Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/29/1991, 1 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORK SESSION
a . I��u�► ci o san tins os�spo - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUM ER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: General plan update work session CAO RECOMMENDATION Consider the attached issue papers and reports .intended to answer previous questions. Identify any additional information needed to decide the issues. For those issues where the council has sufficient information, decide the overall direction staff should follow in revising the draft Land Use Element update. DISCUSSION I This is the second of three scheduled all-day work sessions at which the council intends to set the direction for the general plan Land Use Element update. Once the direction is set, staff will compile a revised "hearing draft" and an environmental impact report will be prepared. Then the draft will proceed through Planning Commission and City Council hearings, with adoption anticipated in July 1992 . The subject topics are important to deciding the content of the general plan update. Staff has prepared an issue paper (attached) for each of the topics, following the outline endorsed by the City Council at its June 25 study session. Staff suggests the following schedule for this meeting and the next meeting, to cover the issues previously identified by the council and make use of available experts. July 29 Morning: - Affordable Housing - Auto Dealers Relocation/Reuse Afternoon: - Airport Area - Response to nonresidential growth rate questions from July 8 August 5 Morning: - Response to any affordable housing questions - Neighborhoods - Sustainable Community - County Growth Management I Afternoon: - Traffic/Circulation - Air Quality/Clean Air Plan Further information on maintaining agriculture outside the urban reserve line will be presented when the open space element is considered. gmD: JUL29CC.WP "' `� A: Jut jay r J• , CITY COUNCIL Sara LUIS os Issue: Affordable housing Description Housing production has been primarily a private market activity. Only recently has it been thought desirable or necessary for government agencies to influence the affordability of housing. We must decide "what is the city's role in solving the problem of affordable housing?" Affordable housing has been an issue in most California communities for at least the last ten years. Previous general plan studies and a human needs assessment have identified housing which is affordable to low-income and moderate-income households as the most significant unmet need in San Luis Obispo, considering the whole range of needs. State law requires that affordable housing be addressed in the general plan Housing Element. The city' s existing Housing Element, accepted by the state, addresses affordable housing; staff and the Planning Commission have seen the Land Use Element update as an opportunity to reconsider the policies before the next mandated update of the Housing Element, though the two updates are now scheduled to happen concurrently. Consistent with statewide usage, "affordable" means a rental or conventionally financed purchase cost which does not exceed: - For "lower-income" families (those earning 80 percent or less of the countywide median income) : 25 percent of income. - For "moderate-income" families (those earning 120 percent or less of the countywide median income) : 30 percent of income. State law further recognizes a "very low income" category (those earning 50 percent or less of countywide median income) whose housing costs should not exceed 25% of income. The following table shows income and cost limits for a four-person family, using the state' s definitions and the state' s April 1991 income data. (Note: there is not unanimous agreement on how to calculate costs based on state definitions, plus household size and dwelling size, and related expenses such as utilities, but these figures should be generally accepted for comparisons with current average prices. ) i f Table i Family Income and Housing Cost Limits San Luis Obispo - 1991 Household income Rental Cost Purchase Cost Very low income $19, 050 $397 $47 , 600 Lower income $30, 500 $635 $76, 300 Moderate income $45, 700 $1, 142 $137 , 100 Median income: overall - $37 , 000; family of four - $38, 100. Source: City of SLO Community Development Department Over the years, staff, commissioners, and council members have also talked about "small" or "modest" housing which, while not necessarily meeting these limits, would provide sound, attractive shelter at the lowest possible cost. In San Luis Obispo, apartment rentals average about $700, while house rentals are about $900. Purchase costs, for fairly modest, new units, average: mobile home - $50, 000; condominium - $180, 000; detached single-family house - $250, 000 . (These figures come from a scan of the classified advertisements, not a formal survey. ) The average costs for newly-acquired housing in San Luis Obispo (owner and renter) exceed what a household with average income can afford, according to the standards of government agencies and private lenders. Low- and moderate-income households continue to live in the city because they: (1) Spend a higher fraction of income on housing than recognized by state standards; (2) Have occupied their dwellings since before the dramatic price increases starting in the 19701s; (3) Have brought equity from other locations, which allows them to afford more than their current income would indicate; (4) Have additional buying power (such as parental support) , or future income allows them to have high housing costs in relation to income for the few years they are in the city, but lower relative costs when a longer time interval is considered. (5) Live in the roughly 700 apartments (one-fourth are owned by the Housing Authority) , in which rental payments are determined by income. 