HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1994, A-1 - APPOINTMENT TO AREA AGENCY ON AGING city of san L ! owpo M 5/Y!99aTE:
REM NUMBER: d
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Mayor Peg Pinard6?T
SUBJECT: Appointment to Area Agency on Aging
RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, appoint Joan Lawrence as the City's representative to the Area Agency on Aging
for a two-year term.
BACKGROUND:
The bylaws of the Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens, Area Agency on Aging
require that five of the twelve members of the Board of Directors be elected from
recommendations from five local politicial organizations, one of which is the City of San '
Luis Obispo.
Joan Lawrence has served as the appointee from the City of San Luis Obispo for the past
four years and is eligible for reelection. Ms. Lawrence has expressed a desire to continue
serving on the committee. I, therefore, would like to submit her name for your approval as
a member of the Board of Directors of the Area Agency on Aging.
ATTACHMENT:
Letter from Martin Seifert, Area Agency on Aging
I
Apel �, ,994 RiGC�.�'✓��.7
APR 19 1994
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Peg Pinard SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
West i sorra B City of San Luis Obispo
208 P. O. Box 8100
Santa Mari%CA-- - San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100
93454--'W ' .-
(805)925-9554.
Board of Directors Dear Ms. Pinard,
Martin
Sam'sante Mans The Bylaws of the Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens,Area Agency on
President Aging require that five of the twelve members of the Board of Directors be elected
Km Cees,Mom Bay from recommendations from five local political organizations.One of these
vm p"q&W organizations is San Luis Obispo City.
Beim sclml&M.D.,solvas,g
Arch Dana O�� This appointment process began in 1980.Joan Lawrence has served as the appointee
Tieasmc from the City of San Luis Obispo for the past four years. She is eligible for
reelection. Board policy has a limit of three two-year terms of office.
Members The intent of this letter is to request that the City recommend a person to serve on the
Chadang Chase.
Sam Barbara Board of Directors for a twoterm ear be Jul 1, 1994. The Commission's
Ardw Chrism Santa Barbara Y beginning Y
- , Gene cry Grover Beate . Bylaws require that at least a majority of the Board be over the age of 60,members
Joan Lawrenw,San Luis Obispo have demonstrated a commitment to working for the needs of elders,they have the
taonardo Pacheco,Santa Barbara ability to make important decisions concerning the needs of elders,they have
Mortimer Russel,Santa Mads, community credibility and can commit the time and energy necessary tO participate in
Bill storm.San tans Obispo the Board's activities .
Susan zea,San Luis Obispo The Board of Directors makes policy decisions in carrying out the functions of
programs planning,pooling, and coordinating mandated under the Older Americans Act in its
Area Agency on Aging role as the Area Agency on Aging . In addition,the Board of Directors oversees the
operations of the Central Coast Commission which include a Senior Employment
Elder Care Program, Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program and an Information
and ASsistance Program.
Health hamance The Board of Directors meets once a month and members ordinarily serve on one or
Counseling and two committees of the Board which meet at least once a month. In addition, the
'dV00acy Proms Commission seeks members for the Board that represent the community . This
(HIS) regards age,ethnicity and geographical representation .It will be appreciated if your
Senior appointment can be made prior to June 30, 1994.
Community service Thank you for your attention and continued cooperation . Please contact me at 925-
Employment Program 9554 for any additional information .
Sincerely,
Area � ,
A4 Martin Seifert,l'resint
Board of Directors
c: Joan Lawrence,Board of Directors
I�
United
way
/4N
4 �
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, May 3, 1994- 6:00 & 7:00 P.M.
C-9 PROPERTY ACQUISITION - BULLOCK LANE (File No. 168)
Council considered approving an agreement with the estate of Cecil Munch for the purchase of certain
real property located at 3220 Bullock Lane.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to authorize the Mayor to execute Agreement No.A-07-94-CC for purchase
of 3220 Bullock Lane; motion carried (5-0).
C-10 REGIONAL BUS SERVICE EXPANSION (File No. 1151)
Council considered San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency(SLORTA)alternatives relating
to expanded evening bus services to the north county.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to A) concur with San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
alternative 1, change route time; B) concur with SLOCOG alternative 3, delay until Cuesta Grade
Project; and C) oppose SLOCOG alternative 2, new evening service unless the new service is fully
funded by north county agencies; motion carried (5-0).
APPOINTMENTS
Al. APPOINTMENT TO AREA AGENCY ON AGING (File No. 123)
c'
Council considered appointing Joan Lawrence to a two-year tern on the Board of Directors for the
Area Agency on Aging.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to confirm appoint as recommended; motion carried (5-0).
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
C.L.R.1. Council Member Rauoa reviewed the Equal Opportunity Commission's annual needs
assessment and goal setting priorities, which showed the #1 unmet need in the City to be
employment opportunities and County-wide affordable housing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (File No. 462)
Council held a public hearing to consider revisions to the Lane Use Element of the General Plan
(continued from 3/28/94 and 4/5/94).
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the process to date.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Charlie West. Paso Robles, owner of San Luis Sourdough, stated that they had almost expanded in
Paso Robles because growth In San Luis Obispo is costly and �as other businesses move out, a
larger burden is left on those that remain.
Joy Anne F'dzhugh, representing the Farm Bureau, reviewed changes recommended in their letter
dated May 3, 1994.
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, May 3, 1994-6:00 & 7:00 P.M.
Bill Thoma. 1663 Colina Court, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated the preamble
suggested by the Environmental Quality Task Force was not appropriate to the Land Use Element plan
and expressed concern about inconsistencies with their proposals.
Ned Roaoway,representing the Chamber of Commerce General Plan Task Force,expressed concerns
that there was internal Inconsistencies and proper review stating that the Planning Commission was
the prime agent per state law, the expression of philosophy in the document should be counselled,
and the document must be internally consistent.
Pat Veesart. San Luis Obispo, stated that the community vote on issues do have a bearing on land
uses and urged Council to retain a healthy economic environment with small local and agricultural
businesses.
Andrew Miriam,4334 Wavertree,urged Council to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations
as they represented the broad goals of the community.
Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, member of the EOTF, clarified that various sessions were from
either existing Land Use Element or proposed draft wording that the Planning Commission had
considered, and stated their proposals were consistent with other adopted elements.
Dennis Schmidt, 396 Buckley Road, encouraged the allowance of phased development and made
111 various suggestions.
Kurt Kuppermember of the EQTF, stated that the election results accurately reflect the community
values and they had formatted their document to make their proposals easier to read.
Dave Garth.Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce,stated that less than 3%of the Planning
Commission draft was changed due to Chamber of Commerce suggestions,and that the Chamber's
participation was positive as it represented over 1100 businesses.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed the introduction to the Land Use Element.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to include the sentence "This pattern should be based on residents'
preference and on protection of natural assets unique to the planning area."; motion carried (4-1,
Council Member Romero voting no).
The History and Public Participation sections are acceptable as recommended by the Planning
Commission (general consent).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to Include the Background section proposed by the Environmental Quality
Task Force (EQT9; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no.)
Moved by Roalman/Settle to include the changes recommended by the EQTF to the San Luis
Obispo's Vision section,amended to read, 'Our vision is of a sustainable community within a diverse
natural and agrarian setting, which is part of a larger ecosystem upon which its existence
depends...valued by residents...preserve the relatively high levels of service,environmental qualityand
clean air valued by its resident and strive to provide additional resources as needed";motion carried
� J
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, May 3, 1994- 6:00 P.M. & 7:00 P.M.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt the Community Values section as recommended by the EQTF;
motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt the Preamble to the Land Use Element as recommended by the
EQTF, amended to add °large urban community'; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and
Roalman voting no).
8:30 PM Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
8:48 PM Council reconvened, all Council Members present.
Moved by Rappa/Romero to include the paragraph as recommended by the Economic Strategy Task
Force (ESTE) in the Society and Economy section (see pages 1A-2 and 1A-3 of the staff report);
motion was lost (2-3, Council Members Roalman, Settle and Mayor Pinard voting no.)
Moved by Settle/Romero to add the paragraph as recommended by the Economic Strategy Task Force
under the Society and Economy section (see pages 1A-2 and 1A-3 of the staff report) amended to
exclude the sentence,°Protection of the environment will depend on a healthy economy to pay for R.';
motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to include EQTF's recommendation on the Environment section, except
Rem 6a; motion carried (4-1, Council Member Rappa voting no).
Moved by Romero/Rappa to amend#13 of Society&Economy to delete°in proportions similar to the
whole County'; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt the Society and Economy section as proposed by the EQTF and
Planning Commission (with the amendment to#13); motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Rappa/Settle to amend #27 to °The boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban
development and surrounding open land should be clear."; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt the Planning Commissions recommendations for City Form; motion
carried (5-0).
Moved by Pinard/Settle to adopt the first sentence of the EQTF's version of section 2.1,Neighborhood
Protection and Enhancement,amending the first sentence to read,°The City shall assist residents to
identify and designate neighborhoods. The City will work with residents to prepare neighborhood
plans, to facilitate development of a sense of place within neighborhoods."; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt 2.1.2 through 2.1.5 of the Planning Commission and EQTF
recommended, amending 2.1.4 to replace °unbroken° with '.continuous°; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Pinard/Settle to adopt section 2.2.1 amended to add the sentence,'There shall be however,
no net loss of housing due to any conversion. It is our policy to preserve existing housing stock.';
motion carried (4-1, Council Member Rappa voting no.)
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt the EQTF's recommendation 2.2.2; motion carried (4-1, Council
Member Romero voting no.)
City Council Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, May 3, 1994- 6:00 P.M. & 7:00 P.M.
t !� Moved by Settle/Romero to adopt 2.2.3, 2.2.4 & 2.2.4(a) as written by the Planning Commission;
motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt 2.2.59 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 as amended by the EQTF amended to add,"with
no net loss of housing°; motion carried (4-1, Council Member Rappa voting no.)
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt 2.2.8 & 2.2.9, amend B. to include 'privacy and solar access';
motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt section 2.2.10 as recommended by the EQTF;motion carried (4-1,
Council Member Rappa voting no).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt section 2.2.11 (A-G)as recommended by the EQTF;motion carried
(5-0).
Moved by Pinard/Roalman to adopt section 2.2.11 (H) Noise and visual and barrier walls isolating the
project are not desirable. The developer needs to show how no other layout is possible to achieve
noise mitigation. Where walls are used,they should help create an attractive pedestrian/residential
setting through features such as setbacks,changes in alignment,detail and texture places for people
to walk through them at regular intervals and planting; motion carried (4-1, Council Member Romero
voting no.)
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt 2.2.11 (1); motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt 2.2.11 (1) as amended to read, 'Design elements that facilitate
neighborhood interaction. Examples include front porches,front yards along streets, and entryways
facing onto public walkways; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt 2.2.11 (J) and 2.2.12; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt 2.3.1 as recommended by the Planning Commission and EQTF;
motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt 2.3.1 (D-L); motion carried (4-1, Council Member Romero voting
no.)
