HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1993, Agenda & PROCESS FOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW BYU COUNCIL FOR PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS TO MODIFY LAND DRAFT USE ELEMENT i
II
II
III
II
II
IIIIOf :::::�
III�I I san lugs oB�s
JOINT
AGENDA MEETING
JOINT MEETING OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, Jud 21, 1993 - 7:00 PM
Council Hearing Room, City Hall
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Peg Pinard
ROLL CALL: Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Allen K. Settle,
City Council Vice Mayor Bill Roalman, and Mayor Peg Pinard
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Mary Billington-Whittlesey, Brett Cross,
Planning Commission R. Gilbert Hoffman, Charles Senn, Sandi Sigurdson, Dodie Williams,
and Chair Barry Karleskint
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council.welcomesyou�input You may address the Council by completing a sneakers
.:.ILR..E d giving it to the City Clerk'prior to the meeting Time limit is three minutes State
law does not allow.Counc"if to take action on issues hot on the:agenda:: Staff may be:asked
to follow up on such items:
P.C.1. Ken Schwartz requested support for proposed amendments to the 1970 Consistency Act.
STUDY SESSION :'
► 1. FACILITATING COMMUNICATION & INTERACTION (JONAS/462 - 2 hrs.)
A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss facilitating
communication and interaction between the two bodies, including such topics as:
A) The desired process and extent of further review for continued processing of the update
of various General Plan Elements.
Discussions held.
1
Council/Planning Com, _ sion Agenda Wednesday, July 21, 1993
B) Direction for review and approval of projects which conform to land use policies and
zoning standards, but otherwise generate public concerns.
Discussions held.
C) Clarification of the process for Council referral of items for Commission review and report
or recommendation.
Discussions held.
D) Definition of areas for increased Commission assistance to Council.
Discussions held.
(Agenda report from the June 17, 1993 Council meeting is attached as background.)
COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
At this time, any'Councd Member or the City.Administrative Officer may informally update
the City Council On communications and ask for comment and/or discussion Due id f&6
law,formal action or approval may;not be taken Action on items may be scheduled at the :
next.Regular meeting
A. CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT.
2
�IIIIIIIII III I I IIIIIII�I III
My Of San WIS OBISPO �
AGENDA Agenda Distribution List.
JOINT MEETING OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO I. Unpaid Subscriptions:
(All mtgs.unless o/w noted)
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION AIA President_ _
_
Wednesday, July 21, 1993 - 7:00 PM ASI President
Council Hearing Room, City Hall B.I.A. , Lynn Block
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
H.Ovitt, Co.Spvrs.Chair
Paul Hood, Co.Administration
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Peg Pinard Housing Authority
KCBX
ROLL CALL: Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave KCOY
City Council Vice Mayor Bill Roalman, and Mayor In KCPR: (2)Gen.Mgr.& News Dir.
KDDB
KEPT
KGLW
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Mary Billington-Whittle KKJG
Planning Commission: Charles Senn, Sandi Sigurdson, and KSBY
KVEC
Library(front desk)
Mustang Daily
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Not to ekceed 15 minutestotal New Times
Pac.Gas&Elec.Co/B.Boyer
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the coup pac.Bell/Brad Schram
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting True limit Planning Commission
not allow Council to take action on Issues not ori the agenda. ; RRM Design Grp./DeAnn Smite
such Items. I So.Calif.Gas Co./Vic Sterling
SLO Area Coordinating Council
Telegram-Tribune
SLOCityEmp.Assoc/T.Girvin
SLOFireBattChiefAssoc/S.Smith
SLOFirefightersAssoc/D.Wunsch
STUDY-SESSION-.:: SLOMMgmt-ConfEmpAssoc/D.Cox
SLOPoliceOffAssoc/T.DePriest
SLOPolStaffOffAssoc/t.Costa
For L.U.E.6/30/91 on & 1992•
► 1. FACILITATING COMMUNICATION & INTERACTION J Earth Journal TerryC.Sanders
( � Earth Journal/Terry Dtmnivent
ECOSLO/Kurt Kupper
A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commissio Res.forQual.Neighbor./D.Connor
and interaction between the two bodies, including such topics a Sierra Club/Tom Knepher
SIA Prop.OwnersAssoc. (&St.Rpt)
A) The desired process and extent of further review for continued processing of-foie-up
various General Plan Elements.
