Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1994, 3 - REVISING THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. p�yyI�I�III - -05-9� ��I�uIIMI�IIIIIIIpI pIlI1I -W f - ME ING DATE: �ul In��l c� o san tuts ogIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director C BY. Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Revising the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Complete review and adoption of the Land Use Element and Circulation Element updates according to the recommended schedule provided in this staff report. The specific recommendation for the next two meetings is: March 28 - Direct staff to make appropriate changes to the text and policies of the February 1994 Draft Land Use Element. March 29 - Direct staff to make appropriate changes to the February 1994 Draft General Plan Land Use Map. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Land Use Element and Circulation Element updates as revised by the Commission and shown. in legislative draft format in the February 1994 drafts of the elements. DISCUSSION The City has been working on updates of its General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and Circulation Element (CE) for several years. The Council endorsed hearing drafts in 1992. An EIR and an EIR Supplement have been prepared and circulated for comment. The EIR discusses the environmental impacts associated with the Council endorsed hearing drafts. The supplement discusses the land use alternatives Council directed staff to evaluate in August of 1993. These documents, as well as the comments received and the responses to comments have been provided in the Council reading file on the LUE/CE updates. A brief analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Planning Commission's recommendations is provided in the discussion of issues attached to this staff report. The environmental impacts associated with additional Council changes must be considered in the context of the EIR during before the LUE/CE updates can be adopted. An update of the Open Space Element was recently adopted, and an updated Housing Element is likely to be adopted in April or May of 1994. Updates of other elements are expected once the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element are completed. A primary concern has been maintaining consistency within and among the various elements. The Planning Commission's recommendations on the LUE and CE are shown in the enclosed A- February 1994 drafts and map in legislative format. The Council's work program calls for adopting the revised elements by June. Previous Council discussions and the Planning Commission's deliberations focused on several major issues. The attached Issues Summary provides recommendations and background. A companion report more fully discusses the non- residential growth management and jobs/housing balance issues. Following are the major issues, which are interrelated. Land Use. - Nonresidential growth management and the jobs/housing relationship* - Transfer of development credits - Annexation requirements - Sites for region-serving, general retail stores * detailed more fully in companion staff report Circulation - Reducing the number of single-occupant vehicle trips - Acceptable levels of street congestion - Widening streets (including Santa Rosa Street, or building an alternate route) - Extending South Street to connect with Bishop Street Planning Commission Recommendation The draft elements presented for these hearings embody the Planning Commission recommendation. The attached Issues Summary and minutes in the reading file provide background for Planning Commission recommendations. Economic Strategy Task Force Recommendation The Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF) made several recommendations, before Planning Commission hearings, that are relevant in considering the revised elements. The Planning Commission considered the list of ESTF recommendations, determined that most were compatible with or supported by the draft, and made some changes and additions based on the ESTF recommendations and similar recommendations by the Chamber of Commerce. After Planning Commission hearings, the ESTF recommended to Council that the Land Use Element include the following paragraph concerning community balance and maintenance of a separate statement of economic goals and objectives: 'San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community. Environmental, social, and economic factors must be taken into account on important decisions about San Luis Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends of a healthy environment. Protection of the environment will depend on a healthy economy to pay for it. The social fabric of the communityfor both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance. Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives in the LUE, the City shall maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well being of the community. " Council asked that this proposal be considered as part of the update. If Council wishes to include this paragraph, an appropriate location would be. the Community Goals section, under "Society and Economy" (which begins on page 5 of the draft). Environmental Quality Task Force Recommendation Environmental Quality Task Force subcommittees have been working on recommended changes to the draft elements. They were not available as this report was prepared, but will be transmitted as soon as they are available. ALTERNATIVES The Council may adopt elements different from those recommended by the Planning Commission or staff, so long as the elements meet requirements of State law concerning topic content and consistency. Council may continue action with direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACTS Adopting updated elements will commit the City in varying degrees to certain likely costs and revenues. The attached Issues Summary notes fiscal considerations of overall land use capacity and growth rates. Fiscal impacts will depend largely on the impact fees and other mitigation measures which may be adopted, or revised, in the future. Some Land Use Element programs have substantial costs. In most cases, including preparation of specific plans, the amount and source of revenue will be resolved after adoption of the elements and before approval of specific projects. Adoption of the Circulation Element will institute 38 new programs and expand 11 existing programs (some of which have multiple parts). This work load does not account for the 20-plus projects and transportation programs already committed to by the City. After the Circulation Element is adopted, the Public Works staff will present to the City Council a comprehensive Transportation Work Program that will suggest work priorities. The Council will be asked to adopt the work program and update it every time it adopts a new Financial Plan. /A-3 Implementation of the Circulation Element and continuation of existing programs in a time span of less than about five years will require additional staff, which will impact the department's operating budget. Also, implementation of both capital and operating programs will have an ongoing cost for facility maintenance and program staffing. SUGGESTED PRESENTATION/COUNCEL DELIBERATION OUTLINE: Outlined below is a suggested approach for proceeding through the numerous issues and actions which must be addressed as a part of the final actions on the LUE/CE updates. I. March 28 A. Staff presentation - 1. Hearing schedule overview 2. EIR overview 3. Major LUE text/policy issues 4. Non-residential growth management regulation (companion staff rpt.) B. Council questions and answers C. Public hearing D. Council direction on LUE issues and non-residential growth management regs. 1. Residential growth rate 2. Non-residential growth regulations 3. Growth capacity 4. TDC's 5. Annexation policies 6. City/county agreements 7. ESTF Goal recommendation . 8. Other LUE text issues identified by Council E. Continue meeting to March 29 at 7 p.m. II. March 29 A. Staff presentation 1. Summary of 3/28 direction 2. LUE Map issues B. Council questions and answers C. Public hearing 114 D. Council direction on Map issues: 1. Santa Rosa Street redesignation 2. NW corner of Tank Farm and Broad Streets 3. McBride Commercial Expansion 4. Froom Ranch Commercial Expansion 5. Olive Street redesignation 6. Foothill Blvd. redesignation 7. Tract 681 redesignation 8. Other Council Land Use Map issues E. Continue the meeting to April 26 III. April 26 A. Staff presentation 1. Summary of previous direction 2. Circulation Element issues B. Council questions and answers C. Public hearing D. Council direction on Circulation Element 1. Setting modal split 2. Achieving high levels of average vehicle ridership (AVR) 3. Establishing level of service standards for City streets 4. Identifying road projects for inclusion in Circulation Element 5. Other Council Circulation Element issues D. Continue to May 17 for adoption IV. May 17 A. Staff presentation 1. Summary of previous actions 2. Presentation of resolution for adopting LUE/CE updates. B. Council questions and answers C. Council action ATTACHMENTS Draft Land Use Element correction pages Issues Summary IA-5 DISTRIBUTED PREVIOUSLY Planning Commission Draft Land Use Element Planning Commission Draft Circulation Element COUNCIL READING FILE Draft EIR* Draft EIR Supplement* Planning Commission minutes (12/1/93, 12/15/93, 1/5/94, 1/12/94, 1/19/94, 2/2/94, 2/23/94) Planning Commission staff reports (5/5/93 [includes Draft EIR Comments and Responses*], 12/1/93 [includes Draft EIR Supplement Comments and Responses*], 1/5/94, 1/12/94, 1/19/94, 2/23/94) Correspondence (which was not included with other items) Attorney General's opinion regarding City/County agreements * Also distributed previously AVAILABLE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Draft EIR Appendices LUECMC2.CAR 3/16/94 JA - � CORRECTIONS TO THE FEBRUARY 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT Please make the following changes on your Planning Commission (Feb. 94) drafts of the LUE and CE. The changes are only those noted in handwriting. 1104 - 7 Land Use Eleme. Plannh :ommission Draft AIRPORT AREA Policies Regional Service 71 Airport Land Use Plan 71 City Annexation and Services 71 Greenbelt Protection 71 Internal Open Space 71 Development Before Annexation 72 Transit Service 72 Specific Plan 72 Business Parks 72 Recreation Area 73 Tank Farm Uses 73 Programs Specific Plan 73 Airline Service and Impacts 73 Growth Management 73 OPTIONAL USE & SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS Maino-Madonna Area 75 Mid-Higuera Area 76 Drive-in Theater Area 76 Los Osos Valley Gap 76 REVIEW AND AMENDMENT Comprehensive Reviews 77 Amendment Proposals 77 Annual Report 77 IMPLEMENTATION Zoning Regulations 79 Subdivision Regulations 79 Architectural Review 79 Grading Regulations 79 Budgets 79 Property Management 79 Development Plan and Specific Plan 79. Environmental Review 79 Communication 80 DEFINITIONS 081 CON-PCI. UIE vi 3/10/94 A Land Use Element 1 ping Commission Draft ::..::.... :.,. .:.....:::..:Y:.:::::::.:.::.:.:.:::::::::::::.:::::.::::::.;:.::::.::::::..:. 8 provide gt�ods' d services whtch substantial numbers of area residents leave the; area xegiarly t abtaiA.: ;M-R-fan'eaisttng businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing; bti�x�esses, consistent,with ether goals , 1 , Emphasize proilictive use of existing vacant biltldings`and areas c�mmltted fo urban ........ ......... .. .... 1 deviriupment.< 'rcvtce an:aiata venue bash far local govoinu�ient and'phbiic'scbools 12. Provide high quality public,services, ensuring that demands do not exceed resources z acid#Iia -a-equate fara'litzes attd services can be provided izz pace with development )rv:Y:p i n»n:.n♦ .v n4v)..:x\v:.W rvriW:n S.vtlnxM:)%, .vvh mv.vv:nvY :.v....uv .....:rv.: ....n:.:ti 1 (modified from policy 1.2Nl)] yl 13. Cooperate with other agencies in the county to assure that increases in the numbers of workers and college and university students in the San Luis Obispo area do not outpace housing availability. 14. Accommodate residents within all income groups in proportions similar to the whole county. 15. Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents witYi veru how;;low-neefe, and moderate incomes-es'�s. 16. Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with,veryaow low-ineeme, and moderate incomes! Fesidents, within existing neighborhoods and within expansion areas. 17. Encourage opportunities for elder care and child care within the city. 18. Enrich community cultural and social life by accommodating people with various backgrounds, talents, occupations, and interests. 19. Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. 20. Have developments bear the costs of resources and services needed to serve them, except where the community deliberately chooses to help pay in order to achieve other community goals. 21. Provide for high quality education and access to related services such as museums, art galleries, public art, and libraries. 22. Be the feetis ef Serve as the county's hub"for county n.. state government; e LtCttxAn�irate© tact p,v sii© imft7rm�itpa;entertainment; cultural, profe55zoiW me IM end social services, m co riunim or anizatiot;s an-retail trade- 1 rv. :..:.. ..�..v.» semees GLS-PCLG.LUE 6 3/10/94 44— 1 Land Use Element nning Commission Draft 23. Provide a wide range of parks and sports and recreational facilities for the enjoyment of our citizens. 24. Retain accessible, responsive, and capable local government. ......... ......... ......... . ........Jn............t...y....government overnment an their ser►$e Ofttntunrty can . [modified from policy 1.2.A(3)] City Form San Luis Obispo should: 26. Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it from other urban development. 27. 0 Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. 28. Keep a clear boundary between the town and the countryside. 29. Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached ac.::,u 4q,x 30. Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, and preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places. 31. Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense of place and architectural heritage. 32. Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. 33. Focus its government and cultural facilities and provide a variety of business services and housing in the downtown- 34. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, for recreation, as well as fer- commuting, and 9W dein daily effands INM 35. Be a safe place to live. GLS-PCLG.LLTE .7 3/10/94 144-10 Land Use Element ning Commission Draft both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. A major expansion area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan for the area. Ph,.... of anilexa#10 and development in ma]or ez�sasxitt< t '1)<xefiectpograpby, needed capital factiitte abd fundug0...0... s za tzti eEtiv ,and'extstmg and sed,land uses and mads (See also Section 7.0, Airport Area.) 1.13.3 qa r i P a S Mom Land ' : . :.....:.x::- .. annex are .ma a developed only after the City �e�has adopted.a plan .for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area fe be For each expansion area where a major annexation should•occursi(named on the map), a specific plan should be adopted for the whole area before any part of it is armed devel'oedl For each minor annexation, the plan may be a specific plan, development plan under 'TD" zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area 1.13.4 lF elopt`ariService5 Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when the City can provide adequate services for the annexed area as well as for existing and otential evelopment elsewhere within the City, except as explained in parts .13.6 and 1.13. below. 1.13.5 a4r'Azinezahoft: ed rementg The City may approve a minor annexation even if the City cannot provide adequate water and sewer service to all existing and potential development within the City, if the minor annexation meets criteria A through G below. The principal purpose for allowing such annexations is to establish a permanent greenbelt surrounding the City. Such an annexation must: A- Be adjacent to already developed land which is inside the City; B. Be outside major expansion areas; C. Have fewer than 25 acres for urban development, including building lots, roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required by toning; D. Have fewer than 40 dwellings; E. Conform with hillside planning standards (see page 55); GRM-PCLG.LUE 16 3/10/44 Land Use Element Planning Commission Draft ' ` 1 i i A ICAL POLY- • �PO� CUESTA PARK •.• N' • e L : LUNETA e•°:� 1 c 0.e • see•°°•f j•eN,O,O,O,O,e„e.e 00 { e WOODLA=DRIVE ,00000 ee,,Osseo••000900.,• • • •,•ee fie• r C '•e GOLOTREE .� �( ... •00.e •S MAINO/NIApONI A • • •., •• ucuiwllAi�" �t •' .• PJr i •' ,e •%.Ns 4 e e• e • -_ °••e•e,, • e •00 44 e: '�. STQNERIOGE ° • `•�I ••° •••glee ' 000 • ee PREFU •e• '••• (] - \ , Je: • S 3. •.••,• ---E ORCUTT . r,. . AAILLYGOAT f °aAARGARRA ACRES •' •• e Iof0000 'so 00 00 r --------- H IRISH HILLS • . • • G Q ; CALL E soa 00 so JOA ,: i a • , .• ^N SCALE 1'=35w, -�,0;:•' . CITY LIMIT LINE----- •' FIGURE 6 HILLSIDE.PLANNING AREAS 54 /� _ �� 7088 Land Use Element I ping Commission Draft AIRPORT AREA lmr-eduefien POLICIES 7.1 Regional Service [10.1] ......................................... The airport will continue to serve the region, corsist'ent uil [ the approved Airport Master Plan. 7.2 Airport Land Use Plan [10.2] Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence should be so informed. 73 City Annexation and Services [10.3].. _ r The City intends to annex ct v iy pursue azznexatzan yof ire Airport Asea is which is inside the urban reserve Egure9} , a :. .............w.:::: .,.:::. :...:::..:.... . . . �} The County should not approve urban development in the Airport Area. Urban development should be within the City limits. The City may annex areas which are not planned to be developed, and it may annex potential development areas before it has adequate water and sewer treatment capacity to serve them. However, urban development should occur only when adequate City water and sewer service are available. Special districts should not be formed or enlarged to provide water or sewer service within the Airport Area. 74;€ Grttelt;zPrbtecfo : tltexa i alr<the A purr area sltoal i e cc ns>stertt.wath the grew lz nanagemeri oliiectis+est?€marz taramg'areas outside:: urba�r�se R. e:.,, rie nrural predonunanr y ogenace uses; - "<'Itrexrial`''CF'peSpace The areas ilesigrxated for ttrbazx uses,hitt not necessar Xy-each parcel; s ouTd tnciude �i�er�arm as a am�nzt�es and to prcitect resources> onststent wtth the Open Space Elernentr AP-PQ,G.LUE 71 3/10/94 /� -13 ISSUES SUMMARY: MARCH 28 CITYWIDE LAND USE POLICIES 1 : Residential growth rate 2. Non-residential growth rate (see companion staff report) 3. Residential and non-residential growth capacities 4. Transfer of development credits 5. Annexation policies 6. City/county agreements IA- 14 ISSUES SUMMARY LAND USE ELEMENT & CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISIONS CITYWIDE LAND USE POLICIES TOPIC: RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission: Residential growth should not exceed about one percent per year on average, through phased development of major expansion areas, with no limits for dwellings affordable to those with very low and low incomes (draft Land Use Element, pages 13 and 14). Planning Commission discussion points: There has been community support for a growth rate that allows gradual assimilation of change and mitigation of impacts, while not preventing housing affordable to those with the least means to obtain housing. Staff: The Commission recommended draft should be adopted, with the following minor changes (draft Land Use Element, pages 13 and 14), to clarify the exemption for very- low-income and low-income dwellings, consistent with the Housing Element. The indicated numbers of dwellings would include the controlled increase in dwellings affordable to those with moderate or above-moderate incomes, and the inclusionary requirements of the draft Housing Element (page 14) for dwellings affordable to those with low or very low incomes, which would not be controlled. 1.11.2 Residential Growth Rate The Cky's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, on average, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. Table 2 shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the .::::::,::.:.. one percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period ►+nt lvttt tett p rr¢ri{of ail dwellrngs nsSuttted#O h�;xxemp from grvsvrh mte nntrvt dunardrti`rrlZt lrhe crturtl number nay b Or fess). 