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations for 2.3.2& 2.3.3;
motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt 2.3.4 with amendments proposed by the EQTF; motion carried (5-
Moved by Settle/Roalman to approve the Planning Commission recommendation for section 2.4 and
staff to bring in correspondence to us the Mayors suggestion (square footage density measurement
(Residential Density);staff to bring alternatives for a more operable system back;motion carried (4-1,
Mayor Pinard voting no).
Council discusses density bonuses, receiving sites and transfer development credits.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt table 4 and 2.4.2; motion carried (4-1, Mayor Pinard voting no).
o T
City Council Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, May 3, 1994- 6:00 P.M. & 7:00 P.M.
Moved by Settle/Roaiman to adopt section 2.4.3 through 2.4.6,amending the second sentence of 2.4.6
to read, "Medium density development is appropriate as a transition from low-density development
to higher densities,'; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt the remaining portions of page 29 of the Planning Commission;
section 2.4.8 of amended as recommended by the EQTF; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Rappa to adopt pages 30 & 31 of the Planning Commission recommendations,
amending section 2.7.2 to read, "Cuests. The City should encourage Cuesta College to facilitate
student housing.0; motion carried (5.0)
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt page 32 of the Planning Commission recommendation,amended by
the EQTF's suggestions, with the exception of 2.1.6 (C) (adopt the original Planning Commission
recommendation), amending section 2.1.4 to read Low and Medium Density Residential, and retitle
section 2.1.6 to"Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans", and adding 2.1.6 (A.1.1) Programs: The City
will help devise strategies to help stabilize rental/owner-occupied ratios to maintain neighborhood
character, safety and stability; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt page 43 of the Planning Commission's draft with the EQTF's
recommendations; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Rappa to adopt page 45 of the Planning Commission's draft; motion carried (4-1,
Council Member Romero voting no.)
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt pages 46 and 47 of the Planning Commission draft, with section
4.11 as recommended by the EQTF;motion carried (3-2,Council Members Rappa and Roalman voting
no.)
Council discussed future meetings to review the Land Use Element.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMA. John Dunn,City Administrative Officer,informed Council regarding ceremonial cannon
for the Railroad Celebration.
11:30 PM there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned
the meeting to Monday, May 9, 1994 at 1:15 PM for Closed Session in the Council Hearing Room.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL 5/31/94
ne R. G dwe City Clerk
DRG:cm
y
J
► 2. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (JONAS/462 - 3 hrs.)
Continued public hearing to consider revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
(Continued from 3/28/94 and 4/5/94.)
♦ RECOMMENDATION: By motion, direct staff to make appropriate changes to the February
1994 Draft General Plan Land Use Map.
Please bring agenda report and related material from previous meetings.
.t
f
t.
'EETINOr ;.. fAG1`�N4
DATE .5-3 ITEM #
MPA
AECEIVEk
MERRIAM PLANNING APR 2 81994
ASSOCIATES CITY OF SAN LUIS OMSK
CCMIMUNrTY DEVELOPMF
28 April, 1994
City Council of San-Luis Obispo C Nc; CDD DIR
C/o John Mandeville- Long Range Planning Manager ;.i Lc "�",n ❑ FIN DI�t
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ RRE CHIEF990 Palm StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1.1 P 1 M 4. 171 POLI';V—cFF
RE: San Luis Land Use Elements and EQTF comments: a PIE"Dill,
CJ CtJ.: i I
a,.. I;
Dear Mr.Mandeville:
I have reviewed the both the Planning Commission and the EQTF drafts of the General Plan update
and would like to submit the following comments for the City Council's consideration during the
final hearing process of the next few weeks.
1. Hearing Process: I understand that the City Council intends to take the less controversial item
first and then progress to the more difficult issues in the next few weeks. This seems reasonable
and I would like to identify the items that appear more controversial to me and those on which I
expect to take some time in presenting testimony:
a. Agricultural Issues and consistency of the previous Council directives with the EQTF
recommendations. (EQTF section 1.8 and other related language)
b. Growth Management of the non-residential sector- with reference to previous testimony to the
City Council the past three years, the staff report and the EQTF recommendations.
c. Annexation policies and the relocation of commercial uses into the South Higuera Street
Corridor- some components of the EQTF recommendations (e.g. 3.1.2a)were not considered
by the Planning Commission and will have to be remanded back to them for consideration and
inclusion within the EIR. Some infringe on private property rights and while perhaps desirable
will simply not happen(e.g. expecting MONY or J&B to build parking structures on their
property- for no additional compensation the losers will be the citizens of San Luis).
d. Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion(EQTF section 3.1.3 with additions)
This policy runs counter to City Council direction to planning staff at several different time and
negates a carefully crafted compromise that provides for the regional shopping needs of our
citizens, reduces air pollution by reducing driving and long range vehicle dependency as well
as giving up a significant component of sales tax which could help provide for many desirable
components of San Luis Obispo's quality of life.
7350 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo. California 93401 (805) 543-7057
Andrew G. Merriam, AIA, AICP
Action Requested: These items among other be scheduled for either May 10 or 17 and
specifically put on the agenda so that the public and the EQTF, if it wishes, can address them
point by point.
2. Issues of Secondary Concern: These issues are less important to the overall General Plan but I
believe that they do not appropriately belong in the General Plan documents as presented by the
EQTF.
a. Inclusion of history of citizen votes on growth management. (EQTF document page 3 and 4)
The General Plan is a working document of facts, policies and standards. It is not designed or
meant to be a pursuasive document for one position or another. This kind of argumentation
and/or justification is appropriate to the discussion surrounding the adoption of the policies.
Once adopted,however, only maps, policies and standards should remain. As a working
planning and architectural professional who uses this type of document daily, I find inclusion
of such material confusing, irrelevant and"preachy'. It is also wasteful of paper as well as
staff and consultant time.
Action Requested: Delete the voting history from the General Plan document. If City Council
feels it necessary to included this information, put it an appendix to the General Plan.
b. Reference to basis for tourism and similar wording : (EQTF additions Section 3.4.1)
The EQTF adds the wording "and not upon the creation of an artificial resort atmosphere". As
an architect, I agree with this concept and I even think I know what it means. However,
having prepared architectural guidelines for several communities(Morro Bay and Los Alamos)
and working on the County's Design Guidelines as a member of the advisory committee,I can
assure the Council that there may be wide disagreement of what"artificial resort atmosphere"
may mean. There have been time when the Spanish style of the past few years is considered
"artificial'by may architectural critics and yet this style is loved by many of our citizenry.
Action Requested: Either define more completely with examples or delete this type of
reference. This is but one example among several within the EQTF draft.
Sincerely, ,
Andrew G.Merriam, AIA, AI
CP
Principal
iffrij
AGENDA
DATE ITEM # -==jjjjZ1ATF.CH
CORPORATION
COUNVIL CDD
DIR
0 FiN DIA
Apfil28, 1994 0 FIRE CPIEF
F.
r _ POLICE C
An open letter to
_HF'
Peg Pinard, Mayor
i_1 cErl Dil::
San Luis Obispo City Hall v FSA-,
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor,
I want to convey to you my intense displeasure and dismay at your actions concerning the
recommendations of your Economic Stabilization Task Force. After hand picking all
members of the team and assuring us that you and the City Council were serious about the
economic situation and what could be done to improve it, you have chosen not only to
ignore our findings but to insult us as well by only paying attention to the highly biased
Environmental Quality Task Force and their dabbling with the LUE process.
The Econ task force was composed of a variety of view points and all of the business
members went out of our way to include desirable environmental and social
recommendations in order to balance the triangle and support our Mission Statement.
While Pat Veesart could never bring himself to be part of the consensus, the rest of us
found a good balance that we could support. On the other hand the Environmental task
force is not composed of a variety of views and has not considered the economic situation
at all in their considerations.
Why did you constitute that task force with such one-sided focus?Why are you ignoring
the results of the Economic Stabilization Task Force?Why are you focusing on crippling
the hand that feeds San Luis Obispo (the business community is what brings the money
into the city and into its coffers)by obviously favoring the ill-defined and repressive 1%
commercial growth cap?Who pays most of the salaries in town and who supports the
non-profits, directly or indirectly through employees' contributions?Business!
I and my Econ task force teammates spent hundreds of hours at your behest trying to
better the outlook for San Luis Obispo. Now it's your turn to follow up and do something
that will assure that the city can pay for the environmental quality it wants--acknowledge
and support the Economic Task Force recommendations.
Sincerely,
a j
Bert Forbes
President
cc: Members of the City Council
Editor, Telegram Tribune
Corporate Headquarters
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo,California 93401 USA
FAX(805)541-5088-Telephone(805)541-0488
71N , �j AGENDA
lit, E ��� > ITEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro &reel a San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth,
Executive Director
April 29 1994 ARR 2 Q I°94
p ' I.CITY COUNCIL n v' DD DIR
C�
SAN LUIS 061SP0,CA u C1 RN DIR
M. ❑ RRE CHIEF
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo r,i ;� . ::�. ra F.1LI ct:r
990 Palm Street ❑ r. aE .:
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 c _ ti:T1f : I
...-..W.."�iC•.1"fir_�:-":
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The issue before you over the course of the next few weeks, the update of the General
Plans Land Use Element,will likely be difficult. The decisions you make will chart the
course for our City's future for some time to come. We trust that you will be mindful of
your charge to bring balance to our community. The Chamber feels strongly that
"quality of life" embraces the balance of environmental standards, economic vitality,
and social well being.
The Chamber of Commerce is asking for your support of the Planning Commission
Draft Land Use Element as forwarded to you for your review. The Chamber believes
that this document,which has received the proper public review and input, reflects a
balanced Land Use Element.
The Chamber of Commerce has actively participated in the review process and public
hearings on the Land Use Element. The Chamber has worked openly throughout this
process. As a result, our position has been subject to review by all. We have debated
at length the language of nearly every line of the proposed Planning Commission draft.
This Planning Commission document contains a great deal of compromise which was
reached as a direct result of the public hearing process. While there are areas that the
Chamber of Commerce does not support, the Chamber finds this document to be an
acceptable compromise, and one that truly reflects the level of balance that our
community deserves.
We are aware that you have before you a substantial rewrite of the Land Use
Element from the city's advisory body on the environment— the Environmental
Quality Task Force (EQTF). Since these recommendations'have not been subjected
to the normal public review process,we ask that you treat such recommendations
ACCREDITED
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
C—.1.o• C0=E Cx
a 1.[l.,TED sl.1rs
as testimony with no more weight than any other public testimony. Due to the
lack of any measurable public review, these recommendations do not contain the
balance and consensus that was derived in the Planning Commission's draft.
Please see Exhibit A regarding the process, clarity and consistency requirements for
General Plans as dictated by the State of California Governor's General Plan
Guidelines.
In reference to the EQTF's recent Town Hall meeting, the task force did not invite
public comment on its document. The meeting was structured to allow questions
only. The format for more than half the meeting entailed explanation of the EQTF
philosophy as opposed to subjecting EQTF recommendations to public discussion.