STAFF CF CALIFORNIA )
a The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabil'X'RiR&Fi4 4vVgspq*W a4 aWties.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Pleas'' alPfo W(4WtlWl%%re tbi meeting if you would like to use
a device to assist you in hearing the meeting. s lltc; a under penalty of perjury that I am aaployed
b the City of San Luis Obispo in the City Clark't
t.epartwent; and that I posted this n"r the
rrtnt door of City Hall on -
Agenda
-7-1I,)-q3 - 1
t'ctfi Signature
Council/Planning Commission . .,enda Wednesday, July 21, 1993
B) Direction for review and approval of projects which conform to land use policies and zoning
standards, but otherwise generate public concerns.
C) Clarification of the process for Council referral of items for Commission review and report or
recommendation.
D) Definition of areas for increased Commission assistance to Council.
(Agenda report from the June 17, 1993 Council meeting is attached as background.)
COMMUNICATIONS' (not to exceed 15 minutes)
At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may'informally update the:City
Council on communications and:ask for;.comment and/or discussion Due to State law, formal .
action or 'approval may not be taken Action on items may be scheduled at the next Regular
meeting
A. CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT.
2
- AGENDA REPORT FROM CITY COTTTTCIL MEETING OF 6/17/93
���H�i�►►►�Ilillipl�lu►�u�►�UUI city of San tins OBISp0
is COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ��—
G�i �� 3
From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Mandeville, AIC
na
Long Range Planning ger
Subject: Process for Preliminary Review by Council for Property Owner Requests
to Modify Draft Land Use Element
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Should the Council wish to consider substantive changes to the land uses or the location of the
urban reserve line contained in the Land Use Element update, staff recommends that a separate
hearing to consider such changes be held by the Council before the Planning Commission
hearings on the update begin, with the following suggested ground rules and understandings:
1. Consider proposed land use or urban reserve line location changes at a noticed public
hearing. Continue this hearing, if necessary, to Bear all proposals. Describe in the
hearing notice that additional major changes to land uses or the urban reserve line will
not be considered in depth until after the Element is adopted.
2. After closing the public hearing to consider proposed changes to land use or the urban
reserve line, direct staff to analyze in more detail those proposals the Council would like
to consider. Staff will prepare an analysis of environmental impacts and General Plan
consistency, and present this information with other materials for review of the Land Use
Element to the Planning Commission and City Council. Proposed changes that involved
potentially significant environmental impacts will be added to the Draft EIR for the Land
Use and Circulation Elements. The Draft EIR will be recirculated for public comments
per CEQA requirements if necessary.
3. During the public hearings for review and adoption of the Land Use Element update,
limit the consideration of significant new changes in order to avoid additional delays in
adopting the update.
DISCUSSION
Background
Several proposals for alterations to land use designations and the urban reserve line, as contained
in the current Draft Land Use Element, have been advanced by property owners, their
representatives, or potential developers. Staff has been asked to comment on the possibility of
preliminary Council consideration of these proposed changes to determine the likelihood of their
inclusion in a revised draft plan prior to full public hearings.
r--
����m���i►�IIIIIIUIp��ui��I�U city of San 1U1S oaIspo
C®Ul®ICIL T
Any land use or urban reserve line modifications must be analyzed in a manner similar to the
level of analysis done for the alternatives discussed in the current Land Use Element/Circulation
Element Draft EIR. Should any of the changes or alternatives be adopted as part of the
Element, the City will then comply with CEQA requirements. Special emphasis must also be
given to consistency among proposed modifications and all of the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan, pursuant to State law requirements that the General Plan be internally consistent.
Pros and Cons of Alternatives
Alternative 1 - Consider amendments during presently scheduled public hearings on the Land
Use Element:
Pros
Does not delay initiation of public hearings on Land Use Element.
