Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/1994, 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS ► 1. 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, 4/5/94 and 5/3/94.) ♦ 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. 7 MEETIna AGENDA DATE J_iZ 9 ITEM #- RICHARD A. SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, 'p"0'5"(805) X-457 ❑ FIRE CHIEF For May 17 Agenda _ , . yrnRnEr 901%DIR _: ". - I d.— P, C !.- Fr CLEINOONG ❑ POLICE CHF May 16, 199413MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR AY !C1 9l1. ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR Dear City Council, , e' ❑ PERS DIR I wrote last week regarding preservation of prime soils in and around the City, and since this issue has not yet been discussed, I have two additional insights I'd like to share. As I said last week, this is probably the most important environmental issue you must deal with if the future sustainability of the human race is considered by you to be important. As the current General Plan notes, efforts to date regarding prime soil preservation have been tokenism. It is time the City does something concrete instead of simply incorporating cynical and meaningless political rhetoric in its plans. The insights I pass along: 1. Adoption of strong policy language in the LUE is essential in order to assist others in their efforts to preserve prime soils. Too often the discourse at City Hall presumes that all preservation will be accomplished by the City alone. This is not likely to be the case. True, we can preserve much by acquisition of easements or development rights in return for permitting development, and we can preserve other land by outright acquisition. However, the non-profit sector can do things the city cannot. In speaking with those who work with land conservation, their point of view is extra-regulatory. They speak of forging working relationships with landowners who are conservation-minded (and there are many -- they just don't happen to be represented by the Chamber or SLO Property Owners), with the goal being to acquire development rights or easements through donation or through below-market purchase. But even conservation-minded owners need something in return, and what they want is a large tax benefit. I had thought tax writeoffs were pretty much automatic in such cases, but the persons I talk with who work in the field say that's a misconception -- that tax writeoffs are defensible before the IRS mainly in those cases where public policy establishes a public value to the property right being donated or sold below market value. I have been told, in other words, that for non-profit land trust agencies to acquire prime soil development rights or as easements, they need a very strong and specific public policy statement from the Ciy so they can assure donors/sellers of the tax benefits they require. The LUE Community Goal 6a (in EQTF recommendations), which states "San Luis Obispo should preserve remaining undeveloped prime agricultural soils within the City and urban reserve," combined with Policies 1 .8, 3.1.3, 3.5.7, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, etc., provides such a policy base for the non-profits to work within. By eliminating or watering down these policies, the Council not only shirks its own responsibility for resource protection, but it also hinders the work of others working towards that Goal. (Apropos of the above, recall the competition among landowners and developers to claim the right to donate the top of Islay Hill once the City established the public purpose of so doing.) 2. I'd like to recount an experience I had 20 years ago, riding in a bus from O'Hare Airport (Chicago) 100+ miles west into the rich black-earth Illinois prairie, "America's breadbasket." I was seated in front of two late middle-aged men dressed in overalls. It developed from their conversation that they were both farmers who had farmed their entire lives in that rich black prairie soil. One had just returned from visiting his farmer cousin in Oxnard, the other had come to the city to meet his returning friend. The talk was pure farmer talk -- bushels per acre, tons per acre, and so on. What sticks in my mind was the awe with which the traveling farmer told of the bounty of his cousin's land, and the absolute incredulity of the friend at everything that was recounted. It was as if the friend, himself apparently a very successful farmer, simply couldn't conceive of a combination of soil and climate that yielded a bounty beyond anything he had ever experienced or could even conceive of. And yet, today, that bounty has probably disappeared beneath the disgusting vomit of auto malls, shopping[ centers, factories and subdivisions that has covered most of the Oxnard plain's prime soil. What does it take to make us realize that we have gifts beyond compare that we don't even value? By what right do we, very temporary residents of Earth, presume that we have the right to rob future generations of the sustenance that millions of years of geological processes have bequeathed to them? I urge you to take a strong stand on the preservation of prime soils: they are the only ones we will ever have. If we squander them now for Costcos and auto parks, they will be gone forever-- and that means long after autos, Costcos, sales taxes, Chambers of Commerce, and even City Councils have disappeared from the face of the Earth. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt _ECEIVeD VAY 16 1994 MEETING AGENDA SACITY LU s OBISrCO3C NCIL coo DIR E �j 9 ITEM # ❑ FIN DIR May 13, 1994 O O FIRE CHIEF ORNEY ❑ PW DIR RWORIG O POLICE CHF Editor MGMT TEAM O REC DIR Telegram Tribune AD FILE O UTIL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA L6- ❑ PERS DIR Dear Editor: I attended my first city council meeting Tuesday night and I must admit I was very concerned about what I observed. First of all, I was under the impression that the responsibility of an ELECTED city official was to represent ALL the people in their -community. To me this means finding out what the desires and needs are of those people and voting accordingly. I was very distressed to observe the behavior of our mayor, Peg Pinard. It was obvious that she had no interest whatsoever in any viewpoints that do not agree or support hers. Her attitude was so negative that it is not surprising that the business community in San Luis Obispo is worried. Secondly, I was amazed that applause was defined as disrespectful. I understood that applause was a way of expressing approval. IF the Council is looking for the will of the people, how are they to know what views are supported if those in the audience have no way of expressing their approval of what is being said? I came as an interested spectator with no desire to speak but to support those who were expressing views that were similar to mine. Mayor Pinard asked at the outset of the meeting that those with similar opinions be represented by one speaker rather than all of us asking to be heard. With applause viewed as unacceptable, how does Mayor Pinard or any of the other council members know what views I agree with? And finally, I find it very interesting how it happened that the City Council is reviewing this particular draft of the Land Use Element for approval. My understanding is that the Planning Commission spent seven years working on the Land Use Element. This document was AMENDED by the Environmental Quality Task Force and it is this "revised" version that is now before the City Council. As the rest of our community strives to find a balance between environmental, economic and social concerns, our City Council only accepts changes to the Land Use Element that represent environmental concerns and the PERSONAL opinions of the. -3-2 majority. !4.Y 1991 The City Council appointed an Economic Task Force that was created to review the .economic concerns of San Luis Obispo which would certainly include issues within the Land Use Element. This committee was comprised of a cross-section of our community including environmentalists and they presented a document to the Council that provided a concensus of opinion and recommendations. This document was virtually ignored by the Council. Does the Council really think they are considering the desires of ALL of their community in considering a Land Use Element that has been altered so significantly by a "special interest group"? I love San Luis Obispo. I was born and raised here and I have lived and/or worked here nearly all my life. My plea to the City Council would be that they listen, observe and respond to the community that elected them. We need balance. Balance between the environmental, economic and social concerns. No one is discounting the importance of the environmental concerns, just that they be considered alongside the concerns of businesses and families. San Luis Obispo will be destroyed unless we all work together. The City Council's job is to work with and represent ALL of the people of San Luis Obispo, not just the ones who have the same opinion as they do. Sincerely, ki -�' Irelle Richert P. O. Drawer 1189 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 CC: Peg Pinard Dave Garth Ilr ` ING AGENDA DATE-5-12-24 ITEM # May 15, 1994 Dear Councilmember, I was astonished at the childish antics of the business community at last week's Council meeting. The vitriolic personal attacks and endless applause (despite the Mayor's constant, and kind, appeals to the contrary) really reduced the meeting to a low level. I feel the negative emotions and lost time created by the business people resulted in the rest of us feeling less for the experience. I hope, in the future, the audience will be more strongly cautioned to act responsibly. The next night I testified at the Planning Commission meeting about