While this meeting met the legal noticing requirements, it was not adequately
advertised to encourage community input. For these reasons, the EQTF
recommendations still lack measurable public review.
Due to the seriousness of the EQTF's recommendations, the Chamber is compelled
to respond to those which would result in significant negative impact to our
community. For your information, the Chamber's Land Use Task Force has
requested a joint meeting with the Environmental Quality Task Force. A mutually
acceptable date is yet to be determined. Please see Exhibit B for the Chamber's
specific comments and concerns on various EQTF's recommendations.
In closing, the Chamber of Commerce accepts and supports the Planning
Commission draft of the Land Use Element. The Chamber urges Council to take the
steps necessary to assure that a good General Plan, and most specifically, a good
Land Use Element, is adopted. We look to you to lead the way to the future with
vision and forethought that truly balances economic well being along with social
and environmental considerations.
Resectfully,
William A. Thoma,Vice President of Legislative Division
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
EXHIBIT A
Consistency Requirements
ON THE ISSUE OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
According to the Government Code (Section 65350, et.seq. ) , the
Planning Commission is the only body authorized to make a written
recommendation to approve the General Plan (or element) to the
City Council. It shall recommend approval only after an
affirmative vote by a majority of its full membership. Once the
Planning Commission approves the recommendation, the General Plan
(or element) shall be sent to the City Council .
Other recommendations can be accepted as testimony at the
hearings of the Planning Commission or the City Council. If the
Council decides to consider amending the General Plan after
hearing the recommendation, it must first determine whether the
amendment was considered by the Planning Commission during its
hearing. If the proposed amendment was not considered by the
Planning Commission during its hearing, the Council must return
the document to the Planning Commission for consideration before
the Council acts to adopt the General Plan (or element) . In
order to verify this circumstance, something should appear in
the minutes of the Planning Commission showing this
consideration or testimony from the Commission membership should
be given.
Testimony from other bodies may be directed or authorized by
Council action, but their recommendations (received as testimony)
cannot be considered for adoption with the same standing as the
Planning Commission recommendation. The testimony from those
other bodies must follow the format as prescribed by the
Government Code.
ON THE ISSUE OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
A General Plan for a City must be comprehensive. Not only must
the content of the General Plan be a balanced treatise on subject
material but it also must be comprehensive in scope. One of the
elements of comprehensiveness is the territorial relationships of
the plan. That is; where the city has police power
jurisdiction, where the city has immediate influence, and where
the city has a planning interest. These three areas are
specifically defined in San Luis Obispo County by the City
Limits, by the city' s Urban Reserve Line and by the Planning Area
as defined by the County.
Obviously, to properly complete a City General Plan there must be
close coordination between the City and the County, both of whom
have General Plan Mandates. Jurisdictional coordination is
critical to the proper preparation of the General Plan. The
California Government Code mandates this coordination and makes
sure the jurisdictions are acting in concert.
In 1975, The Legislature reaffirmed the unitary nature of the
general plan by instituting the "consistency" concept as part of
the basic general plan law.
"In construing the provisions of this article, the
Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts
thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies for the adopting agencies. "
(Govt Code,Section 65300.5)
The consistency concept has five dimensions which governs the
structure of the general plan:
1. There is equal status among general plan elements.
That is, no element is subordinate to the other elements. Nor
can any element take precedence over another element.
Consequently, potential conflicts between or among the elements
must be resolved through clear language and policy consistency.
2. All general plan elements must be consistent with each
other. For example, , The circulation element must address
problems created by the land use element. The general plain' s
assumptions, projections, and standards must be uniform.
Whenever a jurisdiction adopts or updates an element or amends
the plan, it must reconcile the rest of the adopted general plan
to the new wording by eliminating any inconsistencies. The
result of this critical review should be revealed to the
legislative bodies before adoption of the new wording.
3. There is internal consistency within the element.
Each element ' s data. analyses, goals, policies, and
implementation programs must be consistent and complement one
another. This objective is the most critical of all consistency
findings. If there is intended to be amendments considered during
Page two
Consistency
the hearings process, then the consideration of proposed
amendments should begin with a scouring of the rest of the
element to determine if any inconsistencies have arisen from the
new language.
4 . There is internal consistency with the area plan.
All principles, goals, objectives, policies and plan proposals
within the area defined as the planning area must be consistent
with the city plan. This dimension may be one of the most
difficult to achieve because often there is more than one
jurisdiction involved in the planning process. The general plan
must contain a discussion of the role of area plans and their
relationship to the general plan.
So too must area plans within the general plan be consistent with
the general plan. That is. Specific Plans, Precise Plans, master
plans of property shall be consistent with the general plan.
5. There is consistency between the text, diagrams, charts
and maps describing the general plan.
All of the integral parts of the general plan must agree and
complement the other parts. A general plan with written policies
and programs that conflict with its corresponding diagrams or-
plans is internally inconsistent. Having these inconsistencies
present makes the plan ambiguous and impossible to administer.
Fore instance, where a plan says, . . . . . undeveloped prime
_= agricultural land within the city' s urban reserve line shall be
permanently preserved for agricultural use. . . . . ; and the land use
map shows much prime agricultural land designated for other uses,
is a gross inconsistency that must be resolved in the general
plan.
Following a literal review of the EQTF draft proposals to the
Planning Commission recommended draft of the Land Use Element, we
find a number of internal inconsistencies, most of which are
created by changing the meaning of policies contained in the P.C.
draft. These inconsistencies late to major issues defined in the
Plan, such as;
Maintaining the role of the city as the Regional center by
limiting the growth of regional facilities and ancillary uses.
Commercial, transportation, health, education, financial, and
tourism.
Removing reasonable uses from private property by stringent
policies which overly restricts reasonable property development.
Creating ambiguous language in major policy statements which
become subject to wide ranges of interpretation and
administrative implementation.
ON THE ISSUE OF CLARITY AND COMPREHENSION
The EQTF has used their opportunity to comment on the Draft Land
Use Element. Within that draft they have expressed statements of
philosophy, dogma and tenet to advance the cause of the
importance of environmental issues . One would believe after
reading their recommendations that environmental pursuits take
precedence over other aspects of the Land Use Element. However,
the preparation of General Plans are subjected to a body of state
laws describing the nature and scope of the General Plan process.
" (Local governments) must prepare comprehensive, long term
general plans for the development of their communities and
approved projects must be consistent with these plans. "
To assist local governments in this process the Governors Office
of Planning and Research prepared the State of California General
Plan Guidelines . These Guidelines are used by affected agencies
and people to establish the standards and level of competence for
all parts of the General Plan. In our evaluations of draft plans
we must equate the document to the standards prescribed by the
Guidelines. When one does this certain precepts become obvious:
1. The Plan must be professionally conceived and its
contents clear, succinct, unambiguous and comprehensive.
2. The Plan must not be used as a vehicle to espouse a
dogma, philosophy, or sounding board for any given interest
group.
3. The Plan must be an expression from the adopting body as
if the plan was a description of their composite views on the
future composition and character of the area.
4 . The Plan must be a logical evaluation of all issues
affecting the area, and it must express practical resolution of
conflicting objectives and it must formulate a balanced pattern
of land uses and services to satisfy the social and functional
needs of the populace.
In San Luis Obispo, the City Council is the adopting authority.
The General Plan of the City evolves as an expression of the
composite views of the Council members. The expressions printed
in the adopted Plan are made in first person by the Council
because the Council is not engaged in the artful pursuit of
favor, it is their expression of what the future City is about.
The Plan carries the weight of a command to the Plan implementors
and the tone of the stated policies and objectives are directive.
There need be few explanations and no diatribes about why they
did what they did. As stated before, in order to succeed in this
effort, the policies and objectives must be clear, succinct,
unambiguous and comprehensive.
EXHIBIT B
Chamber of Commerce Comments on EQTF Document
INTRODUCTION TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
p. 2 Background to Land Use Element Update
Concern: The background language added expresses opinions rather than
facts and does not have any place in a land use element. This
section must be deleted.
p. 3 Community Values
Concern Interpretation of election results from history are not valid and are
not necessarily representative of the population or current
community sentiment. This section has no relevance to land use
planning.
p. 5 Preamble to Land Use Element
Concern: The proposed added language is judgmental and prejudicial. This
preaching has no place in the Land Use Element.
COMMUNITY GOALS
p. 7 6a.
Concern: Preserving ag land within the urban reserve line is internally
inconsistent with this document and community goals of Compact
Urban Form. This proposal will not result in achieving the
intended long-term goal of open space and greenbelt acquisition.
p. 8 Society and Economy
Concern 1: As rewritten, this is acceptable but should it should be in addition
to Planning Goal#10 as originally worded.
p. 11 1.0
Concern: This deals with municipal and environmental issues and lacks any
discussion of social, economic or regional concerns. Overall, this
statement lacks balance.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
p. 11 1.0.2
Concern: This is an issue which belongs in the resource protection section of
this document.
p. 12 1.5
Concern: How can we ignore our neighbors. We can not resort to
isolationism.
p. 12 1.6.1
Concern: This issue belongs in Open Space and Conservation section
p. 12 1.7.2
Concern: The addition of the word "passive" significantly changes the
meaning.
p. 12 1.7.4
Concern: Creates an internal inconsistency, and the addition of the work"no"
new parcels is all inclusive.
p. 12 1.7.5
Concern: This regulation already exists in current County regulations. This
section is unnecessary and the rationale is untrue.
p. 13 1.8
Concern: The modified language makes the document internally
inconsistent.
p. 13 1.8.1
Concern: In general, preserving ag land within the city is inconsistent with
urban development. The few acres of ag land within the city will
never have a significant impact on San Luis Obispo's food supply
or security.
p. 13 1.8.2
Concern: The maps continue to show prime ag land in other urban type land
uses.
p. 14 1.9
Concern: Inconsistent with language in policy 1.7.4
p. 14 1.9.4B
Concern: This is meaningless added language.
p. 15 1.9.4D
Concern: Previous language is appropriate. The word "sensitive" can be
interpreted too broadly.
p. 15 1.11.2
Concern: Has changed from a permissive language statement to a mandate;
the meaning has been skewed. .
p. 16 1.11.3
Concern: We can not ignore what might happen after 20 years.
p. 16 1.11.4
Concern: Please reference the City Staff Report on this issue dated 3/28/94
as written by John Mandeville and supported by the Chamber.