Maintains traditional process for plan review and adoption.
Cons
- Could create a delay of 6 to 8 weeks between meetings during the hearing process
while staff analyzes the impacts and General Plan consistency of proposals. This
delay could cause Planning Commissioners or Councilmembers to go "cold" on
Land Use Element information.
EIR must be recirculated before Council can adopt the amended Land Use
Element (45 day min.). If this is done after consideration and approval of a
significant land use modification or change in the urban reserve line then
recirculation would occur after close of public hearings but before adoption.
Analysis of the impacts and consistency of a proposed change are not available
at the outset of hearings to consider within the context of the rest of the Element.
Alternative 2 - Hold separate preliminary Council hearings specifically to consider including
proposed land use or urban reserve line changes into the Draft LUE.
Pros
Information regarding, a proposed land use or urban reserve line change is
available at the outset of public hearings on the Land Use Element.
No long interruptions in the review and adoption process once it starts.
����i�i�u►I�IIIIII�I�h `�U�U city of San Luis OBlspo
COU CIL AGEiV®A REP®R"T
- If necessary, the EIR could be recirculated during the public hearing and review
process and would not delay adoption.
Cons
Initiation of public hearings to review and adopt the Land Use Element will be
delayed for the amount of time it takes Council to determine any desired changes
to land use and urban reserve line locations and the amount of time staff needs
to analyze the impacts and General Plan consistency of such changes.
There is the potential for further delay of plan review and adoption unless the
Council prohibits additional major changes until after the Land Use Element is
adopted.
Departs from traditional process and would reduce flexibility for change later in
the process.
Alternative 2 would set back initiation of the review and adoption process previously scheduled.
However, interruptions during the review and adoption process would be minimized. If the City
Council were to choose Alternative 2, then Council should adopt ground rules limiting
presentations to requests to change land use or the urban reserve line location, and precluding
such introductions later in the adoption process.
FISCAL IlVWACTS
Reviewing the proposed changes to the draft Land Use Element and the urban reserve line is a
part of the overall Land Use Element review process. The primary fiscal impact will be the
staff time necessary to analyze the environmental impacts and General Plan consistency of the
proposed changes. This impact would occur no matter when in the process of reviewing the
Land Use Element update staff would be directed to analyze proposed changes.
ALTERNATIVES
As discussed above, the Council can consider proposed land use and urban reserve line
modifications, as well as their impacts and General Plan consistency, in two ways:
1. Without any speical review in advance of Planning Commission and Council hearings to
review and adopt the Land Use Element; or
2. As a separate hearing in advance of the Land Use Element update hearings.
CCPREAPP.RPT/JM
1/-3
--�- � -a� ,.., ..-�s_..... -�- ■
i
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 o San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
h r-
�� �
MEMORANDUM
J U L 1 6 1993
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer CITY CLERK
p SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director >
I > �4i'1i1•4/r� CC7lyrlis�r��,r1
DATE: June 25, 1993Y
SUBJECT: Continued General Plan Processing Schedule G
The following reflects conclusions reached at our recent meeting
concerning the continued processing of General Plan Land Use (LUE)
and Circulation Element (CE) updates, and their associated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
1. Joint Council I Planning Commission Meetings
At the request of the Planning Commission, a joint meeting
with the Council has been set for Wednesday July 21, 1993. The
Commission request reflects a desire to enhance communication
with Council, and to obtain clear policy direction which can
be implemented efficiently, equitably, and with a minimum of
public controversy. Topics for discussion suggested by the
Commission include:
a) Council direction for further review of the General
Plan Land Use Element, including extent of review
desired. Should discussion be limited to the "major
items" list previously generated, or is 'more
extensive discussion appropriate considering most
of the current members were not on the Commission
when the LUE was last reviewed? The Commission
feels that the LUE EIR is a complicated and
difficult to understand document, but conforming to
a scope of work which was approved by the Council.