1.11.3 TABLE 2 ANTICIPATED C=POPULATION GROWTH Approximate maximum Anticipated Year number of dwellings (a) Number of people(b) 1992 18,200 42,800 1997 iA i1'x;2'00 43;989 0200 2002 28388 20,300 47,,3 47,M 2007 24, 2140.0 4 88 MOM 2012 22;298 22Q0 :;2,2 53;;300 2017 23,398 23;900 34;988 560Q 2022 24;398 SOp 57-, 59;400 ` Estimated urban reserve capacity(c): :58,2 ` ' 9 t 4 dssrtes thattuad growth rate wtld be about 11 percent per year, IncItrdtng rlwellcngs thea area orlahle ro:res�de�rrs wrth very low ancomes ►ut taw rncoms� rvhrcft are exerr+pa from the growth rare controls ( ) Includes residents of group housing. ( ) Includes Cal Poly campus residents, who were outside the city limits in 1994. DISCUSSION Fiscal Considerations: Considering year-to-year, general fund operations, commercial development is likely to entail more revenues than costs, while the reverse is generally true for residential development, under current revenue and service patterns. Therefore, general fund impacts can be negative when residential development proceeds faster than nonresidential development. The 1992 Mundie&Associates study showed that approximately equal nonresidential and residential growth rates would allow a balanced general fund with adequate levels of service. Environmental Considerations: When nonresidential development proceeds faster than residential development, the number of people travelling into San Luis Obispo for work, shopping, and services increases. It appears that trip reduction efforts will not offset commuter increases due to higher nonresidential growth, so the number of vehicle trips will increase as well. This increase would cause more traffic, noise, and air pollution than otherwise would LUE-POL.CAR 2 3/15/94 occur. With a balance between nonresidential and residential growth, and aggressive trip reduction efforts, significant traffic and other impacts can be avoided. TOPIC: NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE SEE COMPANION STAFF REPORT TOPIC: RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH CAPACITIES RECOND4ENDATIONS Planning Commission: At build-out, the land use districts and allowed development intensities would accommodate a 25% increase in dwellings, with increases of 73% in retail space, 65% in office space, and 80% in service-and-manufacturing space (EIR, pages 3-17 and 3-18). Recommended changes to the hearing draft map would reduce residential capacity by about 400 dwellings. Planning Commission discussion points: Past land use designations and land use compatibility problems, mainly in the airport area, make it difficult to substantially change land use designations. Staff: Increase densities in the major residential expansion areas, so the overall capacity would be about 700 dwellings more than shown in the Commission's recommended draft, as shown below. This change will offset the loss from recommended land use designation changes at Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, bring the total dwelling capacity up to the State's identified Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and partially address the disparity in residential and nonresidential capacities: 2.3.3 Residential Neighborhood Designation The major residential expansion areas are shown as Residential Neighborhood on the General Plan Land Use Map. They may be developed as adequate utilities and services are made available. They should be developed as residential neighborhoods, with a wide range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary schools, and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents. The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3. These capacities are based on the amount of land suitable for development according to policies of this element, and average densities on the housing sites in q..41 iem 1gven dwellings per acre (excluding public streets, parks,• and other land dedicated to public use). 2.3.4 Transfer of Development Credits For each major expansion area, Table LUE-POL.CAR 3 3115/94 3 indicates a low capacity which may be developed without transfer of development credits and a high capacity which may be used with transfer of development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas where development would be less appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's map, agriculture or rural lands. TABLE 3 MAJOR RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION AREAS Name of area A,212roximate number of dwellings Low High Irish Hills 600 700 J!I ............... Margarita 1,100 X99 FAQ Orcutt 399 -799 ...9 DISCUSSION Fiscal Considerations: Considering year-to-year, general fund operations, commercial development is likely to entail more revenues than costs, while the reverse is generally true for residential development, under current revenue and service patterns. Therefore, general fund impacts would be positive at build-out if residential development capacity is lower than nonresidential development capacity. Environmental Considerations: If nonresidential capacity is substantially higher than residential capacity, the number of people travelling into San Luis Obispo for work, shopping, and services will be higher at build-out. It appears that trip reduction efforts will not offset commuter increases with more nonresidential development, so the number of vehicle trips will increase as well. This increase would cause more traffic, noise, and air pollution than otherwise would occur. TOPIC: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS (TDC) RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission: Set two density tiers for each major residential expansion area. The high tier could be reached if development credits are transferred from areas outside the urban reserve line LU&POLZAR 4 3/15/94 that are designated Open Space (draft Land Use Element, page 27). Planning Commission discussion points: The recommended approach is an incentive-based method of preserving open space, while generally avoiding potentially incompatible densities in existing neighborhoods. Staff: Same as Commission recommendation, modified as shown in Table 3 above to increase capacities for both low and high tiers. DISCUSSION Fiscal Considerations: No significant fiscal impacts are expected. Environmental Considerations: Areawide impacts would be within the levels addressed in the EIR. With a successful TDC program, impacts would be lower in areas outside the urban reserve line and higher inside. Dwelling capacities in expansion areas should reflect mitigation measures (such as design standards for creek, railroad, and road setbacks; avoidance of wetlands and steep slopes). There is some concern for the Orcutt Area, which would have the largest absolute and relative capacity increases. TOPIC: ANNEXATION POLICIES RECON AWMATIONS Planning Commission: 1. Amend Land Use Element policies to establish three categories of annexation (major, minor, and other, as presented in the draft Land Use Element, pages 15 through 18). [Locations are shown on the following map, which has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission.] LUE-POL.CAR 5 3/15/94 .� A! ,. INS �♦ �1a�1�� fir" \. rr■r■����►� MINOR --------------- OTHER city of • oi3ispo 01 1 E • 93403-8100 General locations shown Planning Commission discussion points: There are substantial differences in physical setting and City intent for the different types of areas. Minor annexations have been intended primarily to help create a greenbelt of hillsides and agricultural land, in connections with relatively small, individual expansions of the urban area. 2. Amend Land Use Element policies concerning when specific plans are required for major expansion areas. Specific plans should be adopted before development, but not necessarily before annexation. Planning Commission discussion points: Property owners will have difficulty obtaining funds to prepare specific plans if an area is not annexed first. 3. Retain existing policies that there should be adequate services for all areas within the City before development proceeds in a major annexation area. a Planning Commission discussion points: It would not be equitable to commit to development of major expansion areas while there are service deficiencies within the existing City. 4. For other than major expansion areas, development could proceed when services are adequate for that area. (An alternative is to require services to be adequate for existing and potential development citywide, as for major expansions.) Planning Commission discussion points: Service demands are expected to be relatively minor, and there may be tradeoffs, mainly open space protection. Staff: Same as Commission recommendation. Staff is prepared to discuss ways of simplifying or reformatting annexation policies if the Council wishes. (Note: Depending on action on the Urban Water Management Plan, Council may want to revise draft Land Use Element policy 1.13 (page 15), so that reclaimed water can be used for agriculture and open space uses whether or not the location of the use is within the City.) DISCUSSION Fiscal Considerations: No significant fiscal impacts are expected. Environmental Considerations: Regardless of annexation procedure, overall impacts would be within the levels addressed in the EIR. Changing the standards for service levels could raise issues of environmental impact. LU&POL.CAR 7 3/15/94 I at TOPIC: CITY-COUNTY AGREEMENT ON PLANS RECOMMENDATIONS/DISCUSSION Planning Commission: Once City and County area plans are consistent, the two agencies should sign an agreement that one would not make a significant change without the concurrence of the other (draft Land Use Element, page 20, policy 1.16.8). Staff: Staff has recommended this approach through all the drafts, and believes it would be desirable. However, a recent California Attorney General's opinion (provided in the Council reading file) concludes that a city or county cannot "contract away" its power to enact land use regulations, meaning that such an agreement would not be binding on a future City Council or Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission was not aware of this legal problem when it made its recommendation. Staff suggests that the policy be modified to avoid the legal problem, while still expressing the intent that the City plan and the County plan continue to say the same thing. Modify the policy as follows: 1.16.8 City-County Agreement The City will pursue a memorandum of ...................... understanding between the City and County governments, as-suf4mgpte gmg. that ...................... neither agency will approve a substantial amendment to its plan for San Luis Obis o's lannin area without •' �- Cl7re. `'fl`.V.0? zde rr°` .he ,.__ . comment.:...... commen a on of the other. The key feature of the ag eernerrt «.:::.......::::.:.....:..:..:............................:. teatdrt would be the City's acceptance of the planned amount of growth and the County's agreement to not allow urban development within the planning area but outside the City. LUE-POL.CAR 8 3/15/94 IA-aA ISSUES SUMMARY: MARCH 29 LAND USE MAP ISSUES 1 . Santa Rosa Street redesignation 2. NW corner of Tank Farm and Broad Streets 3. McBride Commercial Expansion 4. Froom Ranch Commercial Expansion 5. Olive Street redesignation 6. Foothill Blvd. redesignation 7. Tract 681 redesignation lA-a3 ISSUES SUMMARY City of San Luis Obispo General Plan LAND USE ELEMENT & CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISIONS LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS (See attached vicinity map following this summary.) LOCATION: 1338 Santa Rosa Street Site: A nearly level, one-third-acre parcel at the northern corner of Santa Rosa and Pismo streets, occupied by an office building. Adopted Land Use Element: Medium-Density Residential Hearing draft LUE: Medium-Density Residential Council identified alternative: Office Planning Commission recommendation: Office Commission discussion: Office designation is consistent with draft Land Use Element policies 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 4.1. Continuing the nonconforming status of the existing use will do little to implement policies concerning downtown residential opportunities. LOCATION: Tank Farm Road & Broad Street, Northwest Corner Site: A nearly level, roughly thirty-acre area at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, mostly undeveloped, with a three-acre mobile home park, a few houses, a storage yard, and Acacia Creek along the western edge. Adopted Land Use Element: Rural Industrial Hearing draft LUE: Medium-Density Residential Council identified alternative: Services and Manufacturing Planning Commission recommendation: Services and Manufacturing Commission discussion: Services and Manufacturing is more compatible with surrounding uses and traffic levels. 1A"a� LOCATION: McBride Commercial Expansion Site: A flat, roughly 20-acre area at the northeast end of Calle Joaquin, cultivated, with a small office next to Highway 101. Adopted Land Use Element: Interim Conservation/Open Space, with the eventual use being residential, as part of a Dalidio area specific plan. Hearing draft LUE: About ten acres nearest Calle Joaquin designated Services and Manufacturing, with a text policy that reserves this area for vehicle sales, and the other 10 acres designated Open Space. Council identified alternative: Services and Manufacturing (for warehouse store development) Planning Commission recommendation: About ten acres nearest Calle Joaquin designated Services and Manufacturing, with a text policy that reserves this area for vehicle sales, and the other 10 acres designated Open Space (no change to hearing draft). Commission discussion: Draft map designation is consistent with policies on location for regional-serving retail uses, vehicle dealerships, and open space, and with the recommendations of the Economic Stability Task Force concerning expansion of Central Coast Plaza and the Auto Park Way auto sales area. LOCATION: Froom Ranch Commercial Expansion Site: About 105 acres of nearly level to hilly land, west of Los Osos Valley Road from Pacific Beach School to Calle Joaquin, including Froom Creek and ranch house. Adopted Land Use Element: Interim Conservation/Open Space, with the eventual use being residential, as part of an Irish Hills area specific plan, and Conservation/Open Space. Hearing draft LUE: Interim Conservation/Open Space, with the eventual use being residential, as pan of an Irish Hills area specific plan, and Conservation/Open Space; vehicle sales for about 10 acres west of Auto Park Way; and Open Space. Council identified alternative: Commercial (no specific designation identified, but with an intent to accommodate warehouse store development) LLJ&MARCAR 12 3/9/94 Planning Commission recommendation: Future residential neighborhood for most of area; vehicle sales for about 10 acres west of Auto Park Way); and Open Space (no change to substance of hearing draft). Commission discussion: Draft map is consistent with policies on location for regional- serving retail uses, vehicle dealerships, and open space, and with the recommendations of the Economic Stability Task Force concerning expansion of Central Coast Plaza and the Auto Park Way auto sales area. LOCATION: 914 Olive Street Site: 3/4-acre parcel bordered by Highway 101, Stenner Creek, and the end of Olive Street (near the Homestead Motel), occupied by two duplexes. Adopted Land Use Element: Low-Density Residential Hearing draft LUE: Low-Density Residential Council identified alternative: Medium-High Density Residential Planning Commission recommendation: Low-Density Residential (no change to hearing draft) Commission discussion: The draft map designation is consistent with Land Use Element text policies and with the Noise Element. LOCATION: 651 Foothill Site: 5.7-acre, nearly level, vacant parcel next to the Thrifty shopping center, with a creek running across the southwest corner. Adopted Land Use Element: High-Density Residential Hearing draft LUE: Interim Conservatioh/Open Space, with a text note that the site may be suitable for a neighborhood park. Council identified alternative: High-Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation: High-Density Residential, with no note concerning potential park usage Commission discussion: There is a concern with regulatory taking under the hearing draft designation and consistent zoning. LUE-M".CAR 13 3/9/93 LOCATION: Tract 681 (east of Orcutt Road and south of the Tanglewood Drive neighborhood, outside the City) Site: 65-acre area with houses on "estate size" parcels Adopted Land Use Element: Interim Conservation/Open Space, inside the urban reserve line, with the eventual use being residential, as part of an Orcutt area specific plan. Hearing draft LUE: Rural Residential, inside the urban reserve line Council identified alternative: This area was not raised by the Council, but by the owners at Commission hearings Planning Commission Recommendation: Suburban Residential, outside the urban reserve. Commission discussion: The recommended designation would be compatible with area development and consistent with City service policies. LUE-MAP.(AR 14 3/9%94 r-------------• I ' 1 r 9 CAL POLY % E-- f I � \ 1 I I 651 Foothill c I 914 Olive Street 1538 Santa Rosa Street I I I ' I LAGUNA LAKE ! 1 Tract 68. Froom Ranch McBride Tank Farm BroadAWSM oo� N SCALE 1•_M' CITY LIMIT LINE ----- LAND USE MAP ISSUE AREAS - VICINITY MAP �•il 111 li11 ,'l'I III II''_'ll'.ill City of '• I I ✓J san LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100•San Luis Obispo.CA 93403-8100 72A6 ISSUES SUMMARY: APRIL 26 CIRCULATION ELEMENT ISSUES 1 . Setting modal split 2. Achieving high levels of average vehicle ridership (AVR) 3. Establishing level of service standards for City streets 4. Identifying road projects for inclusion in Circulation Element IA-a� CIRCULATION ELEMENT ISSUES 1. Issue: Setting Modal Split Goals (Reference Page 7 and Figure #1 of the Draft Circulation Element) Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission draft Circulation Element suggests that private vehicle use be gradually reduced and that bicycling, pedestrianism, ride sharing and transit account for a larger share of all trips taken by City residents (see Figure 1: Modal Split Objectives). Discussion. The objective to reduce dependance on private vehicles as a principal means of transportation is stated in both the adopted 1982 Circulation Element and the draft 1994 Circulation Element. However, the 1994 draft Element attempts to establish measurable performance objectives by including Figure #1. Initial Planning Commission review of Figure#1 in 1991 focused on the potential for expanding the share of trips assigned to alternative transportation. However, when the Commission understood how much transit, bicycle, and car pool use would have to increase to achieve the bench marks set forth in Figure #1, it decided to support Figure #1 as initially drafted. Figure #1 suggests that by the year 2020, about 59% of resident trips would be made by motor vehicles and 41% made by alternative forms of transportation. The Sierra Club suggests that a more dramatic and immediate shift away from motor vehicle use is desirable because it may better achieve environmental goals. Recommendations submitted by Mr. Jim Merkel (January, 1994) suggest that in the year 2020 about 27% of resident trips would be made by motor vehicles and 73% made using alternative forms of transportation. The Sierra Club suggestions were considered by the Planning Commission in February, 1994 and did not receive Commission support. Establishing objectives for changing our collective transportation habits involves, among other things, the following questions: ❑ Will people be willing to change and what actions will achieve desired levels of change? ❑ If people will not voluntarily change, what is the City's role in ensuring that private vehicle use declines? ❑ What should be the future role of private vehicles in meeting transportation needs? The more significant the degree of desired change, the more intrusive City government will need to become in transportation decisions made by individuals. Levels of involvement range from: Types of Actions Level of Involvement Promote alternatives Low Provide infrastructure Encourage trip reduction Require trip reduction Provide disincentives to vehicle use Restrict vehicle use Prohibit vehicle use High The Planning Commission's draft of the Circulation Element goes to the third level of involvement shown above. Staff Recommendation: The City Council should support Figure #1 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Issue: Achieving High Levels of Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) Planning Commission Recommendation. The draft Circulation Element published in May, 1992 relied on achieving an AVR of 1.6 which in turn presumed the implementation of trip reduction programs by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Recent state law (SB 883) restricts APCD's abilities to establish comprehensive trip reduction programs. Without the ability of APCD to implement its program, another program was necessary to achieve the AVR of 1.6 in order to maintain the validity of the assumptions and recommendations of the Circulation Element. The Planning Commission therefore recommended that the City establish a voluntary trip reduction program to pursue the AVR goal of 1.6 (see Program 1.9). Discussion. An AVR goal of 1.6 is significant but not unrealistic. Given current AVR estimates of 1.2, achieving a 1.6 represents a significant change in travel habits. Since the Circulation Element was based upon achieving these high AVR levels, traffic-related impacts would increase with goal levels set at less than 1.6. Therefore, the issue is how to achieve a high AVR level is the absence of a comprehensive APCD-sponsored program. Staff presented the Planning Commission with a variety of alternatives for City sponsorship of community-wide trip reduction activities. The Planning Commission did not support any of these options but recommended that the City establish a voluntary program. The Planning Commission recognized both the importance of maintaining an AVR goal of 1.6 and the reality that a City-sponsored mandatory program would meet with tremendous opposition and require significant City resources which, given the City's current fiscal situation, seemed unrealistic. While a comfortable first step to take, voluntary programs may or may not be effective in significantly reducing trips or changing transportation behaviors. Staff believes that the Council should likewise review the list of options (Attachment 1) previously given to the Planning Commission to ascertain degree of Council support. /A t3l Staff Recommendation: 'While the Staff supports the Planning Commission recommendation, staff would also recommend the following additions which would establish performance standards to better achieve AVR goals. 