The proposed policy creates major internal consistency in the draft.
p. 17 1.12
Concern: Changes made are unrealistic and improper.
p. 18 1.13
Concern Added language is inappropriate and internally inconsistent. Land
use outside the City is permitted.
p. 20 1.13.5G
Comment: Chamber continues to support the Planning Commission draft
language.
p. 21 1.14
Concern: Language added is redundant of original language.
p. 22 1.16.2
Concern Changes are unnecessary. This is already being done.
p. 22 1.16.6
Concern: Planning by initiative process does not allow for proper urban
development and hearing processes.
p. 23 1.17.1A
Concern: This is a matter for ordinance administration and does not belong
in the General Plan.
p. 24 1.17.4
Concern: The legality of this statement is in question.
p. 25 CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS
Concern: It is not possible to mandate or legislate social ecology." Several
inconsistencies are evident in the proposed language throughout
this section. For example, 2.2.111.1 regarding front porches,
should not be mandated by general policy. The city should
empower neighborhoods not dictate what those neighborhoods
are.
p. 35 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
We strongly urge that in considering this action of the LUE that equal
consideration to the Economic Strategy Task Force recommendations in addition
to the EQTF testimony.
The economic and social impacts of the added EQTF language have not been
addressed and must be.
The concept of expanding the downtown area may have merit,but lacks
foundation as written in the proposed language. In general, the comments lack
reasonable implementation means and may be impractical.
p. 36 3.1.3
Concern: The Chamber supports the concept of creating expanded regional
shopping opportunities and these should be located in the
Madonna ranch area to keep pace with regional needs.
p. 38 3.2.3
Concern: This is internally inconsistent with proposed language on page 25,
policy 2.2.1.
p. 38 3.2.4
Concern The City has no business intervening in operations of private
businesses.
p.38 3.4.1
Concern: Internally inconsistent. The language is ambiguous and
inappropriate. The statements are judgmental of tourism.
p. 42 3.5.7 A and B
Concern: Creates internal consistency.
p. 45 3.7.2 b
Concern: The ESTF recommendations should be considered. The Chamber
supports the expansion of the Madonna Road regional facilities.
p. 45 3.7.6
Concern: This is internally inconsistent with section 2.1.1
p. 45 3.7.8
Concern: EQTF language is inconsistent with longstanding city policy.
DOWNTOWN
p. 47 4.2.1
Concern: The changed wording from Downtown to Commercial Core does
not provide enough receiver sites opportunities. Acceptable areas
outside the commercial core should also be considered.
p. 50 4.11
Concern: The enhancement of San Luis Creek is what makes our community
unique. This language would prevent the further beautification of
our City. The setback requirements are unacceptable to existing
buildings.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
p. 57 6.0.1
Concern: Language is inappropriate for a General Plan.
6.0.2
Concern This is an unnecessary statement in a policy document.
6.1.1
Concern: Internally inconsistent
6.1.6
Concern: This policy is not legal since it is inverse condemnation.
p. 67 6.2.6 k. (2)
Concern: This does not belong in the General Plan and is a city and land
owner matter. this requirement is likely illegal.
6.2.6 k (3)
Concern: The entire paragraph does not belong in the General Plan. It is a
specific zoning issue.
p. 71 6.4.3 D 1
Concern: We are concerned about the administration of this issue for specific
properties. It may not be appropriate in many situations.
p. 73 6.5.1
Concern: Greater setbacks than those existing must be thoroughly reviewed.
p. 74 6.5.7
Concern: Addition of non-governmental agencies in inappropriate.
AIRPORT AREA
p. 79 7.3
Concern: The requirement for a specific plan prior to annexation is not
appropriate for the airport area but should be required prior to
development along with a phasing plan.
7.4
Concern: Cannot mandate outside the urban reserve line. This is internally
inconsistent.
OPTIONAL USE AND SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS
p. 83 Concern: In general, the Planning Commission draft adequately addresses
these areas.
p. 83 11.1
Concern: This is inverse condemnation and a serious property rights issue.
p. 83 8.1
Concern: This additional section is completely inconsistent with other
policies and city goals.
p. 87 9.3 D
Concern: Planning Commission draft language is proper and section
proposed D1 is unnecessary.
p. 92 Greenbelt Definition
Concern: This definition makes the LUE internally inconsistent.
MEET AGENDA
DATE �'3`9� ITEM #
April 29, 1994 cGy,^ L DD DSR
AD FN DIR
Mayor Pinard ❑ FIRE CHIEF )
Council Members Rappa, Roalman, Romero and Settle ' ' "Y I °' Dlrl '+
City Hall - �_:i_.,.:>;:..� F�,LI;;c ru��,•
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Mayor and Council Members: -
Recently the City Council met to consider the land use element of the General Plan
that was prepared after years of public input and effort by the Planning Commission.
Instead of the expected discussion of the Planning Commission document, the council had
its attention diverted to a hastily prepared alternative document offered by the
Environmental Quality Task Force. I wish to express a number of concerns to you as you
meet Tuesday to consider adopting the plan that will guide land use in San Luis Obispo at
least for the next decade.
The council is very close to missing an opportunity to provide the political
leadership that could lead to a plan that could move this community past the strident
discord that for many years has characterized debate over the issue of growth.
A successful plan will, of necessity, be characterized by compromise and by
respectful consideration of competing needs and viewpoints of the various elements in the
city.
Mayor Pinard; a year ago you and the council responded to concerns over the
economy of the city by appointing an Economic Stability Task Force. I agreed to serve on
that task force because you were quite persuasive in stating your intention to lead this
community in the direction of such a consensus. I wholeheartedly endorsed the concept of
appointing to that committee not only business people but also representatives of
agriculture, quality neighborhoods, education and conservation.
Through many months of diligent effort I believe we were largely successful in
developing recommendations for the council's consideration that reflected acceptable
compromise on many vital issues. There was a genuine concern among all the members of
that group to respect the needs of all elements of the triangle representing economic,
social and environmental concerns. The document was harder to draft because of this
process, but emerged a stronger proposal because the recommendations were tested by
input from all major elements in our community.
Mayor Pinard, in establishing the Environmental Quality Task Force you and the
council failed to appoint such a broad-based group for developing proposals for protecting
the environmental quality in San Luis Obispo. Their recommendations consequently did
not undergo the discipline of being tested against multiple viewpoints.
VEL)
APR 2 9 1994
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISFO,CA
-.r
Furthermore, the last minute injection of the EQTF report into consideration of the
Planning Commission's land use element proposal has created the image of a sky jacking
of the process by a single interest group. Where in the EQTF report is the balance of the
triangle that the Economic Stability Task Force used to guide its discussions? Where is
the acknowledgment that part of the quality of life in San Luis Obispo includes having
quality jobs available and healthy businesses that need to exist and grow in San Luis
Obispo with adequate land and infrastructure and reasonable regulation and taxation?
Where is the recognition that many desirable 'quality-of-life' programs, such as the
recently proposed $41,000,000 bicycle path program, can only be realized if this city and
county has a very healthy economy? I am convinced that in San Luis Obispo it is possible
to maintain quality of life here and still have a reasonable measure of growth. But your
political leadership is very much needed if there is to be any chance at all of reaching
consensus on this issue and incorporating it into a land use element that can be broadly
supported by the community.
Secondarily, I would like to raise some individual issues concerning the land use
element:
1. I consider imposition of a 1 per cent cap on non-residential growth to be a very
serious mistake for our community. There will be endless debate on whether to
regulate on basis of building area, number of employees, sales dollars, or other
measures. Measurement of whatever yardstick is chosen will be time-consuming
and costly and could easily lead to inequitable enforcement. There will be
constant pressures on the council to make exceptions for one reason or another.
The EQTF has already said they wouldn't apply the limit to existing businesses.
There's the first exception. There will be a parade of more such requests.
Many businesses will consider adoption of such a regulation to represent an
environment hostile to their presence in San Luis Obispo. Any business with
substantial prospects for future growth would be very hesitant to locate or plan
for long term expansion in our city. Businesses each have unique growth
patterns, and when the need for additional space is needed, its plans can't be
held hostage to the city's decision to approve a large development earlier in the
year.
2. Proceeding with annexation of the Margarita and Airport areas would be very
important to many of the manufacturing businesses with which I am most
familiar. I also believe that plans for expansion of retail businesses in Dalidio
area or along Los Osos Valley Road should be accommodated in the plan to
assure a healthy retail base for the city economy.
3. The hostility toward new businesses that is apparent in the EQTF document is
also very troubling to me. There is an ebb and flow to businesses. We have
seen in recent years many businesses like Rileys and XTree disappear from our
community. And, it can take many years for new businesses to achieve long-
term viability. Rates of survival are less than 10% after 5 years nation-wide.
Consequently, any community concerned with long-term economic stability
should have a policy that encourages new companies, either local start-ups or
outside companies seeking expansion sites. San Luis Obispo should welcome
such new businesses to some extent, then support them through reasonable city
policies, not chase them away.
4. I believe that the intense attention in the EQTF document to preservation of
prime agricultural land and nature resources within the boundaries of the urban
reserve is inappropriate. The very concept of city implies a concentration of
residential and commercial units in an area that it will be accepted for such
activity.
The real issue is protection of agricultural and natural resources outside that
reserve and our community should have the willingness to put its money where
its mouth is and commit substantial financial resources to providing that
protection through such concepts as acquisition of development rights.
To all of you on the council, I ask for your firm leadership for the community in the vital
matter of the land use element.
Sincere yours,
Lauren R. Brown
Member, Economic Stability Task Force
P.S. Allen, I have submitted this to the Telegram-Tribune as an open letter since I feel
that it can also serve to educate the general public on this point of view. I will also be
presenting a summary of these concerns Tuesday evening. I would also like to renew my
invitation for you to visit our company and meet with some of our staff. I will give you a
call next week to see if we might be able to schedule a visit.
MW INB AlitNUA
DA = r" s'.`f ITEM #. .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
a CCU"." R-CDD DiR
Ct:O ❑ FIN DA F
April 29, 1994 2'=:c�c ❑ PRE CHIEF
TO: John Dunn, Cts%
F2 ' 77LI RE"
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director 0
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manag
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - EQTF proposals involving consistency issues,
referral to Planning Commission, or additional environmental review (May
3 hearing)
SITUATION
Staff has been asked to identify features of the draft Land Use Element recommended by the
Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) which:
Raise issues of consistency within or among General Plan elements or other adopted
policies;
May need to be referred to the Planning Commission, because the Planning Commission
did not discuss them;
May need additional environmental review, because the potential impacts have not been
addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or the EIR Supplement.
Requirements for consistency, for Planning Commission consideration, and for environmental
review are established by State law.
Staff has been asked to identify these items as the Council proceeds through the draft element,
and to provide a written summary of the features, and recommended wording to address
potential inconsistencies, before the meetings. It is staff's understanding that the Council intends
to discuss the following parts of the draft Land Use Element at the May 3 hearing: Introduction;
Community Goals; Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods; Downtown.
Staff will provide additional evaluation of the EQTF features for parts expected to be discussed
at future meetings.
RESPONSE
Page* Item Concern
5 Vision Consistency/clarity: May want to define "sustainable."
Recommendation: Add a definition of "sustainable," as follows.
Sustainable means meeting the needs of present residents without
compromising the ability of future residents to meet their needs.
5 Vision Consistencylclariy: Regarding the elimination of "strive to provide
adequate resources," the Council has given direction to obtain additional
water supply as a high priority City effort.