Any significant revision to simplify, and perhaps
include additions such as an economic analysis,
would substantially lengthen processing time and
would likely involve additional cost to the city.
Should Commission review extend to the point of
making such extensive changes?
b) How can the Commission best address the issue of
approving well designed projects which comply with,
and in some cases exceed, city policies and
standards, but the Council finds unacceptable?
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
c) Given the work load of Commission and staff, how
can the Commission encourage Council to (i) achieve
well -considered consensus before referring items to
the Commission, and (ii) take referral action in a
manner that the Commission can clearly understand
what is being requested of them?
d) In general, how can the Commission be of maximum
assistance to the Council?
2. Hearing Process for Considering Changes to the Draft LUE.
Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on
the evening of August 10 to consider suggestions for changes
to the urban reserve line or proposed land uses as shown on
the current draft of the LUE. For example, Alex Madonna's
request to include additional portions of his property along
the westerly side of Los Osos Valley Road near Highway 101
within the Urban Reserve Line. The purpose of that meeting
will be to determine which suggested changes, if any, will be
further analyzed as part of the LUE update process. The
Council may, or may not, be able to arrive at a decision for
changes to the draft LUE in one meeting. If additional
meetings are necessary, they will be scheduled for later in
August or early September. Once Council concludes
consideration of suggested changes, they have agreed that no
further changes will be considered until after conclusive
action on the pending update.
3. Subsequent Staff Analysis.
Following Council decision on the scope of the draft LUE,
staff will revise analysis and Environmental Impact reports as
necessary to accommodate the changes. The length of time
necessary for this step will depend directly on the number and
character of the changes accepted by the Council for further
analysis.
4. Planning Commission Hearing Process.
Planning Commission public hearings will commence once the
revised Draft LUE, it's associated EIR, and the staff report
for both are completed. Assuming Council decides by the end of
August on a restricted number of changes (with extensive new
analysis not being required), Planning Commission hearings on
the revised draft LUE and EIR are projected to begin in
November.
5. Council HearingProcess.
Staff projection of processing time for the LUE update
arbitrarily includes three consecutive hearings at both
Planning Commission and Council. Assuming the November start
encountered at the end of the year, the LUE could be to
Council for hearings beginning approximately February, 1994.
Thus, March to April of 1994 is now projected as the new
target date for adoption of the update by Council.
Extended hearings by either body would further delay that
adoption date.
6. Joint Council/Planning Commission Public Hearings on Plan
Elements.
It was suggested that a joint Council/Planning Commission
meeting be convened for the purpose of considering proposed
changes to the Draft LUE.. The procedural difficulties and
potential for conflicts with due process inherent in such a
meeting, however, suggest avoidance of that approach. Instead,
a Council meeting has been scheduled to receive proposals for
change, with the Commission being formally invited to attend
that meeting to hear discussion first-hand. Thus the actions
of the two bodies will be kept clearly separate, and
presumptions of premature action without full process will be
avoided.
7. Further Joint Processing.
Council has suggested that joint public hearings with the
Planning Commission for adoption of the updated elements would
be efficient and speed-up the remainder of the hearing
process. Community Development Department staff and the City
Attorney have given considerable attention to this suggestion
because it does appear to have potential time saving benefits.
However, our conclusion is that legal procedural requirements
would be difficult to accommodate with joint hearings. The
legally required process envisions Commission recommendations
to the Council for action, and the Council taking testimony on
the recommendations before acting. Care must be taken that
public opportunity to comment at all stages of the process is
preserved. We believe that the mechanics required for joint
hearings would be difficult and confusing, and should not be
attempted.
MEMO
To: San Luis Obispo City Council and Planning Commission
From: Ken Schwartz, Sen Luis Obispo County Planning Commissio
Re: Proposed change to State planning and zoning law
Date: July 21, 1993
This is a request seeking support from the City of San Luis Obispo for a change in the State planning
law commonly known as the "Consistency Act." This act was passed in the late 1970's and
essentially requires a local agency's land use/zoning ordinance to be consistent with its General
Plan.