1.9 The Ci will work with area employers vut1t7r; riz'en';aryees and the Chamber of City P F....._..:..::.. Commerce to support a voluntary trip reduction program, FeWeiwd. The pmgram� wttl Ite strrtctured as fgllvws ATfie d sures randtd �enplvyers tv determtrr lease dear uuerage �ehzcte rerstl tevs+ i:.....:...i.. ..............A....:.....:..:'.::..:.......n. i:. :::.:iii ^i::.ii'!:: :::.::::::.:._a.:..�:::::.:::::.i:.:::i..Vi :..: :: :iii :i')i:n: 'he. ity,3vt neer asstaxae xa cndrdare emF ' .PBlans;tv reduce :... . autom�hlte Be�crrderr�Y o;f th��r tivork fQrres. .............. :::::::.....::... ..:.:::. . 7 vettsy-otex:xlt�trrtt Aram the uultuxt�n f the a ,sEan progrprn, the:City w tl agate sy:': arrdtda ;ernes If meartiregtrcrgress is made sward acluevtreg ri{ .fargets (ii Ik vrgrea�er increase jn of rhe candtdtue work A�reel,;xlie s�v�w�tary�rarlicrpattvn pmgranr wilt cvrstirlu�; IjmerrtringfuZprognesshas tort beets marts tv�s+arri*achtevingA'frl targets; then t1u< �zy,w�t�cvnsrr�er txdvpxurg a rrtandat�ry tt?p redudton orrirnan „ This alternative language would establish a time frame for the voluntary program and establish performance standards used to evaluate its progress. It should be noted that the staffing and administrative impacts of the voluntary program identified above will be significant and will require staff augmentation if other Circulation Element programs are likewise given high priority. 3. ]issue: Establishing Level of Service (LOS) Standards for City Arterial Streets (see Policy 5.3 on page 17 and Policy 7.1 on page 19). Planning Commission Recommendation.. The Planning Commission, Sierra Club, and the Economic Stability Task Force recommend that the level of service standards for City arterial streets be set at LOS "E." The draft Circulation Element (May 1992) had recommended LOS OD 'I Discussion. For varying reasons, the above-mentioned groups opposed street widenings which were presumed to occur once LOS standards are exceeded. However, streets will not automatically be widened to accommodate traffic when LOS levels have been exceeded. Policy 7.1 on page 19 suggests a prioritized strategy for dealing with streets where level of service may be exceeded. Widening streets is the lowest priority of actions that the City should consider. If levels of services degrade, the City would limit traffic increases by managing growth, requiring use of alternative forms of transportation, make minor operational changes to streets before it considers widening an arterial street. lA 3� Staff Recommendation: Staff supports using LOS "E".as the standard for City arterial streets as this will allow greater utilization of existing facilities. However, it must be recognized that adopting lower LOS standards will delay other aggressive actions to manage traffic and possibly inhibit participation in alternative transportation programs. Additionally, the increased level of congestion allowed will result in longer travel times throughout the City and some additional degradation of air quality. Because "exceeding" LOS E (per recommendation) means "reaching" LOS F, Staff proposes the following restructuring and expansion of Policy 7.1: 7.1 The City will attempt to manage the use of arterial streets and regional routes/highways so that levels of traffic congestion do not exceed the peak hour LOS standards shown in No 5.3. To maintain these standards, the City Wll puxs�e the ft;•l�i�ng strategy' Offluld, in Me f6M& der ltftetx trarc reties , ,"tie Ciiy wttl, rra the fallowing.pnorty order Institute programs that require the use of alternative forms of transportation and establish policies and programs that act as disincentives to the use of vehicles. {2) Make minor changes within existing roadways to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety while improving traffic flow. {) Limit traffic increases through growth management programs. l3. When tr xc ex x.. LOS : ! tlte.City will consider the selective widening of " Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways when improvements to public safety and traffic flow outweigh the fiscal and environmental. costs, and do not hinder this plan's alternative transportation policies. 4. Issue: Identifying Road Projects to be included on Figure #4 of the Circulation Element. Planning Commission Recommendations. The Planning Commission recommends a variety of street projects as shown on Figure #4. Discussion. Criteria For Street Projects. The Sierra Club and the City's Economic Strategy Task Force have recommended that, in general, road projects should not be emphasized except those necessary for public safety. Staff agrees with the Planning Commission that a single criterion can not be used to determine the need for streets. Furthermore, public safety can be broadly defined to not only provide for police and fire services but also flood relief or utility access. Additionally, roads provide access to parks, schools and commercial areas and benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists. /A-33 The accompanying table identifies multiple criteria and their relationship to street projects identified on Figure #4 in the Circulation Element. Roadway Widenings. The street projects listed below are typical of those where it could be argued that the needs of public safety are already met and therefore they should not be funded. The primary objective of these projects is to accommodate additional local and regional traffic to avoid high levels of congestion. B.1 Monterey Street Widening B.2 Higuera Street Widening (High to Marsh) B.5 Tank Farm Road Widening B.6 Prado Road Widening B.8 Los Osos Valley Road Widening B.9 Highway 101 Widening B.11 Santa Rosa Street Widening Only a massive shift to alternative forms of transportation would eliminate enough future trips to allow deletion of road widening projects. Such a modal shift is not practical. Since these routes are also used by emergency vehicles, high congestion levels caused by not widening the roadway will reduce response times. Roadway Funding. Concerning the use of City funds for road projects, as noted on Figure #4, most of the projects will be the funding responsibility of development. Those that are anticipated to require some level of City fiscal contribution include: A.7 South Street Extension B.2 Higuera Street Widening (High to Marsh) B.1 Monterey Street Widening B.6 Prado Road (Higuera to Route 101) B.3 Orcutt Road (Broad to Johnson) B.9 Highway 101 —Widening (Joint City/State Project) D.2 Prefumo Road Narrowing B.10 Santa Rosa Street Widening(Joint City/State Project) Many of these projects are included in a Traffic Impact Fee program considered by the City Council on March 8, 1994. It should be noted that the Economic Strategy Task Force has recommended to the Council that the TIF not include the funding of Monterey Street (B.1) or Highway 101 Widening (B.9). The Planning Commission recommends that Monterey Street (B.1) be eliminated and that Route 101 widening (B.9) be retained as part of the Circulation Element. The TIF program assumes both projects are eliminated. The funding of the Route 101 widening project will need to come from sources other than development. South Street Extension (project A.7, Figure #4). The Administrative Draft of the Circulation Element forwarded to the City Council in Winter, 1992 did not include the South Street extension project. The City Council asked that the project be included in the Hearing Draft of the Circulation Element for purposes of preparing a draft and final EIR. The EIR concludes: ... this road link appears to have no significant net trzec effect, and may be expensive as well as potentially disruptive to nearby neighborhoods.' (page 6.3.26) The proposed link between South Street and Bishop Street should not be implemented,primarily because it is notjusrjfledfrom as traffic standpoint. The elimination of this link would have beneficial noise, safety and land use impacts with respect to the Johnson Avenue residential Area. (page 6.2-21, LU-10.) iA -.3z The Planning Commission agieed with the findings of the EIR. The project continues to receive considerable attention, primarily associated with the program to relocate City Fire Station # 1 to the corner of Roundhouse Avenue and Santa Barbara Street. Significant effort has been expended by the Fire and Public Works Departments to address station layout and design of either a Bishop Street/Roundhouse Avenue connection or a Bishop Street/South Street connection. The ability of the Fire Department to achieve quick and easy access to the Johnson Avenue neighborhood via this new connection was one of many positive attributes of the fire station site. The ability of Fire Station #1 to serve areas east of the railroad also raises the opportunity to eliminate Fire Station #3 located on Laurel Lane. By eliminating Fire Station#3, the City could increase personnel at the remaining three stations or achieve cost savings to the general fund. Since the South Street extension would most definitely be used by emergency public safety vehicles, the project meets the criteria proposed by the Economic Stability Task Force for new street projects. Partial funding of this project (20% of total cost) is already included in the TIF program. If the City Council wishes to include this project in the Circulation Element, it must make a statement of overriding considerations to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Such a statement would be included in the Council resolution adopting the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Staffs Recommendation: Support the Planning Commissions recommendations for the street projects shown on Figure #4 of the Draft Circulation Element (as reviewed on the following tables) with the following change: Include South Street Extension (A.7) and make a statement of overriding consideration. /A-35 X ; >: boa , = x a o ...E -� o U ... . e g a e c` v� F d OOG s`aG O : _ ; XXXI W U aWG w a ... ..:........__ v o o o: .. o Q m cg a w a ,.. y y O 7 - aJS e .. av ..:a 0 ;a a ,< 3 Gi r. ww .. .... ... �.. , yuu _ + is baa .. .. a.os: s. XJI Z ao, S a' Us d. G14 . a.. v X'...: x; XX X . . _ . . . ... .. ... . .._ :: ._ .. �.�: .. . E : r, : mE ?w s X. x;. xx - :. o0 0 � o a y o T 1 a, X. G `n co awo Q. s v :L 7. y 06.0 . Si Ci !C.' W. W:. as �.. E o : 3 x d r7f a e O .. m .. Fac a �: �n ..:: y. .. . 0 a V-4 N mn,. 3 m to ts� w > ... A �.� -CC 's N .. 3 .E 4 a w R rn in R U as U s o at. w. a` ' �.•� w y= y .. .....c..__' . .. . :.... . ........ VI m RT m >,-Rr 3 CO o' �. a „ � 0. Gn '. ,a+.. :. .. . . m �. �'. s' o yr Ta a�. E.a `' E.' o a•3 d c ¢ vac WOGa ° 'd 1:6S � 2� U „ y ... .. O' C' _ � � a: mT.o. m a 'm e E .o en .D C. C .C pe O O m rA x i ., d ... C C C m d .R t. 78 Cd 73 yCJ.. a� 6 y d r V rIf C Alaw0. 79 �i �'�"i :. :.: _ .. �` m �y1 i 10 : . C: Y y.. qq .. o Q 3. L. a � C6. . � � .4) O m ' 7 S R S y0 .9 .. > v� G7 �'pp H (A:Z-oWv� v� cr 3 m. m E:, v� w m. : a C `'- v;tom' en R tn .> rn . .. :. d /A-38 i 'ATTACHMENT #1 CHANGES IN TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAMS 1. Background The Draft Circulation Element — A central component of the draft Circulation Element are policies and programs that support employment trip reduction. A trip reduction program requires employers, worldng with their employees, to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative transportation. Specific trip reduction goals, expressed in the form of increases in average vehicle ridership (AVR), are set for various trip generating land uses. Here's a simple example of how AVR is calculated: If 100 employees arrive at a work site and 83 of them drive alone, the AVR equals 1.2 (100/83 = 1.2). If the number employees using single-occupant vehicles is reduced to 63, the AVR will increase to 1.6 (100/63 = 1.6). Draft Circulation Element policies on page 10 state that the City will support actions of the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to establish and administer a county-wide trip reduction program. The APCD drafted a program that would affect all employers with 50 or more employees. APCD's draft program would have established a County-wide goal of achieving an average vehicle ridership (AVR) level of 1.5. Draft Circulation Element Program Statement 1.6 recommends that an AVR goal of 1.6 or larger is appropriate. The City's traffic model analysis of the draft Land Use Element was based upon existing and new development achieving an AVR of 1.6 in accordance with Program Statement 1.6. New State Law — Recently, a new state law has been signed by Governor Wilson (SB 883) that severely limits the scope of APCD-sponsored trip reduction rules throughout California. The law prohibits the APCD from adopting a trip reduction rule that affects employers with less than 100 employees at a single work site. APCD estimates that the number of employees covered by an APCD program consistent with SB 883 would be about 17,000 County-wide, down from about 77,000 employees that would have been covered by the draft programs previously recommended by APCD. The reduction in the scope of potential trip reduction rules also has an impact on traffic level forecasts for San Luis Obispo. Staff would expect buildout traffic levels to be about 4%-8% greater than traffic model forecasted levels. Level of service on arterial streets during peak traffic periods would incrementally degrade. Formation of a TMA — Plans to establish a County-wide Transportation Management Association .(TMA) are proceeding. A TMA is a non-profit association that assists member employers (both public and private) with the design and implementation of trip reduction and congestion management activities. A Caltrans-funded feasibility study is underway. On November 15, 1993 the TMA Advisory Group discussed program goals and objectives, received a feasibility study progress report from consultants, and agreed that the formation of the TMA should proceed. Subsequent steps to establishing the TMA will include surveying County 139 residents on their willingness to use alternative transportation, identifying the scope of services that the TMA should provide, and establishing program priorities and funding. In the long-term, the TMA would be funded through membership fees. Given,these developments, the City should consider the following policy options: 2. Evaluation of Options Option #1: Do Nothing. The policies and programs in the Circulation Element would not be modified. Program 1.6 (which recommends an AVR of 1.6) would remain as a goal but would have little likelihood of being achieved in the near future. The City would not expect to see as significant a modal shift as anticipated by the draft Circulation Element. Congestion levels would be incrementally higher. APCD would work with the larger employers, such as Cal Poly, to establish trip reduction programs (those with 100 or more employees at a single work site). However, only a small portion of the area's work force would be covered (see Table #1). If a County-wide TMA is established, it will likely assist larger employers initially, the same employer group covered by potential APCD programs. As larger firms establish trip reduction programs, the TMA could concentrate on attracting employers with smaller work forces. The potential scope of TMA activities is largely unknown at this time. The ability to certify the Land Use/Circulation Element EIR as complete is degraded since traffic increases resulting from implementation of a "do nothing" option will not be mitigated. If trip reduction programs are not an acceptable part of the Circulation Element, the City should consider amending the Element's "level of service" standards (Standard 5.3) to accept higher levels of congestion. In sum, to be successful, the concept of trip reduction will need to become an accepted part of the community's method for meeting transportation needs. Option #2: Establish a City-Sponsored Program. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following program statement: 1.6 The ::City will establish a:.City-wide tng redaction:program applicable to all .. . empIQyers with 51 to I00 employees [an¢: employers.:with 100+ employees at multi:ae worksttes :with a oal of'achieviri an Average Vehicle`Ridership (A.VR) P L. .. g. g'. standard of 1> 6 or lar Staff Comment: The City could adopt a trip reduction ordinance that requires employers with 51-100 employees to participate in trip reduction activities. The City could establish a program that also includes employers with 100+ employees at multiple work sites. These employers are beyond the scope of APCD- sponsored programs. Traffic model forecasts of "build out" traffic conditions would be largely unchanged. This alternative requires the City to enforce rules and guidelines that State law (SB 883) has recently removed from the scope of APCD-sponsored trip reduction programs. The opposition from business groups which forced the State to dis-empower the APCD would also likely be present to oppose this option. A City program could be varied in scope to cover various segments of the work force or various employer groups. The administrative cost of a program is most directly linked to the number of employers covered by the program. The greater number of employers that agency staff assist, the higher the program costs. The effectiveness of the program is more tied to the number of employees covered by the program. The greater the number of employees participating in trip reduction programs, the greater the traffic reduction and air quality benefits. Furthermore, the most effective programs involve ongoing performance monitoring of participating employers coupled with "hands on" technical assistance and training provided by agency staff. Table #1 provides an estimate of the labor force and employer profile within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve to help judge program effectiveness and cost. Table #2 provides similar information for "buildout" levels within the City's urban reserve. Estimates of annual administrative costs are based on studies conducted by DKS Associates (1990) that assume program management would involve assisting employers to survey their employees, prepare and update trip reduction plans, and to monitor employer progress in achieving trip reduction goals. In sum, to establish a hands-on program within the urban reserve that covers employers with 51- 100 employees would involve annual administrative costs of about $56,250 (45 employers x $1,250 annual program cost per employer). If the City fosters commercial and institutional growth within the urban reserve consistent with the draft Land Use Element, the annual costs would rise, at buildout, to an annual estimate of $88,750 (1993 dollars) with the estimated addition of 26 employers (71 employers x $1,250 annual program cost per employer, see Table #2). Administrative costs may be partially or totally recovered through fees assessed participating employers. Under this option, City and APCD programs combined (assuming full coverage of non- governmental employers with 50+ employees) would cover about 37% of the current non- governmental work force within the urban reserve. Option #3: Establish a City-Sponsored Program Only Applicable to New Employers. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following: 1 6 The`Cit will establish a.trip:reduction program applicable to all new employers with:51`to.100 employees:[and:employers.with 100+ employees at multiple work ..: . ..... sues�:estab�ished.after the:adoption date of`this Element with a goal of achieving an Average%Vehicle'Ridership (AVR).standard`of 1.6.6or larger:. /k4 l Staff Comments. The City could establish a program that applies only to new employers with 51 to 100 employees within the urban reserve. The argument can be made that trip reduction is only needed because of future employment growth in the urban reserve and that existing employers do not cause air pollution or traffic management problems. Staff estimates that with new development, approximately 26 new employers with 51-100 employees would be established within the urban reserve. The effectiveness of a program affecting only new development is minimal since City programs would involve only about 26 out of a total of 71 employers with 51-100 employees (a 37% coverage rate). As existing businesses expand, they would likewise need to comply to mitigate their increased traffic volumes. If the profile of City employers remains constant, this option would cover only about 4% of the City's non-governmental work force at buildout. If combined with an APCD-sponsored program, this percentage might increase to 10%. Opposition to this proposal will be received from business groups and property owners/developers, especially those in areas proposed for annexation -- eg. the Airport Area, Dalidio Property, Froom Ranch. The initial cost of this program's administration would be modest but would require additional staff to design and execute the program and manage it over time. At buildout, annual administrative costs might be about $32,500 (1993 dollars). Option #4: Linkage Programs to Trip Reduction The following five options are offered as ways of linking existing and potential City programs with trip reduction activities: (a) Reduce Traffic Impact Fees. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following: 1.6... : The:.City will..reduce the..portion. of its.:traffic impact.fee earmarked for street projects:for employers;thatestablishperpetual trip reduction programs that achieve and'sustain an:AVR:of 1 6.or larger. Staff Comment: The City would establish a transportation impact fee (TIF) program affecting all new development. The City could offer a fee reduction applicable to that pan of the TIF that covers road projects to employers (of any size) who establish perpetual trip reduction programs that achieve and sustain AVR targets recommended by the Circulation Element (AVR 1.6 or greater). This option assumes that the City has adopted a transportation impact fee to support transportation projects and programs that mitigate traffic problems caused by growth. In designing the program, care must be taken that fee reductions offered to employers do not divert money from targeted capital projects that support bicycling, transit, pedestrian, and ride sharing activities. Fee reductions should only apply to that part of the TIF that is earmarked for new streets or street projects that expand traffic capacity. (b) Require Development Exactions. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following: L6..:::;: The City will require all new employers with 50 or more employees and all new multi-family housing.projects with 10 or more dwellings to establish perpetual trip reduction programs. Employer,programs shall achieve and sustain an AVR of 1.6 or larger.. . Staff Comments. The City could require new development (both multi-family residential and commercial) to participate in trip reduction activities at various levels. New employers with 50 or more employees could be required to establish trip reduction programs and pay the City an annual fee for City monitoring and technical assistance. Owners-managers or ownership associations of multi-family residential projects could also be required to assist residents in using alternative transportation. This alternative is similar to Option #3 except that it would also apply to multi-family residential projects and to all employers with 50 or more employees. The City should expect to receive strong opposition from business groups to require additional programs as part of development requirements. Residential developers and landlords will maintain that such a program will add to the cost of housing. On the plus side, the potential number of employees and residents enrolled in the program can be significant, improving the program's effectiveness in promoting trip reduction. (c) Reduce Off-Street Parking Requirements. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following: 1.6' The City will'.reduce its requirementfor off-street employee parking by 25% for employers that establish perpetual trip reduction programs that achieve and sustain an AVR:of 1.6.0r. largeT.:. Staff Comments. The City would allow a 25% reduction in the number of parking spaces required for employees. A 25% reduction is equivalent to an increase in AVR from 1.2 — the estimated current situation — to 1.6 as recommended by the draft Circulation Element. Participating employers would establish perpetual trip reduction programs that achieve and sustain an AVR of 1.6 or greater. The amount of land dedicated to parking lots would decrease by 25%. The land area "freed up" by that reduction in the employee parking could be used for additional building area with 50% reserved for additional landscape area. This option meets two objectives: creating a larger building site and creating larger landscaped areas. As part of the trip reduction program, the employer would pay an annual fee to the City for program monitoring and technical support. If land is a significant portion of the cost of development, then eliminating parking and providing for some additional building coverage may provide an attractive incentive for some employers. Also, such a program may (1) enable the development of parcels too small to accommodate ljk43 desired building area and parking required by City standards; and (2) enable the expansion of some existing businesses where parking requirements limit expansion. If off-street parking for employees is limited, some employees may be encouraged to use curb parking in surrounding area rather than use alternative transportation. If this occurs, the City could establish "preferential" parking districts around employers that participate in parking reduction programs. The City could require the employer to fund the management of such a district until trip reduction goals are actually achieved and sustained (documented use of alternative transportation by employees). To implement this type of program will require amending the Zoning Regulations to establish differential standards for employee and patron parking for all types of non-residential land uses. This task will require extensive research and field review of parking conditions in San Luis Obispo. (d) Require TMA Membership. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following: 1;6 The City will.require all employers.with 50 or more employers to join a County- wide. Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the purpose of establishing.1rip reduction programs that achieve and sustain an AVR of 1.6 or larger. Staff Comments. The City could adopt a trip reduction ordinance requiring all non- governmental employers with 50 or more employees to join the County-wide Transportation Management Agency (TMA). Employers would pay yearly membership fees to the TMA for assistance with the planning and implementation of trip reduction activities. It is unclear how this type of program might work. Since a TMA is yet to be established, the scope of its services are unknown. Staff believes that, as a non-profit association with voluntary membership from large employers throughout the County, the TMA will be reluctant to monitor employer performance. Monitoring and enforcement (and associated costs) would continue to be the City's responsibility. However, the City would benefit in that the TMA could provide the technical support for designing and implementing trip reduction activities -- resulting in lower City administrative costs. Finally, TMA membership could be offered as an .alternative to paying the City an administrative fee to support a City-sponsored program (Option #2). More evaluation of this option would be needed as TMA formation proceeds. . .(e) APCD-City Jointly Sponsored Trip Reduction Program. Replace Program 1.6 on page 10 with the following: 1;6 The City will adopt a=mp reduction"ordinance and enter into arr:agreement with the .:. Air Pollution:.Control District to admuuster:a program that achieves:and sustains an AVR of 1:6 or lar er within San Luis Obispo.... Po ; r1 Staff Comment. the City'could adopt a trip reduction ordinance requiring participation of employers with 50 or more employees. The City could enter into an agreement with APCD to administer the program. Financial support to APCD could come from a portion of the revenues generated by a $1 increase in the vehicle registration fee. These revenues could be augmented by trip reduction plan review fees collected by APCD. Funding may be a limitation since there will be serious competition for-the use of any new vehicle registration revenues. Also, it is unknown whether state law (SB 883) would allow APCD to administer such a program. Staff's informal discussions with APCD staff indicate that APCD is receptive to the concept of a jointly-sponsored program. On the plus side, the program would be most effective since it has the potential for enrolling the greatest proportion of the community's labor force in a program managed by a single agency (37% of urban reserve labor force). However, it is too soon to tell whether potential legal and funding roadblocks can be overcome. Additional analysis would be needed to determine the feasibility of this alternative. 3. Conclusions and Recommendations The basis for the transportation mitigation measures included in the draft Circulation Element (roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.) was a computer model traffic forecast that assumed an AVR of 1.6. With recent limits placed on APCD's authority to establish trip reduction programs, the City must make a fundamental decision: use the traffic model to reevaluate future traffic.conditions using an AVR of 1.2 or find other ways to achieve and AVR of 1.6. Delaying the adoption of the Circulation Element while re-running the traffic model is not seen as a viable option. A new contract with DKS Associates, the engineering firm which created the model, would require a funding allocation, negotiations, and City Council approval. Running the traffic model and reporting the results would add to the delay. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council have established goals of encouraging alternative forms of transportation and maintaining or enhancing the quality of the air in which we live, work and play. It will take a concentrated and sustained effort over an extended period of time to achieve desired change (ie. an AVR of 1.6). Staff believes that now is the time to begin that process. The challenge is to establish some type of trip reduction program that has the greatest benefit for the private and public dollar invested. The discussion above implies that the most effective programs (that involve the greatest percentage of the City's work force) have the greatest administrative costs. These costs must be borne by either the City (using general fund revenues) or by participating employers. The basic purpose of a trip reduction program is to foster a greater use of alternative transportation by intervening into the transportation decisions made by employees and employers. Without this type of intervention, it is unlikely that providing capital facilities for alternative transportation alone will achieve the modal split goals of the draft Circulation Element. M-45 There are significant fiscal and political costs associated with establishing these types of intervention programs. Recent changes in state law and local experience with transportation impact fees demonstrate that fiscal impacts on businesses is of significant concern. However, the City does have the authority to establish a program and require participants to pay to administer that program. There are a variety-of options that utilize existing City police powers to require participation in trip reduction activities. The City also has the ability to charge fees for the administration of these programs. However, the City should expect opposition from businesses where performance is required by City ordinance. Only Option 4(c) offers some economic incentive to employers to participate. Whether reductions in employee parking requirements will be sufficient to compensate for the cost of sponsoring perpetual trip reduction programs is unknown. Option 4(c) may only be attractive to employers that desire to expand existing development or develop new projects but lack the site area necessary to accommodate such development. All options presented here fall into three groups: Group #1: Options #2 (City Sponsored TRP) or Option #4(f) (APCD-City Joint TRP) can achieve the trip reduction goals of the draft Circulation Element because they would apply to both existing and new development. However, there are legal and fiscal limits to their implementation. Group #2: Options #3 (City Program, New Development Only) and #4 (a) through (d) (Linkage Programs) will not meet the trip reduction goals of the draft Circulation Element since they apply only to new development. However, their administrative costs may be less than other options and they are easier to implement. Group #3: Option #1 (Do Nothing), although not an AVR 1.6 option, is sort of a middle ground; it neither "starts over" nor achieves the desired AVR goal. .:...,. ... .....: ..... STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ... ::.TRIP-`REDUCTION:PROGRAM OPTIONS ... :Gr oup: #1;: Ifthe City desires to establish trip reduction programs consistent with the objectives assumed by the draft Circulation Element, it should pursue the following: Priority.. Option Title . 1 ':4(e)`: APCD-City Jointly Sponsored TRP (1) . .::....:.. ...:. ...:..... . . . 2.... ::: 2:::: ...:. City-Sponsored TRP .. ... ........ ..... ........ .: Group.-#Z " If the City"de sire s`to.establish'trip reduction programs that impact only new development and is willing:.to accommodate higher levels of traffic and lower levels of service O, it should pursue the following: : 3 (3): .. 4(c) Reduced Off-Street Parking Requirements 4 {3)- 4(a) Reduced Traffic Impact Fee 5 4(d). Required TMA Membership ..6- 3= Only:New Employer TRP 7 4(b):: Development Exactions- (1): Implementation of.this option willdepend'on overcoming potential legal constraints >::.of SB 883. 'Additional:research is needed. (2); :..::.The Planning:.Commission may want to`reevaluate the level of service standards presented in'Program'5.3 :on page 16 of the draft Circulation Element. (3) `::.City Employers could;be offered either.option depending on what works best for .3:a::parncular'project... IA-4-7 o . c y rA IA Gn cn stn en H' Gn Go i N a� .+ c � yah N s 614 3 O o y ..,, ,o eft � rs U Q 3 5 cw ns y y p ccd 17q � .O y Y v`i O •fl L. a3 Vic; cu aaCa. oo� yci W/ d sew N $ a� Gn W U. cQ O y > W ECdcctGn 78cc :5:., •0. H r rn. to to ;ON. OE O..to E w 'a > 0 .1ncu E: " a cu E,., ow 3Ca � � y vl r.. CIO ►} C to tv Q N cC CU rA F (U:0G02ca E> .' 00 w e -`CA r- 2 W N cC. ol O p y. ai: W. u-4 F _ IA-4-6 V rA go .... , �. �... UU � . a� p °U � ob O O Ol O N cE a 0 o h . N. $ N a� E U p� N cc N E ,Q.r .,.v o o tw / t/� ax. V1� `I r p..y y C� W N _.W > . .T.tu a. �. pp� °� a a 3 Q ° o S 0 . h .N y1. m O >+�. O O y U >:.. cc u co E •G ca y v, ,0... E S ,, W. a LZ V1, a, cc m �" N �. y �1r 08 O E L�mz 04 ej :Cu. FA. rs;. E o 0 t �1 iJ a+.a� �. E .y Q.•�. Q cd W U� E y 'n. •fl cc.41 U 0. G7 F WW S qu .N^. a � � U C [�+ O ° '.. in v a �•, v E w .+. ,, on o a.. cu 4. o. 0 CHy Cd 3. cz Em o�: < :.� o v� N .. IA-�-g V-ZING AGENDA ITEM # March 28, 1994 Kurt Kupper Chairman Environmental Quality Task Force �. cPNCIL VOCDD DIR P.O. Box 1014 ❑ FIN DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca. 9334406 ❑ FIRE CHIEF �iRNEY 0 PWDIR CLERKJ0RIG . [? POLICE CHF. J Honorable Members of the City Council ❑ M IMI TFAH ❑ REG DIR + P.O. Box 8100 ❑ C F -`-- fl UTILDiR 1 :'� . iV ❑ hEnSDIR S! San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403 • 4j SUBJECT: EQTF recommendations to the City Council concerning the LUE Dear City Council Members, On March 27, the City Council received hand delivered copies of the EQTFs recommendations to the City Council on the Land Use Element draft. I am sure we both share the wish. that the Planning Commission draft of the LUE had been available earlier to allow our committee more time to comment on this document, and in turn, to forward our recommendations concerning this document to you in a more timely manner. While our recommendations to you are a memorandum on the LUE, for your ease of use, we felt it was important to have them in the format of the Planning Commission Draft you will be using this evening. Most of the recommendations to you from the EQTF have been previously adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council; are in the existing 1977 LUE; or are a paraphrase of the adopted LUE or previously adopted City Council or Planning Commission LUE drafts; or reflect the results of city elections. It has been both fascinating and challenging working with such knowledgeable people. Even with an incredibly tight time frame the task was to deliver to you a general planning document rather then a scientific treatises. We sincerely hope that our efforts serve you well in your deliberations. Si e , urt K p hairman EQTF 101:PR 4 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA MF DAR 1G 5�9 AGENDA I W #DA 3 NORTHWIND-AS 4501 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-8475 Telex 658531 NORTHWIND SLO April 4, 1994 ni OUNCIL If CDD DIR PAO ❑ FIN DIR f CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard 'TTORNEY C1P1•d DIR and City Council Members G CLERWO(?IG 11 POLICE CHF. 990 Palm Street ❑ MG'fi'i TEALI 0 REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ❑ C READ MUZ 11 uT!L c:R ❑ FLi:S'J:R r Re: Los Nomadas G Pbnnin9�'omm. Dear Mayor Pinard and Members of the Council: On March 28, 1994 we prepared the attached letter expressing our concerns and presenting our proposed revisions to the Planning Commission draft of the Land Use Element as it affects Los Nomadas. Should your Council decide to move forward with the Planning Commission draft, we respectfully request that you give every consideration to our proposed comments and changes. However, with the recent surprise delivery of a wholly new draft Land Use Element from the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF), we must express our profound disappointment in this draft and its driven purpose to remove Los Nomadas from consideration as a project within the City. If the Council is to give credence to this draft, it indeed sends a clear message that this Council majority wants Los Nomadas to go away. Unless the Council is to reconsider its position on this matter and embrace this project which would offer so many benefits to the City, we will take your message at face value and move forward with our project.in the County rather than the City. The County has already unanimously authorized the processing of our applications and has approved a Nacimiento water allotment sufficient to serve our project. If at some future time another Council would like to reconsider the potential sale and reuse of its treated waste water effluent to Los Nomadas, we would consider it at that time. In conclusion,it is indeed unfortunate that your financially troubled City has forsaken a project that would have provided so much: —s Permanently protected open space Meeting unmet recreational needs The sale and reuse of waste water —s Providing a myriad of economic benefits that our police, tire, and our school districts so sorely need. Instead we will take those advantages with us into the County. Sincerely (!PR g x;193 CITY COUNCIL Douglas r ock SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA General Manager La Lomita Ranch c/k6-nomal.pin cc:. Planning Commission NORTHWINDS 4561 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-8475 Telex 658531 NORTHWIND SLO March 28, 1994 The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard and Members of the City Council P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Re: Los Nomadas Dear Mayor Pinard and Members of the City Council: On behalf of the Los Nomadas project, we have reviewed the City's draft Land Use Element and provide the following comments. It is our opinion and fear that manv of the policies in this document will preclude both this and. future administrations from encouraging land uses such as Los Nomadas. Since this draft Land Use Element goes to great lengths to address properties outside the City's boundaries, we feel it is imperative that any pending projects requesting annexation to the City be dealt with as a part of this Land Use Element Update. Thus, accompanying this letter are some summary comments on the various policies in the draft Land Use Element as they relate to Los Nomadas. We apologize for submitting this to you at this late hour, but most of these comments have been addressed in our earlier review of City policy with regard to the Open Space Element On another note, it is important that the City Council keep in mind that the County Board of Supervisors has unanimously supported authorization of the processing of the.Los Nomadas project In addition, Northwinds, N.V. is willing to move forward with the project in the County. Yet, it is the owner's feeling that the project is better served by the City, and would be a better use within the City, using treated waste waster effluent as opposed to potable water to irrigate the.golf courses. The.Los Nomadas project has.been included in the Nacimiento Water Project in the County, and, therefore, is continuing to move forward a pace, regardless of the .City's decision to not include this critical project within its boundaries. Probably the most significant comment that can be made on behalf of the Los Nomadas project is that the City should look hard at allowing uses within its greenbelt that not only protect and preserve the view corridors and open space areas, but also look.at "income producing open space° as opposed to "high maintenance, cost producing open space". . In these troubling economic times, the likelihood for substantial open space acquisition without landowner cooperation is unrealistic. Finally, no matter how you characterize them, golf courses are open space. Attached are copies of both the;City's definition of open space and the State's definition of open space, both of which acknowledge parks/golf courses as active recreational uses which are considered open space. The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard and Members of the City Council Page 2 March 28, 1994 As a City Council representing the residents of this fine City, in your final deliberations on this very important visionary document, we feel strongly that it is your responsibility to provide future administrations the ability to, at their discretion, allow for golf course projects such as Los Nomadas to be a part of the City of San Luis Obispo. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere Douglas F*Mrdock General Manager La Lomita Ranch cc: County Board of Supervisors RRM Design Group Oh-nomad.pin NORTHWINDS 4501 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo, Califomia 93401 (805) 543-8475 Telex 658531 NORTHWIND SLO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT Comments on Behalf of Los Nomadas March 28, 1994 • Policy 1.72 Greenbelt Uses: This policy allows for parks and outdoor recreation within the greenbelt (with minimal building, lighting, paving or use of vehicles so rural character is maintained). ► Response: Nowhere in the document are golf courses acknowledged. Golf is a popular sport, particularly in a retirement and visitor oriented community such as San Luis Obispo County. Golf courses provide a park-like open space form of recreation. Golf courses can also be designed to enhance wildlife and natural habitats which are often destroyed by agricultural practices. Golf courses are a specific land use that simply'must be acknowledged somewhere in the Land Use Element as an appropriate use. • Policy 1.13.1 Water and Sewer Service This policy states that the City shall not provide City.water or sewer services outside the Urban Reserve Line. ► Response: The City should consider providing flexibility in this policy for such cases as Los Nomadas. If the City chooses not to approve this project, and the project is approved in the County, the City may still wish to provide waste water to irrigate the golf courses at Los Nomadas, simply to generate the revenue stream that could pay for future reclamation lines and develop a responsible reclamation program throughout the City. • Policy L16 County-WufePlanning, and specifccally Policy 1.16.8 City/County Agreement This policy mandates the City and County enter into a memorandum of understanding to limit urban development outside the City limits. City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Draft Land Use Element Page 2 March 28, 1994 ► Response: While it is thoughtful for the City to encourage cooperation with the County on lands just outside the City limits and Urban Reserve Line, it is rather presumptuous for the City to assume that the County will agree to no further urban development within the planning area outside the City limits. The County has a whole set of regional issues that drive decision making of which the City is not privy. Currently the County's Draft San Luis Obispo Area Plan allows for a Specific Plan to be prepared on the La Lomita Ranch property to include a resort and golf course use such as Los Nomadas. Since the City's Land Use Element does not acknowledge such a use, or even golf courses within the greenbelt area, there appears to be a great inconsistency between the two documents. • Policy 6.1.1 Open Space and Greenbelt Designations This policy discusses land uses that should be allowed with the greenbelt and recognizes only passive open space as an appropriate use, and active recreation uses should be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Map. First, this policy seems to contradict policy statements in the earlier document that allow for outdoor recreation within the greenbelt. Specifically, this policy strikes recreational value lands within the greenbelt, and allows for passive recreation only. Does this then mean that the City would preclude a regional park from being established within its greenbelt? Secondly, the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designates the Laguna Lake golf course as Recreation, not Park. This policy states: "Public lands suited for active recreation will be designated Park on the General Plan Land Use Element Map". For consistency, this policy should be reworded to state: "Such lands suited for active recreation will be designated Recreation on the General Plan Land Use Element Map". c/Ih-nomad.doc " Public Hearing Draft Open tce Element APPENDIX A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE' Open space is land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state. Such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel or large tracts of land. Such lands may include farming and grazing; creeks, marshes, watershed, and floodplain; scenic resources, plant and animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas. Designation of Open Space Open space that is carefully planned and effectivelymanaged can serve as the catalyst for physical development which provides for the safety and health, as well as the beauty, of the community. To fit into this role, each open space area must be evaluated and officially designated based on its own qualities, as well as the collective effect of all areas when viewed as a whole. Active recreational uses, such as ball fields, swimming pools; golf courses, community and neighborhood parks, and similar uses, are governed by and provided for in the Parks and Recreation Element. Although these areas do not strictly meet the definition of open space, they provide many of the same benefits and are viewed as complementary to designated open space. The following categories of open.space, important to the beauty, health and welfare of San Luis Obispo, are proposed as guides for evaluating and officially designating the City's open space resources. Natural Areas & Natural Resources .Open space for the preservation of natural areas includes significant topography, unique geologic formations,wildlife habitats,plant communities, and other natural features that are representative examples of the native character of San Luis Obispo. Open space for the conservation of natural resources is a closely related category that includes natural features that provide economic, recreational or aesthetic benefits for the community. This would include watersheds,streams,creeks,lakes,ponds,marshes,flood basins,underground water, woodlands, and fragile ecosystems including flora and fauna native or unique to the area (such as riparian and oak woodlands, and native grasslands) among many examples. Definition as adopted by the Planning Commission&Park and Recreation Commission(with minor changes by staff). (pdos-ap.a) appendix a page A-1 10/30/92 Public Hearing Draft Open ice Element Production of Food & Other Products of Economic Value Open space may be rangeland, ranches, agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production of food, fiber, and specialty products (such as flowers and mushrooms); areas required for recharge of groundwater basins; and areas containing major mineral deposits. Cultural, Historic, & Archaeological Resources Open space is in this category to preserve and maintain the City's heritage, including places and structures associated with important historic individuals and events. This category should identify and protect archaeological sites such as burial grounds, sacred places, artifact locations and the surrounding land needed to retain, protect or restore the appropriate spatial context of the above. Passive Recreational Uses Open space used for passive recreation, such as, but not limited to, linear open space established along a natural corridor, a ridgeline, or similar corridor; any natural or Iandscaped course for pedestrian, equestrian or bicycle passage; trail systems which link parks, open space, nature reserves, and cultural or historical features with each other or with populated areas; areas preserved for nature study and other passive recreational uses such as individual picnic areas, fishing, viewing areas, and other similar types of activities that do not result in environmental degradation. Public Health and Safety Open space for the protection of public health and safety is land that, because of hazardous conditions, requires limitations on development and the intensity of activities and land uses. These conditions may include, among many others, earthquake fault zones, landslide areas, soils subject to liquefaction, other unstable soil conditions, steep or unstable slopes, flood zones, high risk fire areas, areas required for the protection of air or water quality, and areas of waste disposal, power line easements, or airport flight zones. Shaping the Urban Area Open space land for shaping the development of the urban area would include, but is not limited to, lands preserved to: limit urban sprawl and shape the City's edge; provide for spatial definition within the urban area; encourage more intensive use of urban areas; and provide a balance and harmony between physical development and open areas. Seenic Resources Open space to protect and enhance scenic and aesthetic areas for enjoyment by the community includes the preservation of settings and features whose colors, textures, variety, unity, form, or perspective provide beauty and visual interest. This includes land forms, bodies of water, rock outcroppings, plant materials, scenic vistas and views, and hillsides and other natural.features. (pdos-ap.a) appendix a page A-2 10/30/92 es Public Hearing Draft Open -,,ace Element APPENDIX B STATE DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE According to the Government Code, Section 65560: Open-space land is any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in this section, and which is designated on a local; regional or state open-space plan as any of the following: I Open space for preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands. Open space used for the managed production of resources, including but not limited to, forest lands, rangeland, agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas required for recharge of ground water basins; bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for the management of commercial fisheries; and areas containing major mineral deposits, including those in short supply. Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to, areas of outstanding scenic, historic and culturar value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, including access to lakeshores, beaches, and rivers and streams; and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open-space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, and scenic highway corridors. Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas which required special management regulation because of hazardous or special conditions such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood plains,watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality. The significance of open space preservation to the people of California is stated in Section 65561 of the Government Code: That the preservation of open-space land, as defined in this article, is necessary not only for the maintenance of the economy of the state, but also for the assurance of the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of (pdos-ap.b) appendix b page B-i 10/30/92 Public Hearing Draft Open ,,Face Element scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources. That discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses is a matter of public interest and will be of benefit to urban dwellers because it will discourage non-contiguous development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents. That the anticipated increase in population of the state demands that cities, counties, and the state at the earliest possible date make definite plans for the preservation of valuable open-space land and take positive action to carry out such plans by the adoption and strict administration of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations as authorized by this chapter or by other appropriate methods. That in order to assure that the interests of all 'its people are met in the orderly growth and development of the state and the preservation and conservation of its resources, it is necessary to provide for the development by the state, regional agencies, counties and cities, including charter cities, of statewide coordinated plans for the conservation and preservation of open-space lands. That for these reasons this article is necessary for the promotion of the general welfare and for the protection of the public interest in open-space land. The intent of the Legislature in enacting this article is (as stated in Section 65562): To assure that cities and counties recognize that open,space land is a limited and valuable resource which must be conserved wherever possible. To assure that every city and county will prepare and carry out open-space plans which, along with state and regional open-space plans, will accomplish the objectives of a comprehensive open-space program. (pdos-ap.b) appendix b page B-ii 10/30/92 MEEks..d AGENDA NarCh 19193 4 DATE —9 ITEM # To: The Honorable Citta Council, City of SLu From: Janet Kourakis, 1577 Tang Ie,^rood Drive, SLi I regret that I did not speak at the March 2$ Blearing on the LUE, but I arrived late and did not have full information until the hearing oras closed_ E C E I V E L I hope you -:rill give attention to my concerns., not'withstandinq rng latenes=. MAR 2 9 1994 I have two concerns. _ CITY CLERK„ _ 1. 1 strongly oppos=e the LUE's 'weeping annexation rer_.orr�rrlendation�; and the proposed RRrl changes that would put workschedule dates into the LUE and require airport Area annexation based on no Cost information. We have long passed the time of 60 to 60 percent state and federal subsidies for public facilities and must expect 170 percent of the cost for new development to be borne locally. I believe that residents are not opposed to development per se, but they are opposed to subsidizing that development throuqh local taxes. Although are are given phrases like "near development will pay its wau” we are never given substance for such phrases. Annexation without financial analysis does not provide substance. It is understandable that the property owners want to develop and they can do this in the County or vnthin a Community Service Area or District. We have many examples of the successful use of CS-As or CSDs as r:ell y_i the successful efforts of the Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Department in guiding development. At some later time, if owners of unincorporated property want to annex, after costs and burdens are known and allocated, phased anne:,ations can be considered. I suggest that this approach allows both the property owners and the City to move in their best interests. Since the Council created and authorized the work of the Environmental Task Force, I feel the Council is obligated to give the Task Force's work the same "fast track:" attention and consideration it has given the other special advisory groups, the Downtown Study and the Economic Development Committee, and make sure its 5r,ork is incorporated into the LUE deliberations. I strongly suggest that this is the only rvay otllr i cooD'R community unity and that any other approach %.will be dia'isi�,'e. ` �'cAo ❑ FIN DIR 9 ACRO ❑ JRE CHIEF Thank you, rra�prroRhEY P Pvi DO c\ CLERKIORIC 0 POLICE CHF i ❑ MG J i TEAR 1 ❑ RE DIR J j ❑ C READ rIU? L! UT rIL DIR ;' ❑ F!:RS D; ` ME',, aG AGENDA 2 Dkf ' ITEM # �J 31 March 1994 ch'CIL 9rCDD DIR Honorable Mayor & Council Members rt ❑ FIN DIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ FIRE CHIEF Ey P.O.Box 8100 "PMC4'C c ❑ PIN DIR 11 'CLERIWRiG ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 E3tdGfrlT M 13REC DIR ❑ C D 13UTIL DIR RE: General Plan LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) Update ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Pinard & Council Members, Based upon the substantive changes to the Planning Commission draft of the LUE, as prepared by the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF), we respectfully request a continuance of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 5th. In the spirit of Council Member Roalman's comment "...let people look at it and respond to it.", the Business Coalition requires ample time to review.the aforementioned document. Pursuant to your most recent decision to redirect half of the Assistant CAO's time to oversee the City's economic environment, we feel that it appropriate for Ken Hampian, as well as other staff members, to be allowed time for review and comment. Should action, if any, be taken by the City Council, then we believe that the only appropriate action is for the document to be referred back to the Planning jBuildg Although we do not look forward to additional delays in the process, cument warrants careful scrutiny. We appreciate your consideration. !Chairperso4n COALITION Chamber of Commerce D resco Charlie Fruit RECEIVED LIAR 31 1944 Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 31 March 1994 Honorable Mayor & Council Members RE: General Plan LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) Update Page 2 of 2 con•t... Respectfully, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO BUSINESS COALITION Business Improvement Assn. SLO pe ners Assoc. i c Cleeves C. . Florence ufacturers & Distributors Assn. SLO As iation of Rettltors Maggie Cox . To: City Council From: DICK POTTRATZ at ZIATECH-HO MEETIN&I-94 1:5 PmnGENDA Z TE 'S' ITEM #. r-- 0/J1/94 1:40PM From : DICK POTTRATZ at ZIATECH-HQ To : City Council FAX# 781-7109 at FAX cc : BERT FORBES Subject : Land Use Element Update Message Contents 31 March 1994 From: Bert Forbes. Ziatech Corporation To: City Council Pleaoe continue your planned review of the Land Ucc Element Draft of the General Plan until 4/19/94. In that the plan has just been made available for public review, this date should allow sufficient time for the public to "digcot" the document. If the council reviews this important document on 4/5/94 you will not be allowing the public sufficient time to prepare. ligR �i i 19951 CITY Ct�B�UNCIL DD DIR AkU1 Q 1 PI CA ❑ FIN DIR C O C FIRE CHIEF � �ORNr- C PW DIP fa'CLFRKIORIG 13 POLICE CHF ❑ rdGMTTEAM 19 REG DIR II C C A^FtIF U UTIL GIR b� ❑ 4rns Dlr, :a APR - 3 - 94 SUN 19 : 21 SAN LUIS O D I S P O CAO P . 01 "SETING AGENDA SATE -5-9 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: ARNOLD JONAS, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ALLEN K. SETTLE, VICE MAYOR c9uNCIL7FIRECHIEF cA0 CC: JOHN DUNN, CAO AND COUNCIL ono Alii ORNEY DATE: nl1, 1994 Q�LERK/OfEiG Ap ❑ IMMTTr.:ANI ❑ REC DIRRW 0, UTILMR J SUBJECT: EIR AND QUESTIONS 7& ❑ FE;;sc;r, s Thank you for your memo of Friday, March 25, pertaining to the General Plan LUE meeting of March 28. 1 appreciate receiving it and agree with your comments. I tried to send several questions over the city E Mail system and the computer failed to function at the end of the second page and would not respond to any command. Consequently, I am typing out this "hard copy" on my other "MAC" computer that will function in a time of need. 1. Under sec. 1.13.7 annexations, B . Requirements: (1) Annexation may occur regardless of City water and sewer service capacity but development (or connections of existing facilities ) requiring additional service capacity may occur only when the capacity is adequate. What exactly does this mean? The sentence is vague and needs rewording. 2. Transfer of development credits 2.3.4 still needs clarification is to where these credits can be transferred. The EQTF adds (in the city, the urban reserve or the Greenbelt? Do you agree? 