2 The state estimated that in 1984: very-low-income households made up 34 percent of city residents; other-lower-income, 14 percent; moderate-income, 18 percent; and above-moderate-income, 34 percent. According to the state figures, the city had a higher proportion of very-low-income residents and a lower proportion of above- moderate-income residents than the county as a whole. While this description seems to contradict general experience, it does reflect the simple measures of income used and San Luis Obispo's high percentage of college students. (1990 census results for income are not yet available. ) In the last ten years, the city has accommodated 1, 666 new single- family dwellings and 1, 633 apartments and condominiums, of various types, sizes, and costs; 165 dwellings have been destroyed, removed, or converted to other uses. The Housing Authority has completed 40 units of assisted housing. In general, new detached single-family houses have been larger and provided with more features and amenities than many of the houses built in the 1940 ' s through 1960 ' s. As the supply of buildable land in the city diminishes, and the desirability of living here continues to be recognized, land prices in the city have risen to levels comparable to those of affluent metropolitan area communities. As land values increase, so do the costs of new and existing housing. A substantial amount of the city' s existing affordable dwellings may be lost, as privately owned apartment projects built with low- interest financing reach the end of their limited-rent periods or as owners withdraw their apartments from rental assistance programs (about 500 dwellings) , and as the older mobile home parks in commercial zones are converted to other uses (160 dwellings) . Also, existing modest housing may be lost as smaller houses are enlarged or replaced with bigger ones, or by other uses. A given type and size of dwelling in San Luis Obispo generally costs more than a similar dwelling in some other areas of the county, such as Los Osos or the Salinas Valley, because of San Luis Obispo ' s attributes such as climate and relative concentration of jobs and services. However, many people believe that the housing needs of local residents and workers could be better met if more modest housing was available within San Luis Obispo. One method used in many communities to better match need and supply is to require a proportion of the dwellings in new residential projects to be affordable. However, there is a concern that requiring some dwellings within a development to be affordable will result in higher prices for other dwellings within that development. Granting density bonuses can overcome this concern of shifted costs. For the major expansion areas, annexation and the provision of city zoning and utilities confers a fifty-fold density increase (from one dwelling per ten acres to about five dwellings per acre) . Some believe that the resulting increase in land value should be 3 partly recouped through the public benefit of providing more modest housing than otherwise would be developed, possibly with less profit than would be earned from dwellings sold at prices determined solely by the market. Other cities have such "inclusionary" programs, which require a developer to make available a certain number of affordable dwellings, prior to or along with other dwellings, as a condition of subdivision or building-permit approval. The Housing Authority would screen the qualifications of potential occupants and help administer any resale controls. For several years, the city's Housing Element has contained objectives for building affordable housing. The greatest opportunities for meeting affordable-housing goals are in the major expansion areas, which require additional water supply and wastewater treatment capacity to be developed. Affordable-housing requirements can be set, and density bonuses can be granted, for infill housing as well. The city has Affordable Housing Incentives (Municipal Code Chapter 17 .90) , which make available density bonuses and other inducements for affordable housing under existing zoning, but no developments have been proposed to use them. (Some projects, such as the Southwood Apartments, have involved degrees of housing affordability and inducements other those specified in Chapter 17 . 90, but they have resulted from rezoning. ) Housing ' s affordability in San Luis Obispo depends on several factors. They are subject to varying degrees of influence by the city. The primary factors are: A. The demand for housing caused by employment and college enrollment levels (some influence by the city' s policies on commercial, industrial, and institutional growth, including land and infrastructure supply and any growth rate controls) ; B. The demand for and supply of housing in the locations which new residents move from (no city influence) ; C. Formation of households from the local population (minor city influence, through high-occupancy regulations, and indirectly through the age and income characteristics of residents as determined by housing supply) ; D. The incomes provided by local employment (some influence through the factors noted in A above) ; E. The cost of new housing, including: - land (some city influence) ; - financing (no city influence, except as the city may pursue mortgage revenue bonds or other means to provide low-interest loans) ; - construction (minimal city influence, since nearly all 4 basic standards are set by statewide codes or by private lenders) ; - city fees and charges (set by city) . - The supply of and demand for housing within commuting distance (no city influence) ; The rate of housing production (an upper limit would be set by the "one-percent growth" policy; this limit may constrain the peaks of housing activity, but probably would not increase any valleys due to statewide or national economic conditions) ; Any requirements for affordable housing that the city decides to establish. If the city does not take steps to assure availability of affordable housing, it will tend to become more polarized, with older, property-owning residents on one hand, and younger, renter households on the other. Many workers providing services to resident owners will not live in the city, but instead will commute from other communities. Planning Commission recommendation The commission has considered land-use patterns that would accommodate from 4 , 300 to 6, 500 additional dwellings inside the urban reserve, and requirements for 25 percent to 60 percent of them to be affordable. The Planning Commission has recommended that: 1. Developers of major expansion areas be required to offer land to the Housing Authority, at market cost, adequate to construct at least five percent of the allowed dwellings, which would be for low-income renters. 2 . Ten percent of the dwellings in major expansion areas be affordable to low-income buyers; about 40 percent would be affordable to moderate-income buyers. 3 . Up to one-third of the major expansion areas ' required for-sale housing could be replaced with rental or group housing at affordable prices. 4 . Outside major expansion areas, residential projects should provide one of the following: A. At least ten percent of the dwellings affordable for low-income residents; B. At least 20 percent of the dwellings affordable for moderate-income residents; C. A fee equal to two percent of project valuation 5 /-/'A (which the Housing Authority would use to help provide 'affordable housing off-site. ) 5. Commercial and industrial projects should pay a fee equal to three percent of project valuation, to be used as in item 4. C, or include affordable housing or group-care facilities. These provisions are contained in policies 2 .27 through 2 . 