The County Planning Commission believes that this Act has played a great deal of mischief
with an orderly planning process, particullary the ability of a local agency to set forth long-range
vision plans. We would like to see the State Legislature recind this Act and we have taken one small
step to that end. We have directed our planning staff to prepare an amendment to the County's annual
response to the 1993 Local government Planning Survey of the State Office of Local Governmental
Affairs, a part of the governor's Office of Planning and Research.
The County Planning Commission will be meeting tomorrow, Thursday, July 22, and my expectation
is that the Commission will radify this amendment; it reads as follows
"The requirement that zoning ordinances be consistent with the general plan (California
Government Code section 65860(a)) should be amended to recognize the relationship
between the shorter term, more immediate nature of zoning as an implementation tool and the
longer range, visionary perspective of the general plan and the need for more effective linkages
between the two orientations. Consistency should be based more on how zoning incrementaily
achieves or works towards the overall goals of the general plan then a simplistic approach of
having zoning maps merely "mirror" the general plan's land use classifications. More emphasis
should be given to having zoning implement the objectives, policies, general land use patterns
and programs specified in the general plan in a phased manner over time because the long range
community vision represented by the general plan almost always needs a broader time frame to
be realized then the immediate nature of zoning can accommodate."
That your City Council and Planning Commission is meeting in joint study session tonight makes my
request a bit premature because our Commission hasyet to take a final action, but judging from the
Commission support previously given, I would be very surprised if this amendment is not
unamiously supported
On that assumption that the amendment will be passed, let me suggest how you could be helpful:
1. Discuss our proposed amendment within the context of your own experiences and determine if
you have the same frustrations with the process as presently dictated by the consistency ect
2. If you da
(a) Ask your planning staff to amend you 1993 report to the State accordingly.
(b) Bring your action to the attention of other cities in our couty and ask for their support.
(c) Introduce a resolution at the appropriate meeting of the Channel Cities Division of the League
of California Cities and obtain the support of the Channel Cities for such a resolution to be a
part of the League of California Cities legislative program for next year.
I am also hopeful that the local chapter of the American Institute of Certicied Planners will review
our actions and provide the support of the professional planning community to this effort.
TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
IDENTIFY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
BACKGROUND STUDIES/ISSUE PAPERS/ISSUE ANALYSIS
DEVELOP/MODIFY GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
DEFINE A PREFERRED OR "HEARING" DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION
(PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED)
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW & ADOPTION
(PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED)
M
O�
i
is
x
0
o
y
'�
rn
rn
M
rn
M
�
rn
r,
U
W
M
CP\
M
G7
M
M
M
n
O
7]
.�
�
T
OA
a
M
O�
O�
ON
rA
�c0+
A
U
o
'o
c
ul
z
7
¢
a
a
¢
A
p1
Oti
�
O�
N
A
z 3
rn
rn
rn
m
�►
rn
Mou
`�' '
a 0 y
�
Cd
�
C
�
a
�
G
U U
a s
Q
w �
�
w
�,
•,
N ¢
v ¢
w
ON
.0 cn
U
Z
to
)
to
O O 5
W
a
C
M
rn
en
ON
a
U .b
A
U
�W
¢
z
¢
z
¢
z
a
z
UU�y
aa
o
m
Q a
z
1�1
O
ed
U
$
A
rn
m
°`
rn
W
>
—
rn
,.,
A
. 0 b vw
as
a
w
w
w
z
z
z
o
o o a
o 04
b U
W
w
•�
::
::
�
:r
N
p � � c,
ON
,D
D
co
rn
rn
rn
ONae
as
w
O
¢
v5
A
�°
CL
ucn
0 p C,
o
r
a
0
a
C
N
o 3
u
`ll
�
•
�'
r"'
$ a
•:
E 7 0
.�
G
O •
O
�
O
�
i
�
o
W
rn
U
� U
N ;_^.,
� rn vi 7
y
w
�"
v�
G
O
x
O
z
3
O
U
c' y
""
C
w
e~C
a
c"a
e~G
a
O O
A ce
04
¢¢¢
* :k
O».