3. Should zone designations be placed in Table 4 behind max. density? 4. The definition between medium density residential and medium high density residential is vague. Do you agree? 2.4.6 and 2.4.7. Also the definitions at the end of the document do not help. 5. Under 3.1.3 etc., can the Froom ranch property hold a COSTCO without a complication in the provisions on these pages? Also.has Madonna submitted any development plans for any of this area? 6. Do you think it would help the reader to give an example of the ratio numbers provided throughout the document such as 3.1.5 and 3.2.5? RPR 4 1994 'ITY COUNCIL. tAN ALIS OSISPO,C7► APR - 3 - 94 SUN 19 : 23 S A.N _-LUIS O S I S P O CRO P 0 1 7. Are you satisfied with the clarity and consistency of uses in the CN v. CS zones? 8. Under 3.2.5 do we want the ARC to determine building intensity vs. the Planning commission? 9 3.3.2 under B--why is this omitted: Some types of offices may be accommodated in locations other than downtown? 10. 3.18 on page 38 of PC draft: why is this line cut out: Auto sales should be encouraged near Auto Park Way. Is 3.5.7 to replace it? 11. What are your comments on 6.1 etc. on open space designations by the EQTF and the rationale? Do you think all the rationale statements by EQTF if adopted in the final element should be placed in an appendix for future reference? 12. Under 8.3 on drive-in theater under "area would be suitable for government agencies' regional office. Why not include commercial since it has a great exposure to Highway 101? 13. Under definitions, EQTF wording appears more speck rather than "so designated" words. Do you favor revised wording? 14. Under EQTF suggestions: They want to add background and community values section. Do you see any problems with this? 15. Under 1.8 AG. LAND: EQTF wants to add "at least four times the productivity", do you have any comment on this addition? 16. EQTF asked why the buildout population has jumped to 57,700? Any answer? 17. EQTF want to add 1.11.4 (their page 17) on non residential growth rate-- any comments since it appears consistent with 89 election results? Wording ok? 18. Why not list the airport as a major expansion area? 19. Do you see any problems with the option of voter approval under EQTF 1.16.6 D ? (their page 22) 20. Any comments on Lower Higuera Retail Redevelopment suggested by EQTF? ""`ETI" AGENDA 219 Albert Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93405 CIL CDD DIR April 4, 1994 ❑ FIN DIR MO ❑ FIRE CHIEF NEY ❑ MAI Din LERIUORIG ❑ POLICE CHF: Bill Roalman ❑ MGUI TEAFA ❑ REC DIR City Council ❑ C nLS 1) UP.LDIR ❑ Pr iS'Jlli City of San Luis Obispo Re: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TASK FORCE DRAFT Dear Bill: The proposals put forth by the Environmental Quality Task Force reach radically beyond any responsible charge to provide "environmental quality" input into the land use element pertinent to the development and acceptance of the general plan. Rather the persons appointed to the Environmental Quality Task Force have usurped broad responsibilities in economic, cultural and architectural planning. The essence of their proposals deviously entwine yesteryear romanticism . with "big brother" controls. I request that the Council reject in total the actions of the Environmental Quality Task Force and dismiss its members. If, then, the Council judges that input regarding environmental quality warrants the focused attention of a task force, I request that the Council constitute a balanced rg o—V. The charge to the group should be restricted to environmental quality issues, expressly directing the group against violations of its limited responsibility. Responding in specific to the proposals put forward by the members of the Environmental Quality Task Force, however tempting to me and to the Council, would be counter-productive, accepting as credible their usurpation of responsibilities, and entering into their game plan of bargaining under their agenda. Failure by the Council to reject the actions of the members of the Environmental Quality Task Force would invite and encourage community divisiveness. Respectfully, REcEIVED Douglas R. ierce FTR d 1994 CITY COUNCIL` SAN LUIS OBISPOv CA MEETINr- AGENDA DATE_ ITEM # April 4, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL � 1994 FROM: BILL ROALMAN G'pR uNc�u cA SUBJECT: LUE REVIEW Q Wes pe►s ' I suggest the following schedule for the Land Use Element review. Tuesday, April 5: Council outlines the proposed schedule for LUE review and adoption. Council will not begin consideration of the Planning Commission Draft nor the EQTF Draft at this meeting. Saturday April 16: Town Hall Meeting to discuss the EQTF Draft of LUE. EQTF members will conduct this meeting to explain their recommmendations. Staff will help run the meeting. City Council and Planning Commission will be in attendence but will not conduct the meeting. d Monday and Tuesday., April 25, 26: City Council begins formal hearings on the LUE. This proposed schedule will allow more time for a full public discussion of Planning Commission and EQTF recommendations. BR:ss c: J. Dunn D. Gladwell J. Jorgensen K HampianA IrCOUNCIL 10 DD DIR 13-G*%0 ❑ FIN DIR SAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF �KiTORNEY ❑ PEY Dill �CCERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF " ❑ Wert TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑%�C E�►►Dj�fl'LF ❑ UT!L G:R 1o �LL� ❑ rrs�aa _=i MFTIN�57. 1 AGENDA /7,� DA._ `ff ITEM # UP MEMORANDUM April 5, 1994 To: City Council 1(`� From: Director of Public WorkAjl� \ Subject: Agenda Item C-8 Council member Rappa asked about the above item and if the specifications will provide for ADA compliance. ADA regulations require " a textured horizontal yellow band" be place on the signal pole. The full text of the ADA requirement will be inserted into the specifications prior to bidding. A copy of the regulations is attached for your information. c:CAO City Engineer Traffic Engineer NCIL ❑ CDD DIR IR �O ❑ FIN DCHIEF rIP I -Y '1 D{R ERKIORiG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ C!WJ i 7F-AM ❑ REC DIR i ❑ C READ 'ii ❑ UTIL OR I ❑ PSriS'J:I; si M APR 5 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN Luls omsao.CA Gni• - ':�- .q rvrw '��'y:i-.�.�':: �- •_ ;qua-•- yep:.. _:.-r; .,:+':3r.;. _ cA'a Ow •a 'V C OIW .� V c- YBW W E a� fO o .os Co .1 a 3 •61 y a ur = 2 ea Fg. ii v'.0 ♦r 6.ccc 3a r �e Ucm 0 u ii .go a9< w O O O e0-7" C. - O Oh �6-'•. o fir. _ a O 0 CJ> 72 v yyO _�q "C O w v_n t9 �i - =" 7e g O c' v rri U >� wE.=oto _^ ^_ wT. zy � a EF 00 U v a=- tee O wt< =v o o c E'c. >> � ~� Lx V Cf = 000 o.^ Eco dio Co � oo��� c4, ... < u[i'�.?•�-0� ar:GC �+ O L = _En >N�` V� o.S V ELN r,.. U e4c�vyc° aO=E3 �<0-a Q uv w ni = 9 ` E o yU Cy r_ =ti0 E ccr u o L' > _-to w 6 �y � E O 2-2:3 t 0 3y __e.0 =a m E.Eo •. 0 to m r : p L' =� S = c = ''� y � 3uo -� W O y y C• y u•moo yy O G ... `4. "R. <V Q� CO < :e U-0 q w'�y O a p�^v o.C^'on u v $ � � � �+• U � o � Vj v 4 > V w s E. O =.=— va .cosy -� E3 c - 0 _ Ca PoCEo 4'; cU *� EE < 4 0 c o e :—� C7 C C U e a o.o p ri o c e ep^ y MEE11N AGENDA DATE �-524ITEM # I City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, March 8, 1994- 7:00 PM pGtYICfL PUBLIC HEARINGS CAn Cc,ERK RT-N 1. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (File No. 438) pto F/LE' Council held a public hearing to consider establishing Transportation Development Impact Fees to mitigate regional, long-tern cumulative traffic impacts (continued from 4/6/93,4/27/93, 6/1/93 and 2/1/94). John Dunn. City Administrative Officer,and Bill Statler. Finance Director, reviewed the need, history, basis, and structure of the proposed impact fees. Council discussed traffic level of service°E°which was recommended by the Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTE) and the Planning Commission in comparison to level °D°. Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open. Steve Barasch. 225 Prado Road, stated that the proposed fees would have a negative impact on job creation and questioned the necessity for the fees based on declining use of public facilities. Tom Brown. 846 Higuera #2, representing the Business Coalition, objected to ti61[ 1JaCtl #7 #WMpWW" projects that did not benefit the entire community and the timing of the Cap BGf)p !ipi fees, stating that they should be based( aet 4 on occupancy rather than permit issuance. .....:....:............. Maggie Cox, 270 Foothill Blvd., representing the San Luis Obispo Association of Manufacturers and Distributors,stated they agreed for the need for sound infrastructure and that businesses should share In the cost,but requested that they be limited to funding reasonable projects and have an appropriate appeal mechanism. Lauren Brown. 7 Chupparosa Drive, objected to the fees ;iWg all' as far too expensive, but its supported the concept. Pat Veesert. 976 Buchon, supported the fees and stated that traffic calming projects should be Included. Bill Thoma. 1663 Colina Court,representing the Chamber of Commerce,stated only projects adopted In the Circulation Element should be included in the fees and objected to the inclusion of several specific projects. Charlie Fruit. 545 Higuera, supported imposing the fees at occupancy and creative financing structures. Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed. Council discussed the timing of the fee payment, the proposed five-year review period, fees for the motel-hotel industry, various projects to be identified in the Circulation Element, and impacts on the economy. Moved by Roalman/Romero to introduce to print Ordinance No. 1256 establishing transportation development impact fees; motion carried (4-1,Vice-Mayor Settle voting no). RECEIVE® APR 5 1994 Cm COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA A ANDRE, MEETI�AGENDA ATV , reCLEMMOt DATE -� �DNAL ORN MORRISL CDD DIRBUTTERY ❑ FIN DIR PETER R.ANDRE(Reared) ❑ FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL J.MORRLS EY ❑ Pi,AJ DIFI LAMES C.BUTTERY DENNIS D.LAW IZIG ❑ POLICE CHF I.TODD MIROLL.A EAr .1 ❑ REc DIR P.TERENCE SCHUBERr ') ❑ D FILE ❑ U TI GER SCOTT W.WALL `'. ❑ PERS D)I; MARY E.McALISTER +=�Apri1 5, 1994 1AIYNNE GILES KATHRYN M.EPPRIGHT 1304 Padfic Street Post Office Box 730 San Luis Obispo VIA HAND DELIVERY California 9340&MW Telephone 80.5/543-4771 Mayor Peg Pinard Councilmember Dave Romero 8051543.0752 City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Councilmember Penny Rappa Councilmember Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Councilmember Bill Roalman RECEIVED City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street APR 5 1991 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO#CA Re: Impact of EOTF/Planning Commission Draft of Land Use Element of General Plan on Maino Property Dear Mayor Pinard and Councilmembers: This firm has been retained to comment on the proposed drafts of the General Plan as they address the property owned by V. J. Maino which consists of approximately 79 acres located west of Highway 101 and north of the Bianchi ranch house driveway (Main Property). I have consulted with the client and have reviewed the language contained in the Draft Land Use Element of the General Plan. Several elements of this Draft are objectionable. However, before discussing these objections, it is essential to present some additional information for your consideration. In the 1920's a subdivision was recorded affecting the Maino Property. It specifies 196 lots and was recorded at Volume 3 Page 5 of Maps. This subdivision, known as the Linda Vista Addition to the City of San Luis Obispo, also preserved two parks within its boundaries. While FINET A11MAINovBINPINARDLTR . I A NDRE/ A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ANDRE/ &I BUTTERY I I Mayor Peg Pinard Councilmember Penny Rappa Councilmember Bill Roalman Councilmember Dave Romero i CouncUmember Allen Settle Re: ImRaact of EOTF/Planning Commission Draft of Land Use Element of General Plan on Maino Property April 5, 1994 Page 2 t i jno action has been taken to enforce the owner's rights under this recorded subdivision, the possibility of such action should not be overlooked. In addition, the owner has had a local planning firm analyze his property in view of the current City Ordinances and they have found that there are two level areas, both below 320' contour of Cerro San Luis, which would be suitable envelopes for development. The portions of San Luis Mountain above 320' could be preserved as dedicated open space, and likewise the corridor paralleling Highway 101 could be preserved as open space, but still allow for limited I' development of the Maino Property. I The Draft of the Land Use Element sponsored by the EQTF is particularly offensive to the land owner's rights. First, it inflexibly binds the Maino Property to the neighboring parcel i owned by Mr. Madonna. Most directly, further development of the Maino Property can occur only if a Specific Plan is submitted jointly by Maino and Madonna (Page 66, Item K (1)). The . i owner can only speak for himself and cannot be held accountable for his neighbor, nor be required to compel his neighbor to submit a Specific Plan nor participate in the joint preparation of one. This requirement is both wrongful and unenforceable. At most, the City should require that the neighboring property owners coordinate access at the Marsh Street interchange. The second manner in which the EQTF draft unsuitably ties Maino to the action (or inaction) of his neighbor is more oblique, but no less objectionable. As stated in Item K (2), on page 67, restoration and replanting of the "road cut scar" is required before any of this area is developed. This requirement ignores the fact that none of the scar is on the Maino Property, and was made without the owner's involvement or authorization. Nonetheless, the Draft under consideration, holds the Maino Property hostage to repair of this road cut. This connection could i be eliminated by linking only development of Madonna's property to repair of the road scar. The limitation on uses of the Maino Property as set forth in the Draft Land Use Element is also objectionable. First, the elimination of non-residential uses ignores the obvious fact that i ' P:WEMAMARJOVOIWINARD.LTR . ANDRE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION MORRIS 6 BUTTERY Mayor Peg Pinard Councilmember Penny Rappa Councilmember Bill Roalman Councilmember Dave Romero Councilmember Allen Settle Re: Impact of EOTF/Planning Commission Draft of Land Use Element of General Plan on Maino Property April 5, 1994 Page 3 a small triangle of approximately 3.5 acres adjoining the Marsh Street interchange is well suited to a variety of uses, including visitor accommodations and offices, without disturbing the viewshed. Second, by limiting the Maino Property to "one or two carefully located and designed houses", it forces the landowner to subsidize the public's interest in maintaining.San Luis Mountain in open space. There is no debating the public's interest in maintaining such open space, but the land use element as proposed puts the financial burden of providing this public benefit solely on Maino. In short, the proposal simply goes too far as it denies Maino the economically viable use of his land, and thus constitutes a "taking" These limitations should be eliminated by permitting limited non-residential development (possibly in conjunction with designation of a development envelope at the Marsh Street interchange) and by allowing development of sufficient density to make use of the land economically viable, even while keeping in mind the desire to retain the viewshed of San Luis Mountain. Thank you for taking the time to consider this information. Very truly yours, James C. Buttery JCB cc: V. J. Maino Vic Montgomery Rob Rossi P:v4E7%MVMA1N0vo 1%P1NARDLTR WeTING AGENDA D►. ITEM # WARREN A.SINSHEIMER III SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BACCETT ROBERT K SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION K ROBIN BACCETT STREET ADDRESS MARTIN J.TANCEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET THOMAS M. DUCCAN POST OFFICE BOX 3I MARTIN P.MOROSKI FACSIMILE DAVID A.JUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406-0031 805.541.2802 STEVEN J.ADAMSM THOMAS D. GREEN 805-541-2800 Ia NCIL DD DIR M.SUZANNE FRYER CYNTHIA CALDEIRA ❑ FIN DIR CLIENT 0201018 W.ARTHUR GRAHAM I SUSAN S.WAAC A ❑ FIRE CHIEF THOMAS J.DEN MADDEN II 1 .. 3RNEY ❑ P6UDII; CHRIS A.CARR `2CLEPIKJCFVG ❑ POLICE CHF. MARIA L HUTKIN i' ❑ FAGI t 1 TEMA ❑ REC Diri ❑ Clic ::Lr r:) UTIL DiP +Apri15, 1994 Peg Pinard, Mayor HAND-DELIVERED City of San Luis Obispo REcEI V EL) 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 APR 5 �9;�_i San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 CITY couNcll: SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Re: General Plan Land Use Element/Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio Area/Madonna Dear Mayor Pinard: This law firm represents Alex Madonna. In reviewing the recently prepared Environmental Quality Task Force Draft of the General Plan Land Use Element we have noted several proposed restrictions upon the development of property owned by our client, Alex Madonna, including but not limited to property characterized as the "Los Osos Valley Gap" and the "Dalidio Area" property. Accordingly, this letter is written to express our concerns. The "Los Osos Valley Gap" property is described as a 16-acre parcel for which one proposed use is described as "an open space/trail linkage/corridor to connect Laguna Lake Park/Prefumo Creek with the Irish Hills" (suggesting an intent to condemn). It is also proposed that this property, as well as that property owned. by Alex Madonna .within the Dalidio Area, could not be developed except under excessively stringent conditions. For example, with reference to the Los Osos Valley Gap property, it is proposed that no development could occur on this parcel except in accordance with a "save-four-acres-for- every-acre-lost formula". Because the property is described as a site " with prime soil", it is presumed that any development of the site would be conditional upon setting aside four times as much prime farm land for permanent open space protection (see also Section 3.5.6 of the EQTF draft). In addition, with respect to the property within the Dalidio area, it is provided that only 20% of the total area may be developed. Since Mr. Madonna's property is located the greatest physical distance from the existing Central Coast Mall, it is presumed that his property would not be subject to any development, but would most likely constitute a part of the 80% which could never be developed under the language of the Draft. In Peg Pinard, Mayor April 5, 1994 Page 2 addition, development of that property would also apparently be subject to the "save-four- acres-for-every-acre-lost formula' . The two examples given above are of concern to Mr. Madonna not only because of the excessively stringent conditions imposed upon those parcels. As written, it may very well be impossible for Mr. Madonna to develop the parcels at all, because it would be impossible for him to meet the proposed conditions. This is especially true since, under the Land Use Element Drafts, the vast majority of Mr. Madonna's available undeveloped land in and around the City of San Luis Obispo is placed within the classification of permanent open space. Presumably, that land therefore would not be available for consideration as land that could be dedicated to open space in exchange for the right to develop other parcels, since it is already "taken". Thus, not only is the City attempting to place almost all of Mr. Madonna's land within permanent open space classifications, the little remaining land owned by Mr. Madonna is subject to the condition of dedicating unavailable land to permanent open space preservation. In our opinion, the proposals contained in the Land Use Element Drafts go too far by classifying the vast majority of Mr. Madonna's land as open space, and then imposing very strict dedication requirements for the small percentage of land which is not taken outright. The language contained within the General Plan Land Use Element as proposed, and especially in the form written by the EQTF, amounts, in our opinion, to an unconstitutional taking of property rights which would deprive Mr. Madonna of all economic use of his property. Accordingly, on behalf of Mr. Madonna, we must respectfully object to the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element Drafts, and especially those proposals advanced by the EQTF Draft, which place the aforementioned conditions and restrictions on the proposed development or use of Mr. Madonna's property in and around the City of San Luis Obispo. While Mr. Madonna is willing to negotiate reasonable restrictions and conditions (including greenbelt issues), the Land Use Element as currently under consideration simply goes too far and will be challenged by legal action, if necessary. Very truly yours, SINS R SC BELHUT & BAGGETT MA T G MJT:tlg g:11tr\Madonna\Hillside\7Pinard.405 A M-TING AGENDA DN. # WARREN A.SINSHEIMER III SINSHEIMER. SCHIEBELHUT & BACCETT ROBERT K.SCHIEBELHUT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION K.ROBIN BAGGETF STREET ADDRESS MARTIN I.