29 (pages 27 - 29) of the "Planning Commission Draft. " The commission' s recommendation is based on: - The need to provide a full range of housing types and prices, including a meaningful component of affordable housing; - The belief that new development can provide affordable housing without undesirable side effects such as causing other dwellings to cost more, due to increased density upon annexation and market forces continuing to set the cost of the "nonaffordable" housing. Alternatives to commission recommendation The attached table compares different approaches for providing affordable housing, arranged from the lowest requirements on the left to the highest on the right, and bracketing the range of alternatives which has been discussed. Under the "no requirements" alternative, the city could encourage such steps as making suitable sites available for modest market- rate or subsidized housing, but there would be no requirement that a certain number of affordable dwellings actually be built along with other dwellings. Under the "existing general plan requirements" alternative the current requirements of the Housing Element would remain in effect. The "housing needs plan" alternative simply translates the state ' s goals for household growth in San Luis Obispo into housing quotas. (A new version of the household growth projection is being developed by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council as required by state law, for inclusion in the Housing Element update to be completed by July 1992 . ) Environmental and economic Questions 1. will requiring a substantial part of the dwellings in a development to be affordable make the other dwellings in that development more expensive than they otherwise would be? 6 /- 7 2 . Will a consistently applied requirement for affordable housing production work back through land cost to make the land more affordable? 3 . How does the greater development potential conferred by annexation relate to a requirement for affordable housing? 4 . Will requiring a substantial share of new dwellings to be affordable (initially and upon resale) affect the city fiscally, under current and potential tax rules? How can fiscal impacts be mitigated through fees or changed service levels? 5. To what extent do the city' s development-review procedures and fees, design requirements, and utility-connection or impact- mitigation fees affect the development of affordable housing? Questions for staff guidance The council ' s answers to the following questions will help staff make any desired changes to the update draft and related city activities. 1. Should the city require new residential projects to include a share of dwellings which will be affordable to low-income and moderate-income residents? A. How big a share? B. All projects? Only "large" projects? Only annexation areas? 2 . Should the city require a direct contribution to meeting affordable housing needs from nonresidential projects, through fees, mixed-use development, or other means? 3 . Should the city spend more than it does now to help affordable housing be built (either through direct expense or by foregoing the revenue from fees that would otherwise be charged) ? If so, what sources of revenue, or reductions in funding for other efforts, should be pursued to fill the gap? gmD:AFFORDCC.WP 7 I-g N N . L d d O G d Oy G E e u =y 0 L L. Mo a A .� C L d � �,o V V O wZ vL.E N O <.° N O z L yp o c N V fid" N V V DD c N L y L E O T W d o 'o E� � °n E y o E O 'fl O4: O O H O U C L p N C L L TL 0 q O` a w d w W H E W W R V O 7 t� D` UD T u C O V OD kn Q z Vim' L.0 N cn.-00 O N T e o=� V cE E .� to ° c c o E Z � v L c C a> > o• 0.0 d C7C ° ` E V C C ,.°.to A _ E c �` oN c c c c c .; tz z z z z 0 E 0 c N o v ° nd > > '- c - o u d cr` c c E -0 = c $ cc c co c ce oc $ E 90 o o ° O ° = o O Zfst QZ Z ZS Z.E z z Z w ZV) Z clN L L N V N W d d V y G C c � N N V d N V N L ME CL. wE X L .0 $ $ L L ° v y a c e o. d d c E y E E dr dr A eE d, o. V V WW V V cc y c c u d y 3 3 c e - 3 3 0 o v It � s s �s s 2 Z N c < O d Z L i_ 9 Issue: Relocating auto dealers & reusing their sites Description This paper discusses two related issues: A. Pursuit of an expanded auto row; B. Use of downtown properties vacated by any auto dealers which move. Overview Most of the principal manufacturers of cars are represented in San Luis Obispo by new-car dealers clustered north of the central business district and near Auto Park Way, while others are located on south Broad and South Higuera streets (Figure 1 attached) . In response to specific zoning requests, the city has considered adequacy of space for expanding and relocating car dealers several times in the last ten years. This issue is still with us. Most recently, the council has expressed an interest in the types and intensities of uses which would replace the dealers which may move from downtown. Under current sales tax rules, car dealerships are fiscally beneficial to the city. Sales of vehicles and parts accounts for about 22 percent of the city's sales tax revenue, the largest single category. People attracted to San Luis Obispo by car dealers may also tend to spend money in local stores and restaurants. Auto Row Expansion Car dealers usually want sites of at least three to five acres, with frontage on heavily travelled arterial streets or highways. Car manufacturers have dealer-location criteria, including requirements for distance between dealers selling the same lines. The separation standards make it unlikely that San Luis Obispo would accommodate more than one dealer for a given manufacturer of cars. There is room within the city near Auto Park Way for two additional dealer expansions/relocations occupying four acres (one 2 . 3-acre project for relocation of a downtown dealership is under architectural review) . The current general plan would not accommodate further expansion there. The Planning Commission' s recommended update would accommodate about six acres of additional dealerships across Los Osos Valley Road from Auto Park Way. Figure 6 shows the potential car dealer sites considered by the Planning Commission (including some which have other development proposals on them now) , plus the following three sites not considered by the commission: 1 A small site on Higuera near Madonna, recently vacated by a used-car dealer; A small site on Broad near Sweeney, rezoned several years ago to accommodate a new-car dealership which had planned to move from another Broad Street location; A large area at the northern end of Calle Joaquin (McBride property) . Auto Park Way could be extended through this site, requiring part of the last vacant site on the Auto Park Way cul-de-sac and a bridge over Prefumo Creek, connecting to Calle Joaquin, or it could be developed separately. Reuse of Downtown Sites Six sites in the central area, ranging from 5, 000 square feet to nearly one acre, and totalling 3 . 3 acres, are occupied by four car dealers; there is one 3 . 