... ...
_
Z
... ... ... ... ...
0
.. .» .. .............
... ... ... •. ... _ ._
... -- ... .. ... ...
..
... ... ... .. ... .. _ ----- .. ... .. ... .. ... ...
.. ... ... ...
cn
Q
2
..
... .. .. .. ... ... ... ..
... ... ............................
CD
.. .. ..
.....
... _....... ..._ .. .. .« .. .« ..... ... .._ _.............._ ... Q- W
.« ... ... .. ..
D..
.. ... ... .. ...% ... ... N - ......... .- i w
... ... ..
<Q
N
Q w Z z
LLA
.?
gm
...... . _. _N . Cb » p
CL Z
LLJ
>
««...
« O Q
w U .
................... .
Z O c O
O _ _ a CD w
_ p Q o y C U W z
»
Q Q do
1L ... ... w a
_.c _
11
---.
UO w Q:O
y
O: OL
z c c
W z
L
..........
p U Z > w U
C y Q
w Q
O_
_ ...... Q:
C U
Z Z _.
C
2p
O
3 2 C CL
« F
Lu cn
z=
- ... .
U
w
z
... Z z _. « Z
3
U...
H
...............c » » Q a
A
CL
OCL
_ _ .............. ... « ... ..
vo
:... «.
y A
.. .» ». ...
... .. _ ... ... ... ...
... _.
7
... ...
h
LL
W
en
cn
cn
O
Z
-
Q
O
I.-
(D
U
—
m
W
O
W
z
0
O
cn
J
a
>
>_
j
z
Fx
Q
Q
I--
a
~
0
Q
J
Z
Z
W
z
W
(n
W
Of
J
Z
Z
O
O
W
J
W
^
Z
W
J
W
0
V
U�
U
Q
in
z
3
W
u,
m
O
D
0
W
O
O
x
a.
z
a
z
U
s
z
U
U
AE
G
LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE CHRONOLOGY
Early 1988 Council initiates Land Use Element update; appoints ad hoc committees
(general and downtown).
Mid 1988 Staff conducts public workshops and opinion survey, meets with ad hoc
committees, begins study sessions with Planning Commission.
February 1989 Discussion draft is published.
1989 Planning Commission work sessions continue. Staff prepares inventory
of land use capacity to help evaluate impacts. (Minor delays when project
planner does environmental work on wastewater upgrade as urgency
project.)
April 1990 Planning Commission recommended draft is published.
Summer 1990 Council begins hearings.
Fall 1990 Council suspends hearings, refers draft back to Planning Commission with
direction to consider 13 topics, calls for economic study.
Fall 1990,
Winter 1991 Economic study scope is debated; scope is referred to Planning Commission.
Staff and Commission begin work on those topics which do not need results of
economic study. Public questions doing an economic study but not an
environmental study. (Minor delays when project planner does environmental
work on desal as urgency project.)
Spring 1991 Council decides not to do an economic study, but to retain economic
consultants (Mundie & Associates) to help staff prepare a series of focused
issue papers, including nonresidential growth rate and affordable housing.
A meeting facilitator (Dan Iacofano) is retained.
Summer, Fall 1991 Council, staff, and Mundie & Associates, with help from the facilitator,
conduct several work sessions on topics such as jobs/housing balance,
agricultural preservation, air quality, affordable housing performance
standards, community sustainability, downtown office conversion,
neighborhood commercial centers, space for car dealers, and
nonresidential growth rates' relationship to city costs and revenues and to
employment.
January 1992 Staff presents revised draft incorporating Council direction from work sessions.
February 1992 Council makes significant changes to revised draft, and endorses a
"hearing draft" as a project description for the environmental impact
report (EIR). Meanwhile, EIR scoping and consultant selection have
proceeded. Council directs that EIR cover City's Land Use Element and
Circulation Element, integrated if possible with County's update of SLO
area plan. (Minor delays when project planner does environmental work
on state water as urgency project.)
Spring 1992 Staff revises inventory of land use capacity to help evaluate impacts.
