our military and support staff
currently serving their Country in the Middle East.
�O
s
IN '_ E BOARD OF SUPERVISE .S
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
-- - - - - -- day ----------------------- 19 - - - --
PRESENT: Supervisors
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO.
PROCLAIMING "YELLOW RIBBON DAYSIO
The following resolution is hereby offered and read:
WHEREAS, a military confrontation in the Middle East has led
to the forced separation of American families and friends; and
WHEREAS, the potential for grave danger exists and separation
from family and friends can cause anxiety for those who are called
to duty and to those who wait'at home; and.
WHEREAS, display of yellow ribbons has long - signified a
statement of moral and emotional support during times of
separation; and
WHEREAS, the residents of San Luis Obispo County are
encouraged to display yellow ribbons as a symbol of moral and
emotional support for the men and women called to service and as a
statement of moral and emotional support for those who wait for
their safe return; and
WHEREAS, the residents of San Luis Obispo County are also
encouraged. to join the Board of Supervisors in wishing for a
peaceful resolution of this crisis, and a safe and speedy return of
all military personnel to their communities and families.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
that "YELLOW RIBBON DAYS@ commence and continue as long as the
threat of grave danger exists in the Middle East.
Upon motion of :Supervisor
seconded and on thi
following . roll call vote .; to wit:
AYES::
NOESi
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted..
\ Chairman of-th'e Board of Supervise =s
ATTEST:
Clerk o'f the Boa =d gf- Supeniisors
�3
Ali
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA
TO: Honorable N
FROM: Arnold B. 0
DATE: January 22,
Development
SUBJECT: Agenda for Joint City Council - Architectural Review
Commission Meeting, January 29, 1991
The Council has requested a joint meeting with the ARC to discuss
ways to facilitate implementation of adopted city ordinances and
policies. The ARC has suggested several specific areas of
discussion which they feel will facilitate achieving that goal.
Those areas are:
1. APPEALS. The Commission is concerned that Council
hearings on appeals of ARC actions often ignore areas of
factual concern to the ARC, and thus reach different
conclusions resulting in the overturn of Commission
actions.
2. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The Commission feels that
their interpretation of the standards differs from that
of the Council in substantive ways that contributes to
Council decisions to overturn ARC decisions.
3. CREEK SETBACK REGULATIONS. The Commission feels that
reliance on administrative policy in this area places
their decisions in jeopardy, and causes determination of
appropriate setbacks to be more subjective in nature.
4. COMMUNICATION. The Commission feels that communication
with the Council on what constitutes acceptable
interpretation of ordinances and policies is now taking
place through the appeal process, and is thus
inappropriate and ineffectual.
Staff suggests that the Council consider these suggested topics of
discussion, confirm whether they should be included on the meeting
agenda, and provide revisions or additional topic areas. Staff will
then finalize the meeting agenda.
JAN 2 2 1991
VIVO Fay
SAN Iumt. } ^M.CG CA
q:u5