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET 'NOMAS M.DUGGAN IARTIN P.MOROSKI POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE DAVID A.IUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406.0031 805.541.2802 STEVEN I.ADAMSKI THOMAS D.GREEN 805-541-2800 M.SUZANNE FRYER CYNTHIA CALDEIR.A CLIENT 1536004 W.ARTHUR GRAHAM SUSAN S.WAAG ROY L OGDEN' THOMAS I MADDEN III CHRIS A.CARR MARIA L HUTKIN April 1, 1994 1O DO DIR '+„O ❑ FIN DIR *-A-C-Z ❑ FIRE CHIEF Arnold Jonas e'�aRNEY ❑ PW DIn ND-DELIVERED Community Development Department a-et:ERKCRIG ❑ POLICE CHF Director ❑ MG!a TEA-1 ❑ REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo '� c11 E C UTIL GA 990 Palm Street ❑ PE.�sD:Ii P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Re: Draft.General Plan Land Use/Open Space Elements. RECEIVEL) Nelson Property = 651 Foothill-Boulevard--- APRI' egg CITY COUNCIL Dear Mr. Jonas: SAN Luis oslspo,CA It is with a great deal of frustration that we once again writeyou on behalf of the Nelson family regarding their property located at 651 Foothill Boulevard. Over the past eight months we have worked with the City staff regarding the proposed redesignation of the Nelson property under the Draft Land Use Element. As you know, the Nelson family strongly objected to the removal of the property from the multi-family residential designation to open space. We believe that this proposed redesignation, done for the sole purpose of furthering the City's informal plan to develop a park on the site, would amount to impermissible spot zoning, illegal pre-condemnation. activity, and a taking of the Nelson property without just compensation. In January, 1994, the Planning Commission voted to I ecommend that the offending language in the DLUE be deleted and that the Nelson property remain designated as multi- family residential. We approached the scheduled Council hearings with that recommendation in mind. On March 28, we were surprised to learn that the Environmental Quality Task Force had decided to prepare its own draft land use element and had submitted that draft to the Council at the last minute. The EQTF draft appears to completely ignore the Planning Commission recommendation with respect to the Nelson family property. In fact, the EQTF Arnold Jones April 1, 1994 Page 2 draft contains language regarding the Nelson property which is more intrusive and damaging than that of the DLUE. We again object to any effort by the City to redesignate the Nelson property as anything other than multi-family residential. As noted in our earlier letters, copies of which are attached, this redesignation violates the Nelson family's property rights and subjects the City to liability for the .value of the property taken as well as the family's legal costs. We also object to the process which has required the Nelson family to spend time and energy over the past months in working to.protect their rights only to have the EQTF undo that effort with its 11-hour submittal. The family was neither advised nor aware that the EQTF was preparing its own.version of the DLUE. The family feels like it has wasted its time, effort and money fighting to protect its property only to have the process turned around at the last minute. The family is not necessarily opposed to a park on the property. The procedure for acquiring property for park purposes is set out in the California Government Code and the -Code of Civil Procedure. If the City is sincere in its desire to develop a park on.the Foothill property, we invite it to commence acquisition proceedings as provided by law. The property must be valued as if zoned multi-family residential regardless of the land use designation. Very truly yours, SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT THOMAS D. GREEN TDG:flg g:ltr\TartagA\7Jonas2.401 r cc: Peg Pinard, Mayor Penny Rappa, City Council Bill Roalman, City Council Allen Settle, City Council Dave Romero, City Council Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney WARREN A.SINSHEIMER 111 SIN5HEIMER, 5CHIEBELHUT & BACCETT ROBERT K.SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STREET ADDRESS K ROBIN BACCETT " RTIN I.TANGEMAN nT700.NEY5 AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET MAS M. DUGGAN POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE MN P.MOROSKI DAVID A.IUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93408.0031 805-541.2802 STEVEN I.ADAMSKI THOMAS D.GREEN 805.541.2800 M.SUZANNE FRYER 1536004 CYNTHIA CALDEIRA CLIENT W.ARTHUR GRAHAM . SUSAN S.WAAG ROY E OGDEN THOMAS I.MADDEN III CHRIS� U MAMN January 6, 1994 Arnold Jonas HAND-DELIVERED Community Development Department Director 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Re: Draft General Plan Land Use/Open Space Elements Nelson Property - 651 Foothill Boulevard Dear Mr. Jonas: This firm represents the Nelson family, owners of the 5.7 acre parcel commonly known as 651 Foothill Boulevard. On June 16, 1993, we wrote you objecting to the City's plan, as set forth in the Draft Land Use Element, to redesignate the property from Residential-11igh Density to Interim Open Space. Because this matter is now before the City Planning Commission, we, on behalf of the Nelson family, again object to the proposed redesignation and set out the reasons supporting the objection. As noted above, the current General Plan designation for the parcel is Residential- High Density (up to 24 dwelling units per acre). The parcel is zoned R-4. All property surrounding the parcel including the property across Foothill Boulevard, is zoned R-4 except for the LuckyPT1irift3r nropgM to the west which is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Attached are copies of portions of the current City zoning map. The Nelson family parcel is shown as the shaded area on those copies. We have reviewed all relevant documents and discussed this issue with the City staff. We can find no rationale for the proposed redesignation of the parcel other than as stated in the Draft Land Use Element which provides that: "This 5.7-acre site may be suitable.for a neighborhood park." We are, however, aware of no immediate or future plans for the City to acquire or develop a public park on or near the Nelson family parcel. The Nelson family strongly opposes any attempt to redesignate its property to Interim Open Space. There are several grounds for the objection. First, the redesignation is inconsistent with the zoning and development of all surrounding properties. The proposed redesignation, without any justification, singles out the Nelson family parcel for more Arnold Jones January 6, 1994 Page 2 restrictive land use regulation than neighboring properties. The redesignation would create an island of open space in a sea of multi-family/commercial development. Second, the proposed open space redesignation would dramatically reduce the value of the parcel and frustrate the reasonable investment expectations of the family. It has always been the family's intention to develop or market the property in a manner consistent with surrounding properties when conditions were appropriate. The proposed redesignation frustrates those intentions. Finally, the Nelson family parcel does not appear to be well situated for a public park. Most of the children using the park would come from the residential area to the north and would have to cross busy Foothill Boulevard. This raises safety concerns. .These concerns are heightened by the fact that there is not a conveniently located signaled intersection near the parcel. Further, Throop Park is already located in the PF (Public Facilities) zone less than two blocks to the north of the Nelson family parcel On behalf of the Nelson family, we respectfully request that the City modify the Draft Land Use Element to eliminate_ the redesignation of the.family parcel. We_understand that... this issue will be discussed at the Planning Commissioner's January 12 meeting. A representative of the family will attend. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT 7. it-N THOMAS D. TDG/tlg g:\ltr\Tartag-A\7Jonas.105 Enclosure cc: Barry Karleskint, Chairman, Planning Commissioner Mary Whittlefey, Planning Commission Brett Cross, Planning Commission Gil Hoffman, Planning Commission Charles Senn, Planning Commission Sandi Sigurdson, Planning Commission Dodie Williams, Planning Commission Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney Al—2• ,:,gyp' - ':'�•,�~ijlip '�,, .•i.:;:..� ^.•U tr�St:"::�•:r,: ?� •... i .. I 4 �. >..:y.�1'-..;-i... .._'r- .. ar �..,'.• ..S'-':1 l 'L _ 3 ,. , �,• �`•��,.. ��� /fit... RAMONA r. DRIVE _ .;C: --% , . f-, 4 PD 13 1 G-e-R _R_i r � R_4 w __ to--�.J 0 , Q t re •. .13' o R—4— P—D -" r v ^ � .. .. i............L-----y----J 1 •M!•� it :• � ! •1 I r 1.; LUNETA wwi~ 5�:.� I F i� -• 1 ,. • li \• V•L 1S V ~tl • — r•-- , 15,�.•t '✓3.•.{77 -:�Q,.lC�.-, •r.• • � t. rr• .. �. y1 .IiO , YM.l.i O 1� �• rR�• y ; R- .RRAN ORIVE - _ ., R _1 R-2-S R a Oi 0:lp ; j T. 0 Cl C% O 10 10 O O a _ , y0,p v FEL-TON WAY L r' V y•�O a., _ p 1 p R-1 o V �,A � 0 OI -1 R •� •. �. a t o '�'`" l.v �l `r o PF 5- . a CERRO ROMAULDO 1 ••n l' I 1 I. , i 'J •Y.• .1 1, LI: - O1 I rip" �� ! iI.� uUl : ILJ c = s a •. I I • ,rsn 1. �1 �' I A.• 1 I i ••' ,� ...� aw.••.s' 4•. 61' Y•' •f .G. r`a •p n0 Iso its FOOTHILL BLVD. 1 ..0.., 70. y. •. ft - 7. Y...•. ' ( r n .� •. .'rrr. fiF "�. 'S.QQ. ;�"a-r,_,•,)i.sii;: :�:ix$l�s�G�t':F R-` M . •ia. .5�• I' , . 'A�r !"� : H H-7-L - WARREN A_SINSHEIMER u1 SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT £4 BACCETT ROBERT K SCHIEBEIJiUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION L ROBIN BACCETT STREET ADDRESS MARTIN J.TANCEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS M.DUGGAN 1010 PEACH STREET .,ARTIN P.MOROSKJ POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE VID A.JUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 9340G-0031 805-541-2802 YEN L ADAMSKI iNO"Q GREEN 805.541.2800 M.SUZANNE FRYER DIANE W MOROSKI 0327001 CYNTHIA CALDEIRA CLIENT W.ARTHUR GRAHAM SUSAN S.WAAG ROY E.OLDEN THOMAS L MADDEN 111 MMAARRIIA A.HU�TKIN September 21, 1993 NINA NEGRANTI Arnold Jonas HAND-DELIVERED Community Development Department Director 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Re: Draft General Plan Land Use/Open Space Elements Nelson Property - 651 Foothill Boulevard Dear Mr. Jonas: On June 16 we wrote you to state our objection to the - -, redesignation -of_ the-.-above-referenced- property -from multi-family residential to interim open space. We understand that the matter will be considered at the September 21 City Council meeting and would like to restate the Nelson Family's position with respect to the redesignation. The current General Plan designation for the property is Residential-High Density. The zoning is R-4. All surrounding property is zoned and developed as R-4 except for the Lucky Shopping Center to the . west which is zoned as neighborhood commercial. It has long been the family's intention to develop or market the site as multi-family residential. These plans have temporarily been put on hold because of the downturn in the residential real estate market. We have reviewed the General Plan update documents and discussed the proposed change with staff. Based on our investigation and review it appears that the p3;Dposed change is not driven by any planning policies or considerations. Rather, the sole motivation for the proposed change is the statement in the Land Use Element Update that "This 5.7-acre site may be suitable for a neighborhood park." The Nelson family objects to this redesignation on two grounds. First, the Nelson family does not want to donate its property for public use. If.the City does want a park on the site, it can begin acquisition proceedings. Otherwise, it is inappropriate to use land use regulation to either depress the Arnold Jones September 21, 1993 Page 2 price for acquisition or achieve a de facto acquisition. Second is that as a planning issue it does not seem prudent to place a park along a busy major street like Foothill Boulevard. Very truly yours, SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT THOMAS D. GREEN TDG/tlg gJONAS921.ltr cc: Peg Pinard, Mayor Penny Rappa, Councilperson Bill Roalman, Councilperson Allen Settle, Councilperson Dave Romero, Councilperson Barry Rarleskint, Chairman of the Planning Commission Jeffrey G. -Jorgensen, :City Attorney - = rt I TING AGENDA DATE hClL QD DIR TO: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission � ❑ FIN DIR FROM: Pat Veesart ❑ FIRE CHIEF DATE: 4 April, 1994 Cn.NE' Q P:•rDin SUBJECT: EQTF Land Use Element Recommendations CLERWORIG O POLICE CHF ❑ f!GZi TCA,'J ❑ AEC DIR II ❑ F':% ❑ UTI D;R Dear Planning Commissioner, ❑ FS;"sD:R Oh���ssi he:. ..1 I understand that you are holding a "special" meeting this evening to discuss the LUE Recommendations of the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF). I will probably be unable to attend due to prior commitments, but I do want to share a few thoughts with you. First off, I am upset with the way certain Planning Commissioners have handled this so far. Dodie Williams and Barry Karleskint have publicly criticized both the EQTF and the City Council and I think that this is way out of line. The EQTF was created by the City Council to advise them on environmental issues, and it reports directly to the Council, not the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission draft of the LUE was available only 2 1/2 weeks before the EQTF response was delivered to council. That means that EQTF members have worked their tails off to get their recommendations finished in a very short time. EQTF meetings were public with minutes sent to Council and available to anyone who wished to see them. This is hardly what I would call sneaky. Just as your commission has a job to do, so does the EQTF and they have done it well. A recent article in the Telegram-Tribune seems to indicate that Commissioners Williams and Karleskint are in agreement with with a certain group of people who have threatened to sue the city over this. Sue us for what? For accepting the recommendations of a city advisory body at a public hearing? Somehow I had the impression that the City Council had an obligation to listen to and consider all public testimony in its deliberations. Do the developers think that public hearings are just a charade, or do they think that the Council should only listen to them? How much will it cost city taxpayers to defend themselves against yet another frivolous lawsuit from the "grow like there's no tomorrow" crowd. Neither the City Council nor the EQTF have done anything that warrants criticism. The Council asked them for their views, and accepted those views at a public hearing, just as they accepted yours at the same hearing. My hope is that your Commission will review the recommendations of the EQTF and adopt them. They are excellent) The EQTF has no financial interest in their recommendations like the group who is so opposed to them. Instead, the EQTF recommendations reflect, in my opinion, the values of the community. RECEA VIED APR g 1944 CITY COUNCIL CAM I I IIB nn.w.... Y. I wish that the disgruntled Planning Commissioners would spend less time worrying about process and more time worrying about content, and that the developers would spend less time trying to scare everyone with their "doom and gloom" economic predictions and more time working on projects that fit into the scale of this community while protecting the natural resources we have left. Finally, I hope that the City Council will listen to all the ideas and weigh all the viewpoints when they make their final decisions on this very important blueprint for the future of San Luis Obispo. 6 t- Pat Veesart • 976 Bucho St. • San Luis Obispo, CA • 93401 • 546-0518, cc: San Luis Obispo City Council I" -TING AGENDA DHI E 7.�.ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street 9 San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 David E. Garth, Executive Director April 5, 1994 i PCE06UNCIL &rfDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR Honorable Mayor and City Council Members PCy� ❑ FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo e� •'E' ❑ P:v DIr 990 Palm Street LERWORIG C1 POLICE CHF. ❑ f:iGtTEAF:1 ❑ P,EC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 D RLE [7 UTIL GiR ❑ pzils Dsz Dear Mayor and Council Members: - =� The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce urges Council to act cautiously when determining how to proceed with the recently received Environmental Quality Task Force Draft document. The Chamber recommends the following: City Council should send the EQTF's recommendations back through the. normal channel of public review which includes Planning Commission review and public hearings. Issues which have not been previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearings must be referred back to the Planning Commission in accordance with section 65356 of the government code. Further, some of the EQTF's recommendations may not have been evaluated in the existing EIR. For these reasons it is important that planning staff review and comment on the internal consistency, as well as consistency with other elements of the General Plan. While the EQTF recommendations on the Planning Commission's approved draft of the Land Use Element are late in the process, the Chamber believes that the EQTF recommendations still warrant due consideration. The EQTF document, as it stands, lacks any measurable degree of public input. Since the EQTF document contains significant changes from the Planning Commission's document, and since the Planning Commission's document received significant public review and staff APR 5 1994 CITY COUNCIL ACCREDITED ,AN LUIS OBISPO.CA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER OfCOMMERCE O �E VMiI{O s.>lEs analysis, it is imperative that the public have the opportunity to review the EQTF's recommendations. If you, our Council, truly want to build consensus within our community, you will allow the light of public opinion to be shed upon the EQTF recommendations. The Chamber of Commerce strongly objects to any process that does not openly debate the issues that affect the citizens of our community. While the EQTF recommendations may not intend to cause hardship, they may indeed negatively impact our citizens. Whatever the merits of the EQTF document, our community needs and deserves both the opportunity and the time to fully assess these important land use issues in a public forum. Without a careful and deliberate attempt to receive adequate public comment, the quality of life, as envisioned by the citizens of San Luis Obispo, will never materialize. This could set a dangerous precedent within our community. With this in mind, please forward the EQTF document to the Planning Commission for sufficient public review. Respectfully, Wanda Strassburg, Preside San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce William A. Thoma, Vice President San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce V -TING AGENDA DH!t ITEM # 3 April 3, 1994 Dear Mayor Pinard and Councilmen Settle and Roalman, When the land use element of the general plan became available to study at the library,we read through it rather carefully. We had some thoughts regarding minor changes that we wrote about to the entire council and the planning commission,but all in all,the plan seemed to be fairly well thought out and generally reasonable. You can imagine our surprise to learn from the Telegram-Tribune that you three are planning to ignore that original plan and try to slam through a completely objectionable substitute. It is not right to mandate front porches on new homes, you step on individual's rights and add to the cost..just one more government regulation to make "affordable housing" impossible. It is not right to mandate what Madonna must do with his mountain. Take him off the tax roles and buy the property before you go telling him what he can and cannot do...ever heard of property rights?M Imagine what you will do to the cost of property(and "affordable housing")when every time it rains the entire county becomes a creek. By your new definition,your coveted "Spring Toyota" property will have running creeks during rainfall,there goes your plan for a central bus depot. Slow growth is certainly an idea for debate. It is not at all clear, however,that the majority of residents agree with you in such matters...one need only cite as evidence the results of the poll performed by PG&E written about in the same issue of the TT that alerted us to your game. We find it interesting that the TT, a paper that is usually favorably disposed to you and the environmental movement, finds many serious problems with the new proposal and the method by which it has been proposed. You would be ill-advised, imprudent, arrogant, authoritarian, and just plain wrong to vote for the new land use plan. Sincerely, Lawrence and Kathleen Pennington 761 Grove, $LO MoVOLINCIL7FINDIR ��O&ADURWORiG RFECEIVE® ❑ h'GEF.TTEA M ❑ RECDIR APR Q 1994 � E) G AD� ❑ F nSDR CITY COUNCIL —- SAN LUIS OSISP00 CA ETIN AGENDA DATE ITEM # CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 1 April 1994 396 Buckley Road E-1289 San Luis Obispo California 93401 (805)544-3278 FAX(805)541-3137 San Luis Obispo Community U. D DIR Development Department _ ®�1� , ❑ FIN DIR P.O. BOX RECEIVED GD a �q O FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 qN:y ❑ PW DIF. (RR 1 1944 LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF Re:EQTF Draft LUE ❑ I f,:5T_A1%78! ❑ t3Ec cIR CITY COUNCIL r;,_ r_, UTIs io SA LUIS OBISpO,.CA ; O :.F.; Staff... �// ❑ s D:R Y Please include these comments in the public hearing report on the Land Use Element. They are in response to the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) combined Planning Commission Draft Land Use Element. All other groups and individuals had the same amount of time to review the Planning Commission Draft. I, like most, was notified by mail. If concern for the City's well being is truly the issue, one would think the advisory group would be following the proceedings closely and their response be prepared and ready to go. Unless noted otherwise, requested action is not to include the items outlined below in the final document. 