May 1992 Council endorses hearing draft Circulation Element (so consultant work
on EIR can begin), with several variations for major circulation features
to be studied.
Summer, Fall 1992 Staff and EIR consultants (Fugro-McClelland, Inc.) refine alternatives
descriptions and traffic model, and prepare draft EIR.
January 26, 1993 Draft EIR published.
March 15, 1993 EIR comment period ends.
May 5, 1993 Responses to EIR comments are presented; staff prepares package of
changes needed for consistency with other planning documents and for
environmental mitigation, and to follow Council direction since the
hearing draft was endorsed. Planning Commission holds hearing.
GMALUEUP.CRN
� � n
nn w •n � �-. � � ta9N ern-,:; �n•,ay�•E �� F •�� � _,m��'� o �'.� � ���•o��o
p� f/}"• r fit. !i] o n w C�' m �w
•.SqD7. t1 '�`dQ .•`Y•- CI] N [D _ .`G •a m i t ins p..'• �' e+ m �•� o, p �. • N o
o
T--•'^7 b Vl w ¢ Cp i7' '� Y. N Vl P y D7
� _. O cr .-- �" •^J
.� F•- cnr CJ G (fj r.3 n� p V+ r+. C cr r .-.. O O p ro CD «� fC "1 O W O ¢
A� V+ t r�-' a ❑ r-. �' r* ro m b ,Q 4 G R7 . O tr• '� r� ^ O
�*m.m O�ro�a�Arw«3�p�m±�+'.-vG�_� �]�.1❑��o`��m�
p- y r, m rR .i m p- .� p R. Cn i'-a . CD t1• <D wI CD ' •-n w .aq
En p� 0 v m w laA+ o 1'. o: �° m o b 'C n .Co-%� •� p m p oa ¢ m p`p+
P� n .�" Q. F.
m ••� N ""a r•r '�'+ ..i y N G Q p] C]! .-. in O d�3 + o !^{ b a
C n nv cm+❑ `ern p ,y ro
or
,❑ �+ [� v c r n R. rc- fi+ c+ E• LO m PD: r�� 0; co p. ❑ ttr R
r Q❑ N [D [r G •�• � M y m m ry � rp �p �i w� .+n.• 6 n b � 2 o a
`iC�aD c�+•�_ Cryrn ❑o `�'Y" , pmrna �7g'�,3�'teGT n.1 �D vC [smC1 ' 'C "mi 'or• .ihm N` o '.'C+,- dpm- UCi —C''i 0 �?+mp+.b'�"s• ..;Gmp❑ .�+: mrn � .A•,t..c.-1r �F�po -�nm o ,1ig BpU�.yoR
aomro e
K rq G.'mW o �`m`�`o"
q 0 N � no
nmSy0VZI "y9.v
g m ��,K} D� 5 N CQD
q CD -01 m CD C
romO
En
�-
_
1�
7.
i.
co 0 . ca CD �- 3 : " it : r�o' K ' . p .� [v
c� C C o ro o
_ CD � n �•tv.d � � �o.ro'
p•
N- a'Cr•nD-^f go p'
bcoor*n 0 0re oonn
1C w Q �"...•_c+,Q Q n aw crF' G cwrfiCCDD'.'± 0 y
cn CD z . o m o 0 0 w � �' w �. CD p- d �a '0b R K
f vi o4 CDi n OU❑En
q n Qq o c* DR o
cn w O cr Y m ; rn m ,� C S7 ¢ n ID ❑ O� 0 p�
n a < umi umi �' w p• F mm y c�'� w� �d P r❑i, w
�` CD• r+ ct y �^ A '-C b e�irQ•c. "�y p: cr `*
io `C •s K
co w CrAn Or n+ ..o my �Qy'11; twm GY WQQt� ' pw yNp 0tv 'PL
Zw w C�9 0n� •. �Cw N D ON Ca C7 oN,
co
a
uo CDdaCD CD p"n
rn , 0 Q
CDm(D CD
'
v y
p,, �; 1i ¢ Dq
� h � m fD m � o` � t rir' g'
�j-•ro�¢-� ���� N'•p icA••ti •'Pr� [� y`;� NQ' q�,Y m .�„.3]• (dM�� qH �.+f,.po.rN+-�pp'`Cd�tG C�-•�rM- �F �•1 t-n1 q �.