The proposed text represents a change in the vision for how the City will
plan for buildout of the Land Use Map. The two versions presented seem
to represent a dichotomy in visions between finding additional resources
to facilitate achieving the planned buildout v. an emphasis on preserving
existing resources and allowing additional development as resources
become available through conservation efforts.
Recommendation: No additional language is needed. (The existing and
proposed language leave open the approaches of making more efficient use
of existing resources and making additional resources available.)
7 Goal 6a Consistency/clarity: This goal does not say the same thing as following
policies concerning prime soils (EQTF draft, page 13, new policy 1.8.2).
Recommendation: If the concepts of preserving prime soils within the city
limits and urban reserve line are supported, revise the goal as follows.
6a. Preserve remaining undeveloped prime agricultural soils within the
tiio ' 1I .
Cit and urban re
serveye s€as " ::::,:.;.:i �:.; ..>� o
deve apinent, larger a t,vunt xs pern ani✓nit' preserved orf the
gree��el�.
* of the EQTF draft
Page* Item Concern
26 Policy 2.2.7 Consistency/clarity: The unqualified addition of "wildlife habitats" may
not be consistent with the Open Space Element.
Recommendation: Clarify the policy as follows.
2.2.7 Natural Features Residential developments should preserve and
incorporate as amenities site features, such as land forms, views, creeks,
sssss;s:•s:o:asr�.;s:.s,:.s:.::.::.s:.r•;cs»r sssss:a;�:.<.�:.:s,::.:ss:':,:�ss:::;.s;:.:<:..s>sr.::�•:o:vs;::. .:;.s:.:.s:.s:.s:.sss:.s:.;s:csss:<csss:n
$ Tants w .:.s>:s:a senfz�r :r< riS:::art. »::unt. ....;»: es+ urcc::::>:aS
P :::::.::::::::::::::::a:.:::::.:.:::::: : : .:. ...<........... . .. .:.::..:....::.:.::.............
::::: :.:.:.. ...............:.::::.:::::::::.... .:.........:::................. ::
27 Policy 2.2.10 Consistency/clarity: The unqualified addition of "wildlife habitats, native
vegetation" may not be consistent with the Open Space Element.
Recommendation: Clarify the policy as follows.
2.2.10 Site Constraints Residential developments shall respect site
constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks
and wetlands, and sensttxve)�abxtats an i unique resources de.5 an tt e
.... ..... . . .... . .
29 Policy 2.4.1 Planning Commission consideration: The Planning Commission discussed
exclusion of "sensitive features" of the type listed in the Commission's
recommended draft, but not the broader "sensitive ... plants and animals"
(which has a specific meaning as used in the Open Space Element). Also,
excluding presently unidentified, but possibly substantial additional, area
from density calculations could reduce build-out capacity, and therefore
consistency with sections such as Table 2 and Table 3.
Recommendation: Refer to Planning Commission for evaluation and
report before adopting.
50 Policy 4.11 Consistency/clarity: The term "restore" in the first sentence typically
implies returning to a natural condition. With regard to San Luis Obispo
Creek as it runs through the downtown, Open Space Element Policy
B.1.A.1. (p. 22) states that expansion of Mission Plaza should not result
in significant biological impacts and should allow for the maintenance of
existing habitat values as well as human enjoyment. New facilities,
including new benches, trails, viewing stations are anticipated. This
policy is presented as an exception to a citywide policy to preserve and
maintain creeks in essentially a natural state. The proposed use of the
term "restore" in the LUE would conflict with the direction provided in
the Open Space Element.
* of the EQTF draft
Enforcing "a reasonable building setback from the riparian zone" is not
the same as allowing reconstruction in the footprint of nonconforming
buildings, as provided in the Open Space Element, policy B.1.E(4).
Recommendation: The Planning Commission added term "enhanced"
would be more consistent with the direction provided in the Open Space
Element.
Reconsider the question of desired setbacks in the context of opening
covered or tightly confined portions of San Luis Obispo Creek in the
downtown, as a long-term objective, and give staff direction.
gm:LUE-MMEM
R�EETI G ,,AGENDA
E ,3 71'ITEM #
CFFN COUNCIL
SF.Ci L iS CEISPO, CA UNCIL DD DIM
JOM arFIN DIM
3580.Sueldo Street Sun Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 FIRE CHIEF
/"7nm PW SIR
�d CLEII�AMIO O POLICE CHF
❑ YGMT TEAM O REC DIM
May 2, 1994 U C�`ADFILE O UTILDIM
O PERS DIM
Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard;
Council Members Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman, Dave Romero,
and Allen Settle;
City Hall, San Luis Obispo
Dear Mayor Pinard, Council Members Rappa, Roalman, Romero and
Settle
We were recently provided with a copy of a letter sent to you by
Lauren Brown, who was a member of your Economic Stability Task
Force, addressing his concerns about the Land Use Element of the
city's General Plan and specifically the involvement of and
recommendations by the Environmental Quality Task Force. Lauren,
in addition to being a fellow business person and neighbor, is also a
member of our manufacturers and distributors association.
After reviewing Lauren's letter, we'd like to go on record as
wholeheartedly endorsing his comments to you; we could not have
said them better. Please consider them carefully and with the
understanding that many people in this community have similar
sentiments. We are not all represented by the Environmental Quality
Task Force. Your leadership in bringing balance to the economic,
environmental and social concerns of this community is needed now
more than ever and we look to you to bring that balance as you vote
on this most important issue.
Sincerely,
Dave and Charlie West, Owners
SAN LUIS SOURDOUGH
805 543.6142 1.800 266..SOUR fax 805 543.12 79
J11JG IGENDA
DATE EM #
�Y cre.� DL POLY
(.
-;Ty r.C:piVl.ii
CAL]FORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL .
�
SAN Luis C � ❑ FIN
CA 93407 DIR DIR
ADVINISTRATION SL FINANCE D1V151ON ❑ FIRE CHIEF
(SO5) 756-2171 FAX: (805) 7i6.7560
400MEY ❑ FW&IR
i( 0 O POUCE CNF
May 2, 1994 ❑ ~TEAM ❑ XEC ON
❑ C READ FIDE ❑ UTIL DMI
F I�� ❑ PERS DMI
Peg Pinard
Mayor
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Pinard:
In anticipation of the forthcoming City Council deliberations on the General Plan Land Use
Element, I wish to offer comment on three items of current concern to Cal Poly as reflected in
the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) draft modifications to the Land tse Element.
The first concern of interest to Cal Poly is under Item 1.8.2 - Prime Agricultural Land. The
statement as presented by EQTF suggests that "undeveloped, prime agricultural land within the
City's urban reserve line shall be permanently preserved for agricultural use, subject to the
following exception..." Since the urban reserve as currently defined by the City encompasses
substantial portions of Cal Poly land currently under agricultural production, it is important that
the plan reflect the long-standing intent of the University to responsibly assess any anticipated
development of prime ag land consistent with the University's facility master plan. As has been
true in the past, the City has had representation on the Campus Planning Committee, and we
would anticipate continuation of the consultative relationship we have enjoyed with the City
through that mechanism.
The second item of issue is Item 1.12 and 1.12.2 which references proposed expansion of nearby
governmental institutions. The operative language in 1.12.1 suggests that the City should be
apprised of proposed expansions of these institutions and requests that expansions not be
undertaken unless they are coordinated with City and County general plans and possible revision
to the plans. The City has long known of Cal Poly's enrollment master planning targets, and
these have not changed. Item 1.12.2 suggests that Cal Poly should stabilize enrollment at 1994
levels. This is clearly not consistent with the already approved enrollment master plan and the
Land Use Element, if it is to reference enrollment levels at Cal Poly, it would be reflective of
the long standing master plan ceiling that we have openly shared with•local jurisdictions.
TycCA:.I1: )rV7 1. .:i,.111`%l\!R11-,;
Lastly, Item 2.7.1 states that "California Polytechnic State University campus should provide
housing opportunities for both faculty and students. Existing on-campus housing should be
retained. On-campus housing should increase at least as fast as enrollment so the proportion of
students living on campus can remain the same as in 1992." The University and the City
embarked upon a joint housing study addressing student housing concerns and the University has
taken steps to implement, within fiscal constraints, some of the proposals outlined in the
consultant's recommendations. The University will continue to assess the impact on the
community relative to the on-campus housing of students. We continue to be concerned that
faculty not be isolated from the community in which they are contributing productive members
any more than we would anticipate the workforce of other significant employers in the area to
be geographically isolated from the community in with which they interact. This does not
preclude our ongoing interest in and exploration of faculty housing opportunities with the
primary intent being to seek affordable housing for the purpose of recruiting and retaining a
quality faculty.
We appreciate the .opportunity to provide input to the plan, and we hope that the ultimate
language of the plan can accommodate the concerns expressed herein.
Sincerely,
EL
Frank Lebens — �_J
Vice President for
Administration & Finance
.9
ENDA
2
?,„g 1e,0s4zT J
DATE - _ . .'_ �1 #
20
r. r. N1 D E s 1 c N c r. 0 U P
9 9 4
May 2, 1994
0.
` C IL POEDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard 71 ny 2 1991 ■ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo ;_1n• c;,:_1vCIL ❑ PW DIR
990 Palm Street °- ` °' CA RWMG ❑ POUCE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C F�E� ❑ UTIL DIR
Re: Margarita Expansion Area General Plan Update ❑ PERSDIR
Dear Mayor Pinard:
As a follow-up to our letter submitted March 24, 1994 to Mr. John Mandeville, and our
testimony given in public at the March 28, 1994 Council hearing, we wish to reiterate our
support of the recommendations made by Staff and the Planning Commission concerning
Policy 1.13.3 and Policy 2.3.3. Additionally, we would still like to request that Policy 1.3.4
entitled "Development and Services” be changed to read:
"Actual development in a major annexation area may proceed in accordance with the goals of
policies described in this General Plan as long as development of the annexation area does not
result in a reduction of services or cause an increase in the cost of such services to existing and
potential development elsewhere in the City. Water for development in a major expansion area
will be made available by any of the following, or any combination thereof. San Luis Obispo
municipal water, private well water, water reclamation and water conservation."
The purpose for the change in these policies is to allow initial development to begin in the
Margarita expansion area following the preparation and processing of the required Specific
Plan, EIR, tentative tract maps and improvement plans. The timing of such activities will
allow water to be supplied in the early phases of development (1997 to 2000) by existing
water sources, while development of later phases can be supplied by existing water
resources and additional supplemental water from the Salinas Reservoir and/or Nacimiento
water project. Without this policy change, any development in the Margarita area will not
be possible until water from the Salinas Reservoir and/or Nacimiento water project is
available, estimated to be about the year 2000.