4-acre dealership on upper Monterey Street (attached Figure 2 , and detailed maps Figures 3 , 4 , and 5) . Other downtown sites occupied currently or recently by other auto- related uses are also candidates for reuse. If downtown car dealers relocate, the developments which take their places may substantially affect: - Jobs/housing balance, through additional employment capacity, additional housing, or both; - Downtown traffic and parking, by attracting additional workers, customers, or both to the area; - Retail strength of downtown, through additional retail space, additional nearby office-workers or residents who would be customers, or both; - The aesthetic character of the central commercial area and nearby downtown residential and office neighborhoods, through the types of uses, the intensity and form of buildings, and traffic and parking. The six central area sites are zoned retail commercial (C-R) . This zone allows a wide range of uses: stores, services, theaters, institutions, offices, hotels, and high-density dwellings. The maximum height, 45 feet, can accommodate four-story buildings (three stories with a high-ceiling retail level or steeply sloped roof) . Where C-R sites are adjacent to other C-R land, buildings are not required to be set back from streets or property lines. The C-R zone allows 100 percent coverage of the parcel. The Montoro office building proposed for the northeast corner of Monterey and Toro streets, a site vacated by car dealer parking, is an example of a recently approved replacement project in the C- R zone. It would cover 83 percent of the site, have minimal setbacks for fire separation and future street widening, and 2 contain two office levels over two parking levels, and a small street-level retail space. It would have 12, 480 square feet of leasable space on a 9, 035-square-foot site. Similar development on the six sites occupied by car dealers would result in nearly 200, 000 square feet of additional office space, 800 workers, and 5, 000 vehicle trips. The actual type, configuration, and density of uses which should be developed in this area are subject to further study and action by the council. The area along Monterey Street between Santa Rosa Street and the railroad overcrossing is being examined by the Downtown Physical Design Committee as part of their work on the future Downtown Design Plan. The site on upper Monterey Street is zoned tourist commercial (C- T) . This zone allows motels, hotels, restaurants, limited retail sales, and medium-density dwellings. The maximum height, 45 feet, can accommodate four-story buildings. Where C-T sites are adjacent to C-R or C-T land, buildings are not required to be set back from streets or property lines. The C-T zone allows 75 percent coverage of the parcel . The Quality Suites hotel is an example of recent development in this area. If the neighboring car dealership site is developed in a similar way, it would accommodate 125 units. Planning Commission recommendation Auto Row Expansion The Planning Commission Draft says, "Auto sales should be encouraged near or along Los osos Valley Road near Highway 101. 11 • (policy 3 . 18) The commission 's recommended map does not explicitly designate additional land in that area beyond what is already zoned service-commercial; however, while reconsidering the council 's 13 referred topics, commissioners agreed that the Land Use Element update text should include reference to the potential for car dealers within roughly six acres of the Irish Hills expansion area (designated, as are all the expansion areas, "interim open space") . Considering the areas designated for "general retail" and for "services and manufacturing, " the commission thought there would be adequate space, near Auto Park Way and elsewhere, for the relocation, expansion, and development of additional dealerships for both new and used cars, commensurate with planned growth of the city and region. Reuse of Downtown Sites In the original round of consideration, the commission discussed but did not support the city encouraging the relocation of dealerships from downtown. The commission thought such uses are acceptable there and did not think it would be appropriate for the 3 /-ia city to try to hasten their moving, though it could provide opportunities for them to do so. Concerning reuse of downtown retail sites, the commission draft says: "Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be provided for a variety of households, including singles, couples, and groups. Dwellings should be interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial projects should include dwellings. " (policy 4 . 1) "In retail areas beyond the commercial core, the pattern of buildings in relation to the street should become more like the core, with few driveways and parking lots serving individual developments, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entries and courtyards) . However, buildings should not exceed two stories (about 35 feet in height) . " (policy 4 . 19) The commission agreed to consider in the next round of hearings reduced coverage limits, or a floor-area-ratio, that would further reduce allowed building intensity. Alternatives to commission recommendation Reuse of Downtown Sites 1. No policy change: leave current land use policies and regulations as they are. Auto-related uses probably would gradually be replaced by more intensive development, most likely dominated by private offices; without additional standards, such development may not provide pedestrian amenities or maintain street character. 2 . Encourage government office replacement development, including county and state agencies now looking for space outside downtown. 3 . Emphasize visitor-serving replacement development: expand tourist-commercial zoning and entertainment or conference facilities. Another 120 to 150 hotel units might be accommodated. As a variation, encourage smaller scale, higher priced "bed-and-breakfast" development that could be more compatible with residential uses, historic character, and traffic concerns. 4 . Emphasize residential replacement development: allow office/commercial development only in conjunction with residential development, or allow minimal office/commercial development by right, with additional office/commercial development allowed in conjunction with residential 4 /-/3 development. As a variation, emphasize affordable housing through redevelopment techniques or density bonuses. 5. Emphasize retail development, by making the area more like the central commercial zone (special approval required for uses other than retail on the ground floor) . 6. Try to keep car dealers downtown, by minimizing relocation opportunities, or reducing the number and intensity of allowed potential replacement uses. Auto Row Expansion 7. Regardless of intended future use of downtown sites, more aggressively pursue the relocation of car dealers, utilizing techniques such as early annexation of land near Auto Park Way, or providing low-interest loans or loan guarantees. 