•s5,
P+q r CC"0—'b m p,:,j a VC
.'3'. 0 {gyp f0 b b [,/} O E '� '_". K n p `' = rw•. �. C r+
ro N H [6 fl t CS m Q l�ii d oR mP CDe+ 0
m " `� car eb-r CD' n m N .0P �'* n m g 5 zi c+
°Cn'porwn"�C6rrOad�rn co,'.n
❑,_ �' y a �° c:� o .. m �°i c G it G ua ins con ❑ A+
N n' p qq tA
zgir- ] N �' G, i �' m ems' rr R.. E CD t - 4 5. 0
CD
CD ..y-� 0
sr 7i Q
1. OPPOSE Housing: Regional ITout ing__Needs. A13 51 (Costa).
Department of Housing Seeks to Create _ Regional
Zoning Process. SENATE FLOOR ALERT!
After a number of meetings with Tim Coyle, Director of the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD), and his staff, it appears that the Director intends to
proceed with a proposal to substantially change the state housing element law. Ainong the
proposed amendments to AB 51, are provisions which will:
1. Require COGS to allocate multifamily zoning and density standards to cities.
2. Require cities to meet HCD approved density standards to obtain Housing
Element approval.
3. Prohibit cities from disapproving housing projects unless HCD approves Housing
Element.
4. Create a Housing Appeals Board to allow developers to appeal project denials
to representatives of HCD, OPR, and others.
5. Create a presumption that a city General Plan is invalid if HCD will not approve
its Housing Element.
6. Allow HCD to review and approve city -by -city performance objectives for low-
income housing.
7. Require the reduction or deferral of development fees for affordable housing
with no state funding to offset direct or indirect service costs.
The bill's amendments are still not in print. HCD and the California Association of
Realtors wish to move the bill without a hearing on its substance so that they can create a
Conference Committee to write the bill at the end of the session. That is the same process
that gave us SB 2557 and other misguided legislative efforts.
AB 51 would increase the level of HCD involvement in local planning and give the
Department six new areas for review and approval of local plans. AB 51 moves 180 degrees
away from mandate relief supported by the Governor by increasing local responsibilities and
increasing state bureaucratic oversight.
City officials should immediately do the following:
1) Write your Senator and ask them to oppose AB 51. and ask for a NO vote on
the floor.
2) Write the Governor and ask him to direct HCD to drop their last minute efforts
to increase local housing mandates.
3) Write your local Realtors and ask them to drop their sponsorship of AB 51.
AB 51 will create state and regional controls over zoning. This is counter to
Realtors' long-standing interest in local control.
(Referred to previously in Bulletin #14-1993, 23-1993.)
n ai CD ---I
O m -0 � w
c� m m
= �E3> �--�DDDovm o'c.
� 0 F4 a' , � �- c x my c . ,.�► :
CD
a..� O Q- Q. to O W n. n n CO O- p
c, o c =- =1 3 (Do 0 N ca m � �°
.�. =
s0 o cQ "* O'3.3.3.3 'm �° m
CD 0 0 CDc� ?g.`�CD
3�� x000 <mno
c 3 co p r� csa a (a ra 0 • � -- m .
= CD to _
3 ,� m to 'L3 no t� 3 cA 00 m
0 CD
� '3 c m p � �c CD -..
0 -c 3 m 3
O p sn w p fm Cr0 c� -• s a coc O co ro 0.0
p 0 n .. c x
O c o- 3 ,< c
3 m -� -'' � _ m e*
.,mom -CA CD 3� mm
co
r CA
0 o�. �Q A`� CD
�. = <to
a :—
Cl)o
a
o m to � _ Cr
r v .= EL `-
Sw 3 p cr
CD.`
9
: 5
x
mw •
�.
a�
O