This policy request appears to be consistent with discussions held by the City Council
regarding the urban water management plan. Discussions held at the March 15, 1994
hearing concerning the water management plan by the majority of the City Council
members show that, in fact, the City has consistently used more than 2000-acre feet per
year less than safe annual yield provides. This would suggest that not only should the water
offset program be modified to replace only that water which is used by proposed
development (one-to-one ratio), but also there is currently enough water to allow first
n... "'';'c4 t'LI
:] ah ?.. . .'.1iew':lu,l.11a•991.1 y. `4 - 4 14
O��n�yersar�1
Z
Mayor Pinard
Page 2
May 2, 1994
phases of development to begin in the Margarita expansion area upon completion of the
requisite plans and studies. The Margarita property owners will be paying particular
attention to how you deal with these requests and policy updates, wherein failure to take
positive action will send a very clear signal that the City Council is not interested in
annexing or allowing the multitude of existing General Plan policies to be fulfilled
concerning this area.
We respectfully request your positive action on these policy changes.
Sincerely,
R D/nt
4LA
rik
Vic rPla nin
Enclosure
cc: Margarita Property Owners
John Dunn
Arnold Jonas
John Mandeville
County Board of Supervisors
c/ej-marg.cc
MEETING AGENDA
DATE,���ITEM# cot"
FIfZsTBANK
OF 5AN uu�--- 0515rO
May 2, 1994
Mayor Peg Pinard
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Pinard;
I am writing in regards to the Environmental Quality Task Force recommendation that
new commercial growth within the City be limited to 1% per year.
I'm sure most of us would like to live in a time when pollution, crime, and costs were all
less than they are today. However, passing ordinances that cripple the local business
community will not roll back the clock.
Such limits will cause local businesses to expand to other, more hospitable areas. This will
cost the City much needed jobs and revenue.
Although some activists consider profitable businesses to be predators, the fact is we live
in a capitalist society and business provides approximately 30% of the City's annual
revenues.
City Government can control commercial development without making arbitrary growth
limits the law. Why tie your hands with a I% limit.
If you're standing still in 1994, you're moving backwards.
Sincer ,
COUNCIL GKDD DIR
yn Lyon CAO @"RN DIR
esident, CEO [ A Q FIRE CHIEF
Chairman of the Board ❑ PW DIR
�:LERKARIa ❑ POLICE CHF ;; t
j k '3"rur TEAM REc DIR
.❑ C READ-FILE ❑ urn DIA 1 AY 9994
❑ PERS DIR
995 HIGUERA STREET, P.O. BOX 1249, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406-1249 :: (805) 541-6100 FAX: (805) 544-2217
7,- N� AGENDA
ITEM #
.pXATE
4 Ccl�' �Fo CA
76-7,0�,t,
D L)V1 q(COE)DIR
OIL
0 FIN DIR
U yl EAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
FOAf bRNEY 13 PODIR
93'CLERMR(i 13 PLICE CH
E3 MG TEAM 13 REC DIR
L Li I
E 0 UTIL DIR
0 PERS DIR
SETTING ON THE FRONT PORCH —(BEFORE TELEVISION)
` Setting on the front porch
Rocking in a chair,
Others will be joining me
As evening cools the air.
Papa takes the corner chair ,
That' s where he likes to sit;
Where he can prop his feet up
An quietly chew and spit.
Some will sit upon the steps ,
Others like the swing;
Some will have a lot to say,
Some others not a thing.
This was the time for sharing
The doings of the day ;
Who said what to who and why,
Each tells in his own way.
Friends and neighbors strolling by
May pause and chat a while;
They like someone to talk with
And love a friendly smile.
Some humor may be introduced ,
Perhaps a joke or two;
But never any rough talk
'Cause that would never coo.
Stories of the long ago
Were told and told once more ,
And moral lessons pointed out
Just as they were before.
Much talk there was of people
Some good and some were noL .
I can ' t recall the stories
But the lessons were not forgot .
By Norman T. Vic}:
June 25 , 1988
J
MEETING AGENDA
DATE S--2-241 ITEM #
Mr. Kenneth E. Smee E C E I V E
1681 Colina Ct. NIAY - 2 1994
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPr
r•O IWUNITV DEVFI napr
COUNCIL CDD DIR
April 27, 1994 d� ❑ FIN DIR
cep ❑ FIRE CHIEF
��0 ❑ PW DIR
(�CLERKIONG ❑ pOLICE CHF
Wr TEAM ❑ REC DIR
City Council ❑ ' D ❑ UIILDIR
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ , ❑ PERS DIR
990 Palm Street � ��
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 >t�� '00A
Re.: 833 El Capitan, aka APN 76-421-19
Dear Council,
I would like to submit . a request that in your General Plan update you
specify the zoning on the front 456 feet of the above referenced parcel
to be designated as a commercial zone. The subject parcel is adjacent to
the current city limits and within your sphere of influence.
The adjacent parcels (APN 53-083-04 & 05) located at 4058 Broad Street
are currently zoned for commercial use to the back of the lot, some 456
feet East of Broad Street. In your update I would like you to extend the
current city zoning line, which is located at 456 feet distant from Broad
Street, through the subject parcel to the center of E1 Capitan Way. The
remainder of the parcel should be zoned medium density residential.
I have spoken to Mr. Dana Lilley, Senior Planner with the county of San
Luis Obispo, and he feels that there is no problem having the County
accomplish this within the County's General Plan update.
I feel that this request promotes consistency of zoning along the
frontage of Broad Street (Highway 227). Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Smee
KFS:bmm
� .dY . 1994
t •
4
1
l_wM 1
I
vt
f
227
n
I \J 1
c � i� U
I (�
wl N
r0 \SCI L we I
w •V ° O
krevr.r i la 9 n a
�i r
u
rte..,!
3v. 'I fo fr .n �
IIV
H
� V
x -
1e � 7 as
wA I ,.
j;. cam' t ; .I •��.�. ...
ao w
�.Lr ks
a4
a �
a
THIS PLAT IS FOR YOUR AID IN LOCATING YOUR LAND W17H
a' REFERENCE TO STREET AND OTHER PARCELS. WHILE THIS PLAT IS
BELIEVED TO BE CORRECT. THE COMPANY ASSUVES NO :.IA9LF m
OR .ANY LOSS OCCURRING BY REASON OF RELIANCE iH=i:kL'N I
SECURITY UNION TITLE INSURANCE CO Mf f'd1Y N
r
\\
SMEE PROPERTY REFERENCE MAP -t
a PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF 5/3/94 i
X
OV
il some op a
\\\ ••\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ / / / / / /
\\♦ TANKTAFM \\\\\\\\\\\\\N.
\\\\\ \\\\\\\
` ISSUE AREA
.. \\. \\\\\ / / • / / / / .
I
AIRPORT
o�
MFETIN GENDA 2
E EM #
MPA
MERRIAM PLANNING
NCIL OD DIR
ASSOCIATES ❑ R OIR
O ❑ 11 CHIEF
EY ❑ PW DIR
3 May, 1994 � 113�fTTEA4 ❑G 03 PREOC D^ HF
❑ C��F ❑ UTIL DIR
Mayor Peg Pinard ❑ PERS DIR
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Implications of EQTF recommendations on the Dalidio Development Plan
s 3 '00A
Dear Mayor Pinard:
As you know I am the agent for the Dalidio Family, owners of the Laguna Ranch adjacent to
Central Coast Plaza. I have reviewed the draft Land Use Element of the General Plan as prepared
by both the Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF). It is
apparent that if the commercial growth and agricultural recommendations put forth by the EQTF are
accepted by the City Council unchanged,the whole concept of balanced options and compact
commercial development we have put together for the Dalidio Development Plan over the last three
vears will be defeated. Let me be more specific:
The EQTF recommendations preclude commercial development on the Dalidio land. The EQTF
position is counter to at least three major policy directions the City Council has given regarding the
land uses to be included in the Land Use Element for the Dalidio area. These policy directions are
as follows:
1. In October 1991, the Council stated it preferred Option 2 for the Dalidio Area-- the option
which included 40 acres of commercial, 11 acres of residential,and 60 acres of open space
land.
1350 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo. California 93401 (805) 543-7057
Andrew G Merriam. AIA, AICP
2. The Option 2 preferencc was confirmed as a policy direction in January and February 1992,
when the Council directed planning staff and to amend the Land Use Element to include the
land uses specifically identified in the Dalidio's offer to the City.
3. On November 12, 1993,the Council further directed staff to change the Dalidio area by
deleting the reference to Dalidio lands as a"major annexation area"and start processing the
Dalidio Development Plan in conformity with the draft Land Use Element.
The Dalidio offer, negotiated over nearly a six month period, included significant trade-offs by
both parties. In return for making the development process defined and related to a specific
schedule, the Dalidios would give up urban uses on nearly half of their land and donate it to the
City for open space and park uses. The City would assist in the annexation and development
process and would gain control of the area and the sales tax revenues generated by the commercial
development. Further, the present proposal that is now before the City includes Pricc/Costco as a
major component of the commercial retail area; this store is supported by 70 percent of the City
residents according to a recent survey.
If the EQTF recommendations are adopted which retain Dalidio land in agriculture or limit
commercial development in such a fashion that extending the regional shopping in the Madonna
Road area becomes infeasible, the Dalidio family will be forced to consider other options. These
options will be less desirable for the City and its residents and could potentially defeat the very
goals set out by the EQTF. The Dalidio family cannot be forced to farm this land. On the other
hand, the continued support of the Council for the concepts embodied in the Planning
Commission's draft Land Use Element will go a long way to insure a compact regional commercial
area, valuable open space preservation at one of the City's gateways, and generation of
supplemental income which could be used to support other City services including enhancing our
environment in areas where it will do the most good.
Sincerely,
c L
Andrew G.Merriam, AIA, AICP
xc. Ernest Dalidio
William Bird
Michael Morris
MF7ING 3 9 AGENDA 2
Tsai' J DE. ITEM #
R R N1 D E S I G N G R O U P
.�1.1:i!iiif li'i 1.4 i'!.. ' E4•�I!!ii4i7;" II IIi^;1:<' �.iP'.i ii•: h' ^.I'i�11:it71!1'f
I 9 9 G
May 3, 1994
Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard
and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Re: PC/EQTF Draft LUE
Dear Mayor Pinard and Members of the City Council:
In light of the City Council deliberations on the draft Land Use Element, I offer the
following comments and questions. These comments relate specifically to my review of
both the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Task Force suggested written
policies.
I would appreciate your Council's review and consideration of the various important issues
identified in the following evaluation.
Thank you for your representation.
Sincerely,
RRAI DESIGN GROUP CIL :13PERS
DIR
DIR
CHIEF
&� IR
G POLICE CHF
Teene agmaier O MGMT TEAM DIR
Vice Presi p C: FIXE DIR
Planning Division b/ J�� DIR
cc: John Mandeville, SLO City �S. YYIAhe�E Vi
Dana Lilley, SLO County
AASP TAC
T. Keith Gurnee, RRM - '� -
Enclosure , Ily 3 i90/4
CITY COUNCIL
z/lh-egtf.pin SAN LUIS ca:ZPo, ca
_. �—Ulh !Ii4o 1.1 h.i. t.ti.m Lui>ilbcly.t-.i!i 1.:Pia•,.:i ii .• S.'sa'.- '.y
i„i_ i:ln?.i,... !.1„J>in.t'a!d :nia tc r._I _„•tc.l -i- .1 .