8 . Provide location opportunities, beyond those recommended by the Planning Commission, to attract additional auto dealers and reinforce the city's status as a regional automobile sales center. Environmental and economic questions 1. Are there environmental or economic advantages to having auto dealers clustered in one location, separate from other commercial uses? Questions for staff guidance The council ' s answers to the following questions will help staff make any desired changes to the update draft and related city activities. 1. Does the city want to be an automobile sales center, considering the strong sales tax potential of this activity? 2 . Should the city leave establishment of new dealerships and relocation of existing dealerships primarily to private- sector decisions, or should the city actively support their expansion/relocation in pursuit of being a sales center? 3 . Should the city designate additional land near Auto Park Way/Los Osos Valley Road, and take additional steps to assure its development as an expanded auto row, even if current land owners are not pursuing such development? 4 . Beyond maintaining existing dealerships, should the city try to attract the new automobile lines (such as Toyota' s Lexus, 5 /-/!.� Nissan' s Infiniti, Honda's Accura, and General Motors' Saturn) , which may represent a growing share of the overall new car market? gmD:AUTOS-CC.WP 6 I ' 1 I � I I I I I I CAL POLI' A. y I G \ 1 \ I ' I I G I ! I I \ I I I I I 111/•• \ C G \ I i ` '•• E \---------- --- I _ , ! r 1 j AIRPORT\� /r ^nN SCALE I•-3500- ' lel CITY LIMIT LINE----- FIGURE Z CAR DEALER LOCATIONS CITYWIDE '' i►�illi�' IIl city of sa►n tins OBISPO 990 Palm Street/PoSt Office Boz 8100•San Luis Obispo.CA 93403.8100 7245 hIGURE Z CAR DEALEK LOCATIONS DOWNTOWN =� i �a aeecrr sr. a = W � -TURNER HURRAY '� er � \ TAFT a ' ` WILSON ST. G °t5 c ea a W 2 W 4 `P�Sti 9q} u Ga AFIELD W ST. s \ t"� IL /P V 9�f � J Q �4Pc,�t '. W � rrS � atioRE� oe`y i PNi IONTELINN LIIP. LANE y Z J O P A M T v Oq �� V♦ o/ 0 2 fq p4.y B yr ,^ � sp Sl. "OS p?•�'� L C!j4 (\ ,\ 9 0y ♦ �/ P P O 90 gl v SOS �V O'P N 9 p O � _ 9 P`�4 -N- �A S1 ` ' ���' 9 f of •\ eq S'� �,�T•l 10 0 �♦PSP �/ �• V r.' / LS 9Cy ? \ Q '•/ Sf �J A' FIGURE 3 CAR DEALER LOCATIONS GOVERNMENT CENTER VICINITY • O S •,� _ qu ol W. f i i> th ��4 9`fes ��^' `✓//.-\ .tom.j i 's"- 1 y S 4 � a> •.� tet: 4 •a,A �_ �^ oe tiR ' � 35i f. �X5.1 ♦� ' �� � � j'SS'Y 4 �� �, 4 r y ' •' •' O �� da a• s e • r • L'\• �� O,� few,� � ? `01 ,J + ,•. • + j'O� ��- .fie° ._ f • a ` 4a . /a • ghr o r tea. i • g},� — ZZ 3.a 4� '• 1 • a• 0 r -4�'- _ _ a r r• ' y _ ` •�hi� L C - -o •• �,. ..Lee-. i$i1. � ke ° o r a , iia. •�• �I � (oj' e �ti� FIGURE 4 CAR DEALER LOCATIONS RAILROAD VICINITY O Vi. .......... .. ...lho E ... P11 li. Yj 0-A � ` r< ,5� O cy ik FIGURE 5 CAR DEALER LOCATIONS UPPER MONTEREY VICINITY -N- © `t.! r +• r 1}� TSD ::. GTfit'{i 0���� �� • w" � C r V y R e'a�d y ?rlLt � V(LpAh 7 e^. � I y J TM1'[DC•t mcmcf AL e'. \ /\\V : :?*�`.•`?+�'??r:: ear:. ...:::..�......\ � \ 'r \♦\ , ^� .,ht(:i?':Ii'cr7:lle:isJ+rr:}iirrii:: ?:'r:ir7iF'.r?:7::i`e:'j:::?ii?rf:::!iliii :. MP t v ! c � +7,�•7''y?::`i:Sir?;.?i'Ici1i� !: ^ ':'i'•'1•��.�{'�'P:h�'?ri:?'::+?Fir'.1±�Y�i�?•�;rriii�:irri? :?rri:?ri'r:1&rrci+ri:r?::; \ 4r ^� �l:.a•^�'' ::::':::riri'.rri?::ri: r:r'i:rirrr?+1::::::::':::::�::::i?::rri?::: :': V •^•,••• '?..' ;r_'c;;;ii`:' _ +•J°, .Y•..".'.'[:':::. r..".:°::?riii::?:$<:. ii:ir::'iiii::ri ?rrt:i?:�.::' +:t':::i. :::rrriri+:ii P .rt°a'��.'�s'.;':;:'._'. ::::.:'.::; ' %;;�'.''.•�:;?if�i'r,F16- t;:i; ,isr'r':t:2r;':;.;':?r;;:'.:;';r'I W :`•••�'J,•:rr+e irii$ir:''r:�::ijr: i�rrir''+rii:•:ti�ireiri''�``'rr`r iri�iri"' WA— :•;�,��'.,,::;.'�i,:::::?isrr::r::r?:;rr::;::r::r::s::;::r::;r:;:::?::r::;?:;r=:r::r�:?;: ."A1H^. :..n�N?:rri:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::+::+:::::::::+:::::�::•::::::+::P::+::: wrrcr e O `.E rr� J^ t • rf.':�i'r?::•:i�7i:'°r'•::i'7:'i:::ii::�ri:':'':'i:'i:?:'i±:ei?i:'f�:'.�:!:�:??:':ti.':• l:'i:'ef'r'. ' gi FJ• w'd a j a c U O MWIM O �. ry ya •r: r , " OO f 46 O O O � l( .. � O , j 0 \^ O OL o 0 �,� o , a o 0 O O n O �J� O �� C,4 O ? . q D Sys / od �yP: _ SFR r_-__-_______ I � i i i CAL POLY t I : r , : .' LAGUNA LACEiv . ;! L t 7 L.\ 9 4 10 AIMPOF 3 .5 ii CT ---- NSCALE 1'=35W / tIy CITY LIMIT LINE----- FIGURE 6 POTENTIAL CAR DEALER LOCATIONS city Of II san lU1S OBISpO 990 Palm Street/Past Office Box 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 / 1 F.. iURE 7 AUTO PARK WAY VICINITY 1 r � —N— � 1 C 1. .v vee-ire® ]29.•r« msCray 0 o_ Lam:-xwa. ro�m,at un oaru,00xe o�nl-.nae Ibis. O ./11 mYU] ]a.rr« ol+vnt to ty YN 0]}01b MI m]-UI 06N neer- �• ow-IMn tr.Hart-ir.r o.rrro f.� LG 1.7 O Q caf 5�^r4Oc• �' .rn oGl-x•z-0o�t our-+rai I���pE orcMne 2]a.cru YP m1U14Q1! IIY.a.+ I:e .re O]]-,]1-00x] u..... oa..-e.w A. orciane-er..e oaa.-uea �i oma.rt-imr roron .a.rru 0 067_241m,v Vs od ee uy J V�Y 4«c � xa.Y�« Iu+f m]-u,�oz �T\ IA \ un m]-u,-0ox1 c vim ue LG -rnmx I .m m]-01�x V 1.II l`20�11 1 o.w_ oe a car orcauee-... orraea-vas, T. �T clj% 0. « a...a.rt-T.ec.xu / 0.7 M r Q G .re nei-ul-0ox i / � .rn oer,moo,c 4 i� 1 ` . 0 I ' It-;a Issue: Airport area Description This discussion focuses on the unincorporated area extending between South Higuera Street and Broad Street, north and west of the county airport, up to the Margarita expansion area ' s proposed residential development. City and county general plans have shown different designations for much of this area for years. Because the area could have such a large nonresidential development capacity, the city and county must carefully consider the affects on the jobs/housing relationship, traffic, air quality, water and wastewater demands, and financial health. Also, airport operations raise issues of noise exposure and safety. Council members have expressed concern about the appearance of development in the area, as well as traffic and fiscal impacts for the city if additional nonresidential uses are developed outside the city. There would be no issue if county zoning conformed with the adopted city plan, which calls for agricultural and rural uses in most of this area. However, the proliferation of urban-type industrial and commercial uses which has occurred under county zoning shows what may happen in the future under county jurisdiction. (Proposed city and county general plans agree on basic features of the proposed "Broad Street annexation area" between Broad Street [Highway 227] and Sacramento Drive, so it is not included in this discussion. ) Most of the area is nearly flat, sloping gradually toward the southwest. It includes the airport, related uses, and clear zones (240 acres) , several commercial and industrial uses, including active parts of the oil tank farm (280 acres) , a