1. Introduction of the Land Use Element (page 1). There are many factors used to determine patterns of development. The recommendation of the EQTF is to solely base these development patterns on residents'preferences and natural assets. This. is prejudiced thinking and does not represent the appropriate approach in which sound, sustainable planning is practiced. 2. Background to this Land Use Element Update (page 2). This section is inappropriate and the text presented by the EQTF represents that the only EQTF.wps April 1, 1994 2 reason for the update process is to constrain growth with known and several unknown finite resources (How do you know if they are finite if they are unknown?). This is a very narrow perspective and should not be included as written. If retained at all, the text should be expanded to recognize the concerns and recommendations of all citizen and advisory groups and not just the EQTF. 3. Community Values (page 3). This section only appears to quantify the "Background" Section on page 2 and is not accurate when the commentary speaks of representing the values of the community in whole. 4. Preamble to the Land Use Element (page 5). This is unnecessary. 5. San Luis Obispo's Vision (page 5). The key word is our. This reworded statement is the vision of the EQTF and does not represent a true cross section of the community. 6. Section 6a, Environment (page 7). It is completely inappropriate to place this regulation on properties that by chance have prime soils. The City should permit agricultural operations to occur within the city limits and urban reserve line when not in conflict with primary urban uses. Agricultural lands should not be mandated as permanent features of the urban fabric. It i not an urban use. The premise for incorporation is not, has never been, and should never be to preserve agriculture land within city limits and the urban reserve line. 7. Section 1.0, Overall Intent (page 11). Intentions are difficult to interpret. Sections B and C reference services, what are they? What is a relatively high level of service? Section D, could be used to discriminate against any new EQTF.wps April 1, 1994 3 resident. This text currently exists (not verbatim) within the section on Community Goals where it belongs. 8. Section 1.7.4, Parcel Sizes and Density (page 12). Throughout the element there are references to a working relationship between the City and County. The text changes offered by the EQTF are in conflict with the urban settlement strategies of the larger community (county) which is emphasizing development credit transfers to receiver sites in and around populated areas. The premise of the TDC program is to (1) preserve rural agricultural lands from intrusion, (2) prevent the need to provide unwanted infrastructure requirements in these areas, and (3) concentrating development in existing urban areas so not to create sprawl. -9: Section -1.8 -Agricultural ; Land (page 13).: The-..City: should7 permit. - agricultural operations to occur within the city limits and urban reserve line when not in conflict with primary urban uses. Agricultural lands should not be mandated as permanent features of the urban fabric. It is not an urban use. The premise for incorporation is n t, has never been, and should never be to preserve agriculture land within city limits and the urban reserve line. 10. Section 1.11.4, Non-residential Growth Rate (page 17). On 05 January 1994, the Planning Commission recommended to Council with a policy vote, not t re tric non-residential growth. Requested Action. Revise language to included the entire school population. 11. Section 1.12.4, Cuesta Community College (page 18). Throughout the element there are references to a working relationship between the City and County. Development of on or near campus housing in the El Chorro Valley is in direct conflict with recent preservation agreements made between the EQTF.wps April 1, 1994 4 San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay and the County (even the golf course at the regional park has mitigated the sensitive Highway One view shed by screening links behind hilly areas). Did the EQTF request response from the Sierra Club on construction in the El Chorro Valley? If so, when did they ratify it? 12. Section 1.13.5.(G), Minor Annexation Requirements (page 20). Why develop an Urban Water Management Plan if it's not to be used? 13. Section 1.16.6 (D), Regional Growth Management (page 22). Is voter approval extended to all the population of the County? Are citizens within the city voting on changes in the County and other incorporated areas? 14. Section 3.1.1, Purpose and Included uses (page 35). If the City is in the drivers seat as suggested in the rationale for change, then they should not jump in the.backseat by including this recommendation . Instead, it should stay in the forefront by working with venders such as Costco to initiate some change in parking lot area. Warehouse stores provide benefit,(as reported in the Telegram Tribune article published 05 January 1994, 'Buying in bulk is becoming the norm') by providing people the ability to purchase in large bulk thus saving three things, "money, time and the environment." Requested Action. Retain the current language and add text inference working harder to promote beneficial commercial expansion. 15. Section 3.1.2.x; Lower Higuera Retail Development (page 35). The EQTF is forgetting their own concerns on preservation of existing neighborhoods. How will residents adjacent to this area react to this proposal? How is the additional traffic volume going to adversely impact an already poor situation? Do you mitigate traffic by widening lower Higuera Street? Did EQTF.wps April 1, 1994 5 the EQTF approach this neighborhood for their approval? Should the EQTF have made the recommendation in the draft element without the formation of a neighborhood group (Section 2.1.2) to prepare and neighborhood plan to protect and enhance neighborhood identity (Section 21.1)? 16. Section 3.5.7, Vehicle Sales (page 42). It is unfair for the City to designate and force regional auto sales to an area with prime soil and then require the developers of the property to replace the covered area at a rate of four times (or any amount). How will the existing auto dealerships in the downtown core react to this requirement? 17. Section 6.43 (G) Flood Hazard Reduction (page 72). It is incorrect to think -- that lined channels .and= coveted,.- do-not have their 'place in.:the development of a urban area. The recommendation should be that lined channels and covered culverts are not the preferred method (acknowledging they are functional in certain situations) for flood control versus not be built. 18. Section 6.5.7,Wide Cooperation (page 74). The reference to groups the City should work with should include professional development groups, engineers, architects, etc. By not including them within the text the EQTF is only creating future polarization. Requested Action. Include all development groups within the text. 19. Section 8.4, Los Osos Valley Gap (page 85). It is incorrect for the City to designate and force regional auto sales to an area with prime soil and then require the developers of the property to replace the covered area at a rate of four times (or any amount). How will auto dealerships in the downtown core react to this requirement? EQTF.wps April 1, 1994 6 Secondly, it is not appropriate to have an open space/trail linkag%orridor adjacent to agricultural operations. Is the goal of the EQTF to preserve agricultural soils for future food security (Section 1.8) or open spaces for citizens to walk on and trespass into? Thankx for your time and consideration... �- at Dennis c mi t cc: Peg Pinard Allen Settle Dave Romero Bill Roalman Penny Rappa Barry Karleskint EQTF.wps M��T1N ' GENDA� WARREN A.SINSHEIMER 111 SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGE T ' TEM ROBERT IL SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STREET ADDRESS ROBIN BAGGETT MARTIN 1.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET M THOMAS M. DUGGAN POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE MARTIN P.MOROSKI DAVID A.IUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 9340G-0031 805-541-2802 STEVEN 1.ADAMSKI THOMAS D.GREEN 805.541-2800 M. SUZANNE FRYER CYNTHIA CALDEIRA CUE T 0201018 W.ARTHUR GRAHAM SUSAN S.WAAG r ROY E.OGDEN CIL DD DIR THOMAS 1.MADDEN 111 ❑ FIN DIR CHRIS A.CARR MARIA L HUTKIN ❑ FIRE CHIEF April 1, 1994 RNEY ❑ PW DIR CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF RECEIVED ❑ 11.GI TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ D'ii E ❑ UTI.L Dia PR i9;� ❑ FESD:R . Peg Pinard, Mayor fVERED 990 Palm Street CITY COUNCIL' SAN LUIS OBISP_O,CA P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Re: San Luis Obispo Draft Land Use Element/Maino-Madonna Area Dear Mayor Pinard: This law_firm represents Alex_.Madonna. _This letter is written with-reference._to_the. Draft Land Use Element Provisions relating to "Optional Use and Special Design Areas" and, more particularly, the "Main-Madonna Area". As you may or may not be aware, Section 8.1.2 of the Planning Commission Draft formerly contained the following language: Land southwest of the Bianchi ranch house driveway (Madonna property), designated Interim Open Space, may accommodate a generously landscaped, low-intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. Development locations and building forms should respect natural slopes and maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods. Before this area is developed, the road.cut on the east and south faces of San Luis Mountain should be restored to a natural slope and replanted. On behalf of Alex Madonna, we objected to the above language insofar as the last sentence was concerned. We pointed out that there were several reasons for our objection. Among other things, we expressed our Opinion that the proposed condition of restoration and replanting of the road on San Luis Mountain prior to development in the area of the existing tourist facilities would be unconstitutional and violate the law. We submitted correspondence to the Planning Commission which cited case law supporting our objection. After Peg Pinard, Mayor April 1, 1994 Page 2 presentation of our position at a Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted, 5 to 2, that the last sentence of the above paragraph should be deleted. Accordingly, the current Planning Commission Draft reflects that deletion. We have, however, received the Draft Land Use Element as proposed in modified form by the Environmental Quality Task Force ("EQTF"). The EQTF Draft reinserts and extends the language deleted by the Planning Commission by providing as follows: Some land southwest of the Bianchi ranch house driveway - (Madonna-property), designated Interim Open Space, may accommodate a generously landscaped, low-intensity extension of the existing tourist facilities. Development locations and building forms should respect the area's extraordinary visual quality, natural slopes and maintain the unobstructed signature landscape, views of the mountain visible, from the highway, Madonna Road, and nearby neighborhoods. Before any of this area is developed, the road cut scar on the east, oad south and west faces of San Luis Mountain should be restored, te-it . slepe and replanted.- Continuous agricultural open space should preserve the view shed of Cerro San Luis Obispo from the freeway on up the slopes. For the same reasons provided to the Planning Commission, it remains our opinion that the proposed condition is unconstitutional and violates the law. That opinion is based upon recent developments in the law, including those rationales advanced in the United States Supreme Court case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 107 Sup.Ct. 3141 and Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1463, 263 Cal.Rptr. 313. In the case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, it was decided that a governmental entity could not condition the granting of a permit to build or develop coastal property upon a requirement of granting coastal access, under circumstances in which there was no direct relationship between the proposed project and creation of a burden on public access rights. In Nollan, the condition requiring an easement for public beach access was held an unconstitutional taking because the proposed project did not limit, restrict, or burden public access. Therefore, the condition was not reasonably required in order to accommodate a burden on public rights created by the project. Absent a- reasonable relationship to a need which was created by the new project, it was held that a governmental entity could not require or extract the proposed condition to development. Peg Pinard, Mayor April 1, 1994 Page 3 Likewise, in Rohn v. City of Visalia, a condition to the issuance of a building permit for construction of an office building, which required a dedication of land to correct a misalignment of streets, was held to be an unlawful taking because the construction of the office building would not increase the flow of traffic beyond that resulting from uses for which the property was originally zoned (i.e., for an apartment building). Accordingly, the . court held that the proposed project did not created additional burdens which were resolved by the proposed condition. Because the proposed condition was not required by, or even reasonably related to, the proposed condition, the governmental action was held to be unconstitutional. These two cases, any many other cases, demonstrate the unlawfulness of the proposed condition as it relates to the Madonna property. First of all, the two pieces of property being discussed (i.e., the area surrounding Madonna Inn, and the hilltop area) are separate legal parcels. Second, there is no direct relationship between the possible uses of the land southwest of the Bianchi ranch house driveway and the requirement for restoration and = replanting of the road on the east, south and west faces of San Luis Mountain. There are many potential.ways in which the existing tourist facilities near the Madonna Inn could-be developed without creating any impact whatsoever on San Luis Mountam, or the views of San Luis Mountain. It is evident that imposing a condition to development which requires restoration and replanting of the road on the east, south, west faces of San Luis Mountain, without even considering the type of development which might be proposed for extension of the existing tourist facilities, demonstrates the lack of a reasonable relationship between the development and the condition. Under the proposal as written, my development of the existing tourist facilities would trigger the condition of restoration and replanting of the road on a separate parcel, even under circumstances in which views of San Luis Mountain would not be impacted in any way by the proposed development. In addition, we must also object to the overbreadth of the language relative to creation of "Open Space" on this property. Whereas the Planning Commission Draft set forth guidelines for development locations and building forms which would mitigate against obstruction of viewsheds, the EQTF Draft goes substantially further by adding additional language that "Continuous agricultural open space should preserve the view shed of Cerro San Luis Obispo from the freeway on up the slopes". The overbreadth of this language is clear and evident, and apparently would prevent or prohibit any further development of this parcel since the vast majority, if not all, of the remaining undeveloped portions of the property are within that area which could be defined as "the viewshed of Cerro San Luis Obispo from the freeway on up the slopes". This overbreadth is also carried forward by reinsertion of the deletion previously made by the Planning Commission in subparagraph 4, which provides that "the foreeround area immediately west of Highway 101 should be Peg Pinard, Mayor April 1, 1994 Page 4 retained as on open space buM ." The word "foreground" is undefined, but placed in the context of protection of hillsides, could conceivably by used as the basis for argument that all land between the freeway and the hillsides should be permanently preserved as open space, thereby effectively prohibiting development of the entire parcel. Accordingly, we must respectfully object to the inclusion of the land between the Bianchi house and the existing tourist facilities in any permanent open space designation. The breadth and nature of such a designated area effectively and completely deprives Mr. Madonna of all reasonable and economic uses of that property and therefore constitutes an unlawful taking. In addition, we must respectfully object to the language contained in the EQTF Draft which seeks to reimpose the condition of restoration and replanting of San Luis Mountain prior to any development near the existing tourist facilities. We are concerned that this proposed condition is in some manner related to the inaccurate perception of the road as having been installed illegally. Although that rumor has no basis in fact, and is untrue, it continues to persist. However, the road was and is legal, and it bears no relationship or connection to the property which is.the subject of.the proposed development condition. If the condition is imposed,'Mr. Madonna intends to exercise his legal rights by seeing tie appropriate legal recourse. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, SINSEL.HUT & BAGGETT MARTIN 4TANMAN MJT:tIg g:\ltr\Madonna\Hillside\7Pinard.401 04/01/94 00:30 $ 005 544 5600 SL PAPER CO. P.01 RECEIVE® V^E ING 1_9 AGENDA( 3 __.ITEM #._ °D 1 1994 CITY°�jLsSM ` N LU IS PAPER CO ' o0�s P.O. Box 1859, 625 Tank Farm `toad San Luis Obispo, CA. 93406 FAX T RA N S M I TTA L SHEET r'AO CDD DIR //�� ❑ FIN DIR TO: CO: (O y c w _ ❑ FIRE CHIEF /� �1 RNEY ❑ POL CIE CHF ATTEN: 4 e4 L coo i vO ❑ REC DIR DEPT: - FrRSDR FAX # V�_ - . -. 1�— DATE: QUOTE REQUEST FJ CORRESPONDENCE a PLEASE REPLY T0: MESSAGE: tfK beevoso v►+y -6Ks inex5 i3 J f l r1 f hr propos 000 0i r pa f Q r►n eza ire Tea cf. /?rix in eer•+e Pearn employme,%4 IS f he ' L ire WevgoP v�s r-lyS X 9PvreAvolle, Ire&"W, erCial ecw Gprnew%i pnvolldlr fhrjj�w SDb;j -t�ia'} n K{i s�► G tors ir� waray� � ��aT • c9�cPs 9� Can Summers S pevdir9 and 74- XKcR9Pvlurf. Tti P Q.al.4v Task Fgrne i Proposals h en%P C4YPru I a Ad limns iAe CJ' rr _... _. Pvolua 1 pan. ImP l.-PPPA �: 5��y !010 .pa5es /S 5 irrlply }?lease roW%+l nuf 'tA 15 OP(S C uS 5 icn I*r•C P40V^ Se*AWIC l WlO.v ti'vee c 5 4a allow : 4 r e roe rvftsan4d cbAsidevtz4lan. __ WETHERICK 155 P01 RPR 01 '94 09:17 Ckt'ATIVE - . Furniture •Cabinets - Doors WOODWORK - Desks and Tables •Period Designs •One-of-a-Kind Designs CUSTOM DESIGNS IN . . . 3430 Sacramento Dr.Ste.C San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 TeVFax:(805)781-3377 MEETING AGENDA DATE '5'9 ITEM #- San Lu" Obibpo City Council City full San Lu" Obiepo April 7, 1994 DeaA SaAb, Re: Land Uae Element DAa6t ob .the. Geneut Plan in view o6 the pobaible baA-Ae.ac.hi.ng impticatione pneeente.d by the document 6Aom the EnviAonmental Quality Tabk Foace on the above and a.6 a membeA o6 the Manu6aetuAing Alliance o6 SLO, we wioh to ahk 6oA a continuance. on thi.a item at the next meeting in oxdeA to 6tudy the document mane. Gutty. Aa thio ie a holiday we-ekend we heel that a week iz inAu66icient time. bon Aev.iew and any input on 6ueh a potentially Ae.3tAictive document. We. wi,6h theAe6oAe to AegiateA oaA anxiety on any un.6eemly haete that may be ehown on adopting the E.Q.T.F. p4opoeaE6. Sincene..ey NCIL0Y6DD DIR - ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF 0 PW Din LEAKlORIG ❑ PCLICE CHF ❑ PAGlF TEArti ❑ REC DIR CAeative WoodwoAk ❑ C =r c' UnL C;R ❑ PCSDII; :I 1 094 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISM CA