Z�
l 9 9 L
SAN LUIS OBISPO LAND USE ELEMENT
PC/EQTF DRAFT LUE COMMENTS
May 3, 1994
The following comments have been prepared in response to the February/March 1994
combined PC/EQTF draft Land Use Element. Since it is unknown as to whether your City
Council is to use the Planning Commission or the Environmental Quality Task Force
document as the basis for your review, I have responded to the combined PC/EQTF
document because its suggested policies are those which raise the most concern.
GENERAL COMMENTS
My general comments regarding the process that has been pursued in the circulation of this
document, as well as my general concerns about its policies are:
1. General Plan consistency. What is the relationship and consistency between this
element and others in the General Plan? Is there internal consistency within this
element? Is there consistency with regional area plans?
2. Philosophical language is inappropriate in a General Plan. A general Plan is not
intended to preach philosophy of a particular interest, meritorious or not.
3. The EOTF's comments should be considered testimony. It is the Planning
Commission as a recognized advisory body, per State law, that is authorized to
provide written comments to the City Council. Therefore, the EQTF document
should not be the subject of City Council review, rather the Planning Commission
document should be the basis for all future policy discussion and changes.
4. Recirculation of newly raised issues. Per State law, any issues raised in the EQTF
draft which were not considered by the Planning Commission must be recirculated
to the Planning Commission for deliberation. Your Council should ensure
compliance with this requirement in the spirit of good government.
1
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PC/EQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
POSITIVE EQTF RECOMMENDATIONS
In reviewing the EQTF draft document, some positive recommendations appear to
have been raised which should remain in the final General Plan. They are as
follows:
• A continued strong emphasis on the downtown core -remaining healthy, and
designating downtown as a "potential" receiver site is good.
• Traffic calming in neighborhoods is a good suggestion, but should be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Neighborhood plans are a noble idea, but empowering neighborhoods
through designating planning bodies could be problematic, and create
another layer of bureaucracy.
• In the downtown core, discouraging office uses on street level store fronts is
a good design policy.
• Redevelopment of the lower Higuera area to a commercial district is a good
policy if this redevelopment is done in addition to the Madonna Road
expansion, not as an alternative to the Madonna Road expansion.
SPECIFIC EQTF COMMENTS
The remaining comments on the EQTF document are organized by identifying the specific
policy and expressing my concern in order to foster discussion of that policy. These are
specific policies further support the general comments addressed above.
• Page 7 Policy 6APreserving Ag Land in the Urban Reserve
► Concern: The City's Urban Reserve is intended to identify land to be
held in "reserve" for urban expansion. If the City does not intend to
use the land for urban expansion, then the land should not be
designated within the Urban Reserve.
• Page S, item 10 Regarding Commercial Buildings and Land Areas
► Concern: The intent of this policy has been altered significantly. The
original policy should remain and a second policy inserted
emphasizing the more productive use of existing commercial buildings
and land areas.
2
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PC(EQTF Drag LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 11, Policy 1.0.2 Reearding the City not Designating More Land for
Urban Uses than its Resources can be Expected to Support
► Concern: Shouldn't the City designate land for urban uses to meet
population goals, and secure the resources in a way that won't harm
the environment, as opposed to the other way around?
• Page 12, Policy 1.6.1 Urban Reserve
P. Concern: Again, the Urban Reserve is supposed to be for urban
expansion. Doesn't this policy language encourage further conflict
between urban and rural uses?
• Page 12, Policy 1.7.4 Parcel Sizes and Density
► Concern: This policy is totally unenforceable by the City. How much
input has the City received from property owners in the greenbelt area
regarding this issue, and has the City considered bow this policy would
affect agriculture? Shouldn't the City defer to the County Land Use
Element that is currently being updated rather than the 1989 County
Land Use Element?
• Page 13, Policy 1.7.5 Building Design and Siting
► Concern: The County already has strong policies in their LUE/LUO
prohibiting new structures on ridgelines, or visually prominent areas.
The County designates SRA's, GSA's, etc., to protect the Morros and
sensitive hillsides, and most likely has a more sophisticated overlay
system for evaluating sensitive lands impacts than the City.
• Page 13. Policy 1.8 Agricultural Land
► Concern: What coordination and communication has EQTF initiated
with the agricultural community, Farm Bureau, and the County
regarding their Agricultural and Open Space Element? Has the City
Council solicited input from the farmers regarding conflicts between
agriculture and urban uses, or is the City looking at agriculture as
viewshed protection as opposed to a productive operating enterprise?
Currently the City has a 4:1 open space requirement ratio that applies
to only minor annexations. Does the City Council want to apply this
replacement ratio unilaterally throughout the City, applicable to all
new development?
3
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PC/EQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 14, Policy 1.9.1.A Regarding Clustering
► Concern: What does "clustered contiguously" mean? As a design
professional, clustering needs to be flexible in order to site buildings
outside the least visually prominent and environmentally sensitive
areas. Contiguous clustering could prohibit sensitive design, thus
should not be absolutely required in the General Plan.
• Page 15 Policy 1.11.2 Residential Growth Rate
► Concern: What is the EQTF's justification for averaging the growth
percentage over a 36 month period? What happens "sometime around
2020" when the Urban Reserve capacity is fully used? The General
Plan document should not have a termination rate for growth and
evolution of the City. It is supposed to be a visionary document.
Also, this policy does not consider an exception for moderate income
housing, which may preclude developer interest from providing such
housing.
• Page 17, Policy 1.11.4 Non-Residential Growth Rate
► Concern: How will City staff implement this policy? What does
implementation of this policy mean to City residents and businesses
in terms of square feet? The proposed 1% residential growth rate
could prove to be absolutely unworkable and result in driving new,
good and healthy companies away from the City.
• Page 17. Policy 1.12.2 Cal Poly
► Concern: The EQTF's policy suggesting stabilizing enrollment at Cal
Poly at the 1994 level is not consistent with the Cal Poly Master Plan.
Where is the cooperation with Cal Poly, and how is the EQTF
qualified to determine that Cal Poly's ultimate enrollment will not be
achieved?
• Page 18, Policy 1.12.4 Cuesta College
► Concern: By suggesting near-campus housing, does the City really
want to increase housing in the Morro Valley, potentially inducing
growth and where services will be more expensive to everyone?
4
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PC/EQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 18, Policy 1.13.1 Water and Sewer Service
► Concern: The EQTF's added language could be problematic to future
administrations. This language could limit future expansion of the
City's reclamation program and the City soliciting paying customers
to offset the 30 million dollar burden that soon the City of San Luis
Obispo residents are going to be responsible for?
• Page 18, Policy 1.13.2 Annexation Timing and Policy 1.13.3 Renuired Plans
► Concern: The EQTF's suggested language conflicts with the Planning
Commission's unanimous recommendation that a Specific Plan should
be required prior to development rather than prior to annexation. In
addition, what is meant by the "planned capacity of incorporated
areas"? Are such areas within the City limits, or do they refer to
other cities? The language is not clear.
• Page 20, Policy 1.13.5, item G Regarding a 2:1 Water Retrorit Policy
► Concern: This standard should be recognized in the Urban Water
Management Plan where the City can amend that plan as needed as
new water data emerges. The Land Use Element does not focus on
specific water policy and information to support policy changes.
• Page 22, Policy 1.16.6, item D
► Concern: The County Board of Supervisors is an elected body paid for
by the citizens of this County. They should be responsible for
designating and greenbelt maintaining sensitive open space,
agricultural and rural areas under their own plans, and we should
respect and trust that they will properly do so.
• Page 23, Policy 1.17.2.A Agricultural Zoning
► Concern: By the City designating an Ag zone in both the City limits
and the Urban Reserve, does this mean that any new agricultural
building will require ARC or other City advisory body review? How
will the City handle urban and agricultural conflicts? How does the
City intend to maintain programs to ensure viable agriculture?
5
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PC/EQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 24, Policy 1.17.4 Cluster District
P. Concern: The City should be aware that the County Agriculture and
Open Space Element and the Rural Settlement Strategy designate
major and minor clustering programs with strong ag and open space
protection provisions. The County, via these plans, is actively
pursuing a TDC program, and the City should trust County decision-
makers to make these decisions and not insult their judgement, as this
policy appears to do.
o Page 25, Policy 2.1.2 Neighborhood Groups
► Concern: This is a good policy provided empowering neighborhoods
does not mean creating additional planning bodies and another level
of bureaucracy.
• Page 26 Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 Regarding Mixed Uses and Separation and
Buffering
► Concern: These two policies appear to contradict each other by not
allowing commercial uses in residential areas, but at the same time
requiring that neighborhoods sball include a mix of uses to serve the
needs of residents. What is the intent here? Limited commercial use
should be allowable in neighborhoods to make them friendlier.
• Page 26 Policy 2.2.7 Natural Features
► Concern: Can a healthy wildlife habitat really live and thrive within an
urban area? Shouldn't we be considering wetlands and wildlife
habitats to be amenities in residential areas and encourage their
protection and reclamation in more rural City and County lands?
• Page 27, Policy 2.2.11, I.1 Front Porches
► Concern: Requiring front porches in the General Plan is
inappropriate. Perhaps the City should look .at incentives to
encourage front porches. Does this policy mean we should discourage
high density, multi-family residential projects which simply cannot
accommodate front porches because of their density?
6
San Luis Obispo Lend Use Element
PC(EQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 28, Policy 23.1 Specific Plans, item C
► Concern: Again, if an area is designated an expansion area, how can
the City expect to have a farm field without asking for
incompatibilities and conflicts with urban uses? Where have "low tech
farms" been found in other City's major expansion areas as intimated
by the EQTF's comments?
• Page 33, Policy 2.16, 8.1 Regarding Commercial Uses in Residential Areas
P. Concern: (See earlier comment on Policies 2.2.,E and 2.2.2.)
• Page 35, Policy 3.0.3 Prohibiting Commercial Uses in Residential Areas
► Concern: Again, this policy contradicts policy 2.2.1 regarding
commercial uses within residential areas.
• Page 25, Policy 3.1.2 A, Lower Higgera Retail Redevelopment
► Concern: Preparing a plan to redevelop the lower Higuera commercial
area is a very good idea. Possibly, the City should consider extending
the downtown plan to Madonna Road. However, tying redevelopment
and build-out of this area to the Madonna Road expansion is totally
inappropriate and unrealistic, particularly since the City has
designated Madonna as an expansion area for years.
• Page 36, Policy 3.1.3 Madonna Road Retail Expansion
► Concern: Does this policy consider that reducing agricultural use
substantially can make ag parcels an uneconomical, inviable unit,
thereby making farming unrealistic?
• Page 38, Policy 3.2.3 Expanding Centers
► Concern: Again, does the City want to preclude mixed use projects
such as The Crossroads center? The City should consider its recent
downtown housing requirement for residential units in commercial
buildings, and if commercial use is truly incompatible with residential
neighborhoods, how does this equate? This policy also contradicts
Policy 3.2.4 regarding small individual stores in residential areas.