mobile home park (three acres) , cultivated agricultural land (400 acres) , and vacant land (over 600 acres, largely unused parts of the oil tank farm) . The attached Figure 1, showing employment concentrations, gives a general idea of where the more intense uses have developed in the area. Nearly all existing development uses on-site water supply (wells) and waste disposal (septic leach fields) . The amount and quality of groundwater in the eastern part of the area generally cannot support urban uses. Groundwater quantity in the southwestern part of the area appears adequate to do so, but high nitrate levels could require expensive treatment for urban use. Continued development or use of on-site waste disposal in the area may not be appropriate. Projects developed under county jurisdiction have requested city water and sewer service when on-site systems proved inadequate (such as UPS and the animal shelter) . The city has not approved these requests, and in the 1980 's adopted an ordinance prohibiting extension of city water and sewer service to unincorporated territory. 1 /nZ3' 2 However, the city: - Provides water service to the county airport under a 1970 's agreement; - Agreed during the 1960 ' s to provide water and sewer service to several properties outside the city, within the proposed Broad Street annexation area; - Provides sewer service to the mobile home park on Tank Farm Road, as a condition of a federal grant to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant. The city's existing general plan says the area should be used for agriculture or uses which require lots of space, but few customers, employees, or urban services. The county has jurisdiction. The county' s general land-use designations would allow more intense uses than the city's general plan, but "interim limitations" set by the county in 1981 were intended to minimize conflicts until a specific plan acceptable to both agencies could be adopted. In an attempt to reconcile different policies for the area, the city and county jointly began work on a specific plan in the mid- 19801s, with the county as lead agency. In January 1989 , the City Council said a staff-prepared "concept plan" (attached Figure 2) should be the starting point for further work, but noted that several key issues still had to be addressed. These issues were: jobs/housing balance; traffic circulation, particularly provision for transit; air quality; water availability; conflicts with airport operations; agricultural land preservation; the timing of development and annexation. City and county staff work on the specific plan has been suspended and focused instead on completing updates of each agency' s Land Use Element. The city' s and county' s preferred type, distribution, and intensity of land uses can be resolved by coordinated updating of each agency' s Land Use Element. Any specific plan to follow would then focus on implementation measures, such as phasing, provision of services, and infrastructure. Planning Commission recommendation The Planning Commission has recommended that the city's current policies be maintained, with some elaboration, one exception, and one question: - "North and west of the county airport, land should be designated for rural industrial uses. Rural industrial land in parcels of sufficient size and with suitable soil should be used for farming. Recreational facilities which need a lot of space, and which do not need city water and sewer service, are also appropriate in this area. Crop production and recreation uses here can be supported by use of reclaimed water from the city' s wastewater treatment plant. 2 i-aq "Except for public facilities and businesses adjacent to and directly serving the airport, public, commercial, and industrial uses should be those requiring substantial space, having a low concentration of employees or customers, and capable of being adequately served by on-site water supply and waste disposal. Businesses needing ample separation from residential areas and from more sensitive types of businesses are appropriate near the middle of this area. Businesses close to city residential and commercial areas should be compatible with those areas. "Parcels within the rural industrial area should not be further divided. " (Policy 3 . 23 , page 37 of the "Planning Commission Draft. ") Within the "Broad Street Annexation Area" (also known as the "Gas Company Annexation") : land north and south of the Williams Brothers project should be urban intensity "services and manufacturing, " with city services; the Williams Brothers site should be "neighborhood commercial, " with city services; between Industrial Way and Tank Farm Road, the eastern Broad Street frontage should be "services and manufacturing, " and the majority of the area extending back to the Poinsettia neighborhood should be residential . (Map excerpt, Figure 3 attached. ) Uses for the southeastern part of the Damon-Garcia Ranch were not resolved. It was anticipated that further work on the Margarita specific plan would lead to a choice between the possible agricultural, rural-industrial, recreational, or residential uses (area #6 on attached Figure 3 map) . The commission decided to keep the "rural industrial" designation for most of the airport area because: - More intense commercial/industrial development would cause undesirable traffic and air quality impacts; likely mitigation measures such as regional transit and trip reduction programs are not expected to fully offset the increased amount of vehicle travel. - More intense uses (and residential uses) would not be compatible with airport operations. - The city has not planned to provide the additional water supply and treatment and wastewater treatment needed to serve urban uses in the area. - More intense development would substantially worsen the jobs/housing imbalance. - Improved design can be accomplished through new standards and procedures administered by the county through its Land Use Element/Land Use Ordinance. 3 - Area property owners are unlikely to allow annexation unless they believe more intense or more rapid development under city jurisdiction, and with city utilities, would compensate for any additional design or improvement requirements. In effect, the city would have to give up more control than it would gain in order for property owners to support annexation. Alternatives to commission recommendation The only comprehensive alternative outlined so far is the "concept plan" (attached Figure 2) . In comparison with the existing rural industrial designation, the concept plan would change: - 370 acres to open space or recreation, 1, 850 fewer jobs; - 480 acres to services and manufacturing, 4, 800 more jobs; - 210 acres to business park, neighborhood commercial, or tourist commercial, an increase of 4 , 200 jobs. In total, designations would be changed for 1, 060 acres, with a net increase in jobs capacity of 7 , 150. Environmental and economic questions Council and staff have not identified questions relating to the airport area which will require answers in addition to those provided for other issue topics, such as maintaining agriculture, jobs/housing balance, traffic, and air quality. Questions for staff guidance The council ' s answers to the following question will help staff make any desired changes to the update draft and related city activities. 1. Which of the following should be the city' s approach to the airport area? A. Try to persuade the county Board of Supervisors to make its Land Use Element update conform with the city' s adopted plan, and --as part of the overall regional planning strategy-- make substantial changes only with the city's concurrence. B. Work with the county to devise other means of insuring that the city's objectives can be met under county jurisdiction. C. Work with the county to identify subareas that should remain in agricultural/rural uses, which would develop 4 I-ab under county jurisdiction, and other subareas that could be urbanized; but only under- city jurisdiction. gm D:AiRPRTCC.WP i 5 � a7 FIGURE 1 22 AIRPORT AREA EMPLOYMENT INTENSITIES W ; Y 1987 Z Z _ ;r f 1 � •i f fte •ate. •�� � � ' • �• �\� Z ��� Il ••• ,\ \ • , t r�. \1 i 1 ° •• t •� i 1 1 1 1r • ; 1{ °• t C1 s N 00 •• O 1 it 00 1 � ' 1 3 �t :y•t•i '1 V Irl I 1 t :1 •IO.1 - .-"'moi.` I 1 •''00 • \\ �yg iIME J � U IBMC ' - FIGURE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED MAP / `\ \ �\ .\\\\\ `\\\\\ ';•\.\\\\\\\vim aid ./ ' / .'" � •� �� `` \w\\\\\\\ �'/ = •.�"�.•.:������� r '; .'. � j j l�`., \ate .`p\\•.\\\ - - -_ 'tea SERVICES & MANUFACTURING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OKI LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / %�� , %G RURAL INDUSTRIAL TANK FARM ROAD `` • ��\ PUBLIC `S '` ' •• \\\.\ \� AIRPORT `S . . ,. Response to Nonresidential Growth Rate Questions from July 8 Meeting Written response is being prepared by Mundie & Associates. Oral presentation will be made whether or not written material is finalized by July 29. SENT BY=M. I. G. 7-29-91 : 12:45PM 4158458750 805 549 7109;# 2 ME DI zQ-91 ��_ Memorandum July 26, 1991 COPIESTO: ❑*'Denotes Action ❑ FYI M►06DDur V-<AO. ❑-FII.Da- TO: Arnold Jonas Panning Directo ❑- ASO El' F i�Eciw - - l. g. ❑ A ❑=FW DIR- - City of San Luis Obispo aR1c. ❑=.POLla ❑_MCMT:TEAM 11:- KEC D111- ❑ D FILE ❑ L _ 1! D 9 FROM: Daniel Iacofano, MIG JUL 2�9 X991 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CASA SUBJECT: Summary of July 8, 1991,City Council General Plan Workshop The following is a brief summary of the main points of discussion and agreement identified during the City Council General Plan workshop of July 8, 1991. The workshop discussion revolved around three topic areas: (i)jobs/housing balance; (ii) commercial growth rate; and (iii) agricultural land preservation. The first two were discussed together. Jobs/Housing Balance and Commercial Growth Rate In response to the current jobs/housing relationship in the City of San Luis Obispo, City Council formulated a general goal as follows: reduce the negative impacts of the City's net in-commute pattern;strive to alter the jobs/housing balance ratio; enable and/or encourage people to live near to where they work. Potential strategies for achieving this goal include: • Mitigate the negative effects of in-commute automobile trips by improving the area's regional transit service and by increasing the use of techniques such as transportation systems management(TSNO and transportation demand manage- ment.(TDNO• • Consider changes to the City's residential,design standards which might permit the construction of smaller houses on smaller lots,, thereby encouraging the . development of relatively more affordable housing within the City limits. Consider establishing.a nonresidential growth rate for development-within the City; ,-establish. priorities for' nonresidential uses. that provide: the greatest - --. - - SENT BY*M. I. G. 7-29-91 :12:46PM : 4158458750- 805 549 7109:# 3 economic benefit/cost ratio and utilize the City's existing labor supply to the extent possible. • Consider rezoning selected commercial land use areas to residential use. • Encourage more mixed use development with an emphasis on residential use(e.g., - residential/commercial;residential/office,residential/office/commercial,etc.) - • Investigate new ways of financing and maintaining the quality of City services and facilities to lessen the City's dependency on nonresidential development as a source of revenues. Agricultural Land Preservation In response to the loss of agricultural lands in and around the City of San Luis Obispo,City Council discussed potential policy statements as follows: acknowledge that existing agricultural areas within the City contribute to the City's overall charac- ter and rural heritage;cooperate with the County to ensure preservation of agricul- tural areas surrounding San Luis Obispo which help to define and establish the City's rural setting;identify and establish policies for key corridors and gateways to the City which help to define the area's agricultural heritage. Most of the discussion focused on the Dalidio property. Two alternative land use strategies were identified: (i) Preserve a portion of the parcel alongside Highway 101 as open space (and/or agricultural use),and develop the remaining portion for residential and commer- cial uses. (ii) Preserve the entire parcel in agricultural production and open space. Investigate preservation methods including transfer of development rights, acquisition, zoning,etc. A majority of City Council members favored alternative one. For its meeting on August 5,City Council members also agreed to explore and dis- cuss the concept of"sustainable community," and how it might be applied to future land use planning in the Citi of San Luis Obispo. VEETING GENDA Ear REM COPEESTO: ❑•Daates Action L7 CDD DiR. r ❑ RN.DIRPac nd ❑ RUa»>�'VEY ❑ FWDR CLERK/TRIG. ❑ POLICE L BuRcbrigy r 'on ElMGMT.TFa.Mi ❑_1:1 LE 13 yR1E'1C DSR 541 HIGUERA STREET SUITE 200 July 25, 1991 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93. 