7
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PC/EQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 40. Policy 3.4.1 Basis for Tourism
► Concern: What is meant by the creation of an "artificial resort
atmosphere"? What is artificial about the City's Visitor-Serving
Tourist economy? Obviously there is a strong need for resort tourism
as evidenced by the many tourism proposals in and around San Luis
Obispo in recent years, and the increase in tourism figures evidenced
by the Chamber and Visitors and Conference Bureau.
• Page 42, Policy 3.5.5 Air and Water Ouality
► Concern: This new language aimed at preserving air quality could
place a strangle hold on the business community and send a message
to any new, healthy business from wanting to locate in this City.
Individual air and water quality issues should be dealt with on a case-
by-case basis, using the strict air quality standards enforced by the
Clean Air Act and regional authorities.
• Page 42, Policy 3.5.7 A Auto Park Wav
► Concern: What is the justification for the 4:1 mitigation ratio? Is this
a recognized mitigation criteria from the Fish and Wildlife Service or
Fish and Game? These agencies have adopted, widely recognized
standards that have been researched and demonstrated basis.
• Page 57, Policy 6.0 Resource Protection
► Concern: This language appears to be "philosophical lecturing", does
not belong in a policy document, and is certainly not written in "lay
man" terms.
• Page 57, Policy 6.0.4 Overlay Mapping
► Concern: The County currently has overlay mapping for most all
environmental issues which apply to all lands immediately outside the
City limits. This policy should not be incorporated in the Land Use
Element since it is repetitive and unenforceable.
• Page 57, Policy 6.0.5 Land Use May Update
► Concern: If the City is to update its overlay maps, this task should be
down as a part of the LUE process, prior to adoption of the Land Use
Element. What would the City achieve by waiting?
8
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PGEQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 58, Policy 6.1.1, item B Open Space and Greenbelt
► Concern: What is meant by "preserving ag land for agricultural base
and providing future food security"? Does the City realize that most
of the food produced in this County is not actually sold here? Is the
City willing to secure added water resources to supply water to
agriculture at reduced costs so that ag can be viable? Should this
statement explain the EQTF's real intent that agricultural maintains
the open space/viewshed qualities that City residents enjoy and don't
want to see changed?
• Page 59, Policy 6.1.2 Open Space Uses
► Concern: It appears that the EQTF's added language regarding
alterations to land forms and landscapes might preclude uses such as
golf, being considered as open space. Is this the case? No where in
the Land Use Element are golf courses discussed? Aren't they an
open space use, as recognized throughout the State?
• Page 59, Policy 6.1.4 interim Open Space
► Concern: Interim open space is intended to be a "holding zone" for
future urban expansion. If the City does not intend to expand into
areas designated as interim open space, then these areas should be
reclassified now.
• Page 69, Policy 6.4.1, item D Creek Management Obiectives
► Concern: The City recently adopted the Laguna Lake Master Plan.
In light of the Master Plan's detailed policies for Laguna Lake, this
added language seems unnecessary.
• Page 71, Policy 6.4.3, item D.1 and Policy 6.5.1, item 4 Flood Hazard
Reduction
► Concern: The issue of creek setback has been very controversial and
would most likely preclude any existing resident of the City owning
property on the creek to replace their home or business. The City
may want to consider areas of the creek appropriate for limited
human access, and other areas where it is in fact appropriate to allow
sensitively designed structures to encroach into the creek, consistent
with Fish and Game mitigation. Under this criteria, replacement
structures in Mission Plaza would not be allowed. Shouldn't the City's
Creek and Waterways Ordinance deal with this policy?
9
San Luis Obispo Land Use Element
PGEQTF Draft LUE Comments
May 3, 1994
• Page 79, Policy 7.3 Airport Area
► Concern: Once again, this policy contradicts the unanimous Planning
Commission support for a Specific Plan requirement prior to
development rather than prior to annexation. The Airport Area
presents a unique situation to the City and should be developed as a
part of the City rather than in the County. The City should make
sure its policies send a strong message to the County and the property
owners that it intends to guide the long range planning of this area
consistent with the schedule it adopted in November 1993, and secure
the necessary resources to serve the area.
• Page 79, Policy 7.4 Airaort Area
► Concern: It is totally unreasonable to expect the Airport Area
annexation to be contingent upon achieving greenbelt protection for
areas outside its boundary. This issue must be dealt with in a separate
City/County agreement. Such a requirement does not belong in the
City's General Plan and should not be a requirement upon annexation
of the Airport Area.
• Page 85, Policy 8.5 Dalidio Area
► Concern: What is meant by "signature, working agricultural
landscape"? Does this mean agriculture is important to City residents
because of its cosmetic value, or truly because of its agricultural
capabilities?
• Page 87 Policy 9.3, item D General Plan Amendments
► Concern: The State requires Cities and Counties to amend their
General Plans four times a year. Therefore, cleanup amendments are
constantly being done to Land Use Elements of the General Plan.
Thus, this revised language is unnecessary.
• Page 89, Policy 10.7 A Public Planning
► Concern: Is the EQTF calling for a new review procedure here? How
will the City staff implement this policy? Environmental review
already requires environmental evaluation prior to ever considering a
proposal for development. This item needs:further clarification.
z/lh-slolu.egt
10
mny 03 '94 09!15nM DQ.K PI<C 905-544-7472 P.1:1
`7 AGENDA
.D -
KPACKAGING,Inc.
PACKAGING K STA17C CONTROL PRO01 DUCTS
San Luis Obiapa City Council May 2, 1994
City Hall
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo CA 93406
Attn: Ms, Peg Penard
Dear Ms. Penard,
We are a small, woman owned business locared in Sari Luis Obispo.
Unfortunately, we do not live in SLO su our voices are not heard
in terms of vuLeS. 11owevcr, we and our employees shop, have
children attending er.hool and work !it the City.
Being both environmental advocates and businass owners we under-
stand the importance. of a clean, liveable community as well as
an economically vibrant one. The environment does not have to
take a back seat to rhe business COmwuility or vita versa.
However, we du need an acceptable economic balance between the
two. They do not hava to be on opposing; sides of issuer-, do they?
We believe creating a commercial business restriction would be
unsound for the long tArm viability of Old- city. As government
spending curtails, we need a secure business tax base to support
the -vitality of the ci'ry.
Thank you for the Lillie you spend on the management of San Luis
Obispo. It ie a nice place to work, lets keep moving in that
dirAn tion.
Very truly yours,
Darlene F. Kellett Kenneth E. Kellett
President Secretary/Treasurer
;udy? Schmidt
Office Manager
cc ! Telegram Tribune
SLO-AMD
COLINCIL D DIR €
��Z
13 FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF1Y 1994
EY ❑ PW DIR
O ❑ POLICE CHFC.IN COUNCIL
E3MOMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR .r.I; LUIS OBISPO, CA
■ 1 ❑ C READ ILE ❑ unL DIR
1' �/
0 PERS DIR
fTI '{' ITEM #
MEMORANDUM 1994
TO: John Dunn
FROM: Arnold Jonas
DATE. April 22, 1994
. SUBJECT: Council Hearing Schedule for.LUE and EQTF Report
Our conversation with the Mayor yesterday concerning further Council consideration of the
LUE, and discussion and action by the EQTF last night concerning their further work on report
preparation and submission to the City Council, raises some questions regarding scheduling of
these items before the Council.
The Mayor laid out a schedule which used May 17 as a meeting for regular business, with some
LUE work (wording cleanup, etc.) as could be accommodated, and May 24 for additional LUE
consideration. My notes from the April 5th Council meeting show that a vote was taken to
dedicate April 26, and May 3, 10 and 17 (if necessary) to the LUE, with regular business being
deferred to the 24th. Note that this would reverse the use of the 17th and 24th from the Mayor's
schedule.
Given that a motion was actually approved relative to the hearing schedule, if the Council is
receptive to the Mayor's slightly different proposed schedule, and hearing format, it seems that
a new motion should be adopted on the 3rd in recognition of the changes.
At the April 5 meeting, the Council also adopted by a 5/0 vote a motion to direct the EQTF to
complete their work and report to the Council by May 27. The Task Force is pushing ahead on
several fronts to complete reports, but appear to be feeling the pressure of the deadline. They
have requested that their report be scheduled for the last Council meeting in May, which is
actually the 31st. Given the earlier Council motion, this request appears to also require new
Council action, unless submission of the report document on or before the 27th would satisfy
the current intent. In that case the Council agenda item could actual be scheduled for an even
later date.
By the way, given the several other items the Task Force is working on in addition to their
overall report, including commenting on the GP Circulation Element, the Water Plan and the
Salinas Reservoir and Nacimiento water projects, they will likely request an extension of time
in which to complete their work. With summer vacations and other activities coming up, that
request could possibly run to a several month period.
With these thoughts in mind, how should we proceed? Eti
❑ CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ PIN DIA
❑ POUCE CHF
❑ REC DIA
❑ UTILDIA
❑ PERS DIR
�fi
iht 1 r
MEMORANDUM
MEETING AGENDA((.2
TO: John Dunn DATE ITEM #.
FROM: Arnold Jonas O
DATE: May 3, 1994
SUBJECT: Railroad Centennial Cannon
You have asked for my recommendation on allowing the use of a cannon during the
opening ceremonies for the Centennial Railroad Celebration on Thursday, May 5 at
approximately 5:30 to 6:00 p.m.
I recommend that the City not object to the use of the cannon.
I reach this conclusion with full understanding of the strong reservations held by the City
Attorney and the Risk Manager. However, considering the type and operational
characteristics of cannon to be used, and the public notice of its use to be provided in
advance of the event, I feel the use to be a reasonable and important part of the recreation
of the celebration held 100years ago. I believe the Chief Gardiner supports this
conclusion.
The cannon is a small 75mm "salute" cannon especially provided for use on these
occasions, and it will be firing a charge 1/4 the size of a normal charge. I have been told
that the level of sound is equivalent to an old fashioned toy carbide cannon. The number
of rounds fired will be limited to 5 maximum, and the muzzle of the cannon will be
oriented away from nearby uses. The Historical society will be pamphleting the
surrounding neighborhoods with notices of the firing, and the hospitals will be contacted
directly by Dan Krieger. The Telegram Tribune and local radio and television stations
will also be used to spread notice.
Under these circumstances I do not feel that it is necessary, nor do I propose that the City
provide any form of written indemnification for this event, which is not City sponsored.
c: Jeff Jorgenson
Wendy George
Jim Gardiner
JCMNCIL ❑ CDD DIA
VAO 0 FIN DIA
AO 0 FIRE CHIEF
PT TMRNEY ❑ PW DIA = S y
Q CLER JMG ePOUCE CHF
O WAR TEAM ❑ REC DIR �n� ,��
❑ C READ FLE ❑ UTIL DIR
p/F4_ ❑ PERS DIR
�� arae