01 805/541-3848 FAX 805/541-9260 Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 • Dear Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers, We appreciate your current efforts to review the most recent draft of the Land Use Element update. Among the topics you may discuss include possible changes to the Land Use Map. We have an interest in property located at the northeast corner of Prado and Elks, across from the Corporation Yard and offices and adjacent to the freeway interchange. (This does not include the drive-in theater.) This property is currently in the "Interim Open Space" category. The existing General Plan indicates that it is appropriate for urban uses if flooding problems can be addressed. We believe that the most appropriate use for this property would be offices, including regional offices for State or federal government agencies. The property is very near the Higuera-Prado corner, which is designated as one of the government office nodes. It is directly across Prado from a major complex of City facilities including offices and other support functions. Eventually, pedestrian connections both along the Prado Road sidewalk and across the creek would provide direct links to the Walter Brothers complex and to the new County Social Services Center. Its proximity to the freeway interchange will help reduce traffic in residential neighborhoods because both employees and clients of these regional offices would have direct freeway access. We expect to offer to dedicate a significant portion of our property to accommodate the future, improved interchange, if the City and Cal Trans decide that is preferred. There are no nearby residential areas to be affected by traffic or noise; the site itself is too close to the freeway to be best used as residential. V E D JAIL2 W1 CITY NCIL SAN LUI B.ISPO.CA Mayor and City Cou. _,i Prado and Elks We have submitted a General Plan Amendment and PD Re-zoning application to the Community Development Department. We.envision cl plan that includes an attractive design with plazas and other amenities to create more of a "campus" like environment; some mixed use (primarily office-related retail); an on-site day care facility; and a traffic management program which we hope to be a model for other office or commercial developments. The development would be phased over several years. The Planning Commission's Draft LUE map places this property in Special. Design Area No. 7, and the accompanying text states: "This area may be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Continuation of agricultural use or low-intensity recreational use is appropriate." We request that you further indicate that when this area is proposed to be taken out of interim open space and further development is considered, that office uses are appropriate for consideration, through the usual review process of a General Plan Amendment and PD Re-zone. Of course, the requirement that flooding problems be handled in an environmentally sound manner should remain. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, or need further information, please let me know. s cc: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director nEM 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 c plain:Actkm FY! July 19, 1991 LET jebund DM K, 0 FM� � ���rr ❑ FwDUL Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VACC.muioRIG. ❑ poucECFL City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MOMT TEANI ❑ REC DW. Post Office Box 8100 ❑ R ►D Ftur Lin San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of the General Plan Land Use Element. Several statements were made during the first review session to which we would like to respond. "The Consensus Document" There have been several references to the Planning Commission Draft LITE as the "Consensus Document." Is it really the result of community consensus? We think not. There were several meetings of ad hoc committees made up of representative citizens. After the meetings, the staff wrote the first draft of the LUE. That draft went to the Planning Commission which made substantial changes to the document. But neither draft went back to the committees to see if they fairly and accurately reflected their views. Many of the committee members categorically felt that the draft did not reflect their views. There was no attempt to ever involve the citizens' committees in the review of the draft. Therefore, the drafts were the product of the staff and the planning commission, and are not the citizens' consensus document that they have been called. The General Plan Survey We have heard repeated references to the community survey taken in advance of the General Plan update. We feel this survey is of very limited usefulness as it is outdated and open to multiple and widely different interpretations. The survey was taken in May of 1988. That was near the end of the "go-go eighties." The national economy was booming. Ronald Reagan was president. San Luis Obispo was in the middle of a short term building and growth spurt. Real estate n' .GENE® ACCREDITED CHA ER OF WO ERCE c.nuernorcoMMctrJUL 2 3 1991 U, CITY COUNCIL 1 f City Council 7/19/91 prices were skyrocketing. Since then we have had a war, California's most severe drought in history, a devastating agricultural freeze, a widespread recession, a virtual halt to construction, a decline in real estate prices, and an end to the Cold War. In short, we are now in a different time and a different place. We question whether the results of a survey taken three years ago would,: accurately represent the views of our citizens in 1991. But, even if one does give limited credibility to the survey results, many different interpretations are possible. While some no-growth proponents say the response to the question about air quality supports their position, we feel that responses to other questions actually indicate that the public wants a reasonable amount of some new things to be built. For example, on Question #10, only 15% of the population wanted "no growth", while a vast majority (85%) wanted some growth. (In fact, as many people wanted "no limit" as wanted "no growth".) On Question #11, 78% of the respondents wanted more housing, 68% wanted more tourist facilities, 67% wanted more manufacturing, 66% more shopping, and 53% more medical facilities. The Benefits of Business Probably most disturbing to us has been the discussion of the benefits of business growth only in terms of benefit to the tax base and city government. Economic growth means that more people will have better, more meaningful jobs. It means that some people out of work will be able to find employment. And that some people under-employed will be able to find rewarding, challenging work. What most people want is a quality job and a clean environment...not one at the expense of the other. In addition, a prosperous business community provides needed services, contributes to the physical maintenance of the community, supports social services and the arts through donations of money and person power, and generally makes the community a good place to live. Very few people want to live in a city with a declining business community—with empty storefronts, non-existent services, lack of job opportunities, crime and deterioration of buildings—no matter how nice the natural environment. As we've said before, the success of this city depends on our ability to give equal attention to preserving our business, social and natural environment. Again, our thanks for allowing us this opportunity to provide input. Sincerely, Dennis Law Chamber of Commerce President