an emerging small business. The Chair spent a few minutes at the beginning outlining the rules of order they operate under, I couldn't help but be impressed. The clear and simple methods were calmly stated to the audience. Though they don't get the highly emotional stuff you do, it is perhaps doubly important for you to maintain some sense of order. I know all of you are aware of the `Traffic Calming' concept and related new thinking in the planning arena that is currently popular. I have seen most of you at some or all of the recent informational gatherings. I would just like to take the opportunity to call your attention to these issues and stimulate thought in that direction. Of course a part of this `new thinking' are these old thoughts, quality of life and property rights. When considering growth issues I feel quality of life and the property rights of existing residents are often sacrificed. All I hear is the endless entreaty, "what about My property rights?" when someone feels threatened about their ability to develop land or buildings. I have been alarmed about this for years (and saying so), but now I feel there is enough common sense and disgust with our old ways that I may get a legitimate reception. Is anyone listening? Pete Evans 2040 Rachel Street SLO RECEIVE® MAY 17 i994 saMlpTV wis C, Ft�CIL POIZO DIR 0 FIN DIR O FIRE CHIEF O PW DIR . SIC ERKPOM O POLICE CHF O MOW TEAM 0 REC DIR OC /FILE O UT1L DIR 1200 L— 13 PERS DIR RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA DATE S�ITEM # I;�AY 1 6 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CP s Irvin J. Kogan �OUNCIL CDD DIR 937 Bluebell Way � ❑ FIR DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 — • C� ❑ FIRE CHIEF (�TTORNEY O PW DIR May 14, 1994 WCLIEW-ONG O POLICE CHF O MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR Mayor Peg Pinard O C READ FILE O Ufll DIR City of San Luis ObispoPERSDIR- 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Peg: In your continuing action on the general plan, I hope the highly organized and heavy handed actions of Mr. Garth of the Chamber of Commerce will not overly influence the actions of the Council. Having been an owner and operator of a business in SLO for 20 years (the Alta Vista School), I am sure that Mr. Garth does not represent my view of what our City is and should be. The referendum of 1989 clearly expressed the view of the the people regarding 1% growth. There are a great many people that have your idea of what our City should and can be. Keep up your efforts on behalf of us and our City. This letter is also being addressed to Councilmen Roalman and Settle. Yours truly, jj�vw Irvin J. an a RECEIVED _ MAY 16 1994 . CITY COUNCIL 4Y11 AY 1 6 1994 SAN LUIS OBISPO.C RECEIVE® MEETING AGENDA -Than C. jo& on, o42cfutecE 4�AY 16 1994 DATE S/`��i ITEM #l--- 1561 C1,11dling Lane CIT( COUNCIL an suis capo, a. 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO'CA cS l�C' C May 15, 1994 Allan Settle, Councilman City of San Luis Obispo Dear Allen: My wife and I are very concerned with the discussions now underway regarding proposals to realign Johnson Ave. From our residence on Wilding Lane we are entirely de- pendent on Johnson Avenue for any access or exit and so for the last few weeks we have observed the traffic conditions for various hourly and daily circumstances. As a result we feel that leaving the existing arrangement as it now is makes for the most logical and safest plan. We hope your thinking is along similar lines. Sincerely, A Ian C, Joh son Or NCIL ❑ CDD DIR ff�RAO ❑ FIN DIR CAO O FIRE CHIEF gfVTTORNEY GKPW DIR CLERKADRIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ LITIL DIR <« 13 PERS DIR 05i17i1994 13:25 805-544-9096 LAND CONSERVANCY-SLO PAGE 01 V-'-fING AGENDA G ►`t �' �'� ITEM #. Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County RECEENED COUNCIL JDIR May 17, 1994 X994 V'�:r+9 ❑ �iAY 1 CAo ❑ CITY COUNCIL CHOTORNEY ❑ c SUIS OBIS�O, �l ERIGORG ❑ F Ms. Peg Pinnazd ❑ MGMrTEAM ❑City of San Luis Obispo ❑ C1111FFILE ❑P.O. Box 8100 Q'1<<� ❑ San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 RE: AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND THE GENERAL PLAN Dear Ms. Pinnard, ' The role of the Land Conservancy in protecting agricultural land is often related to an individual land owner and their own personal needs for estate planning. We can, for example, accept a conservation easement and this can be beneficial to the land owner. The gift of a conservation easement can offset the impact of inheritance taxes on the next generation as well as qualifying as a contribution on their current income tax report. In order to obtain these tax benefits, a conservation easement must meet particular standards established by the Internal Revenue Service. One of these standards is that it must pass a "test" to determine if the easement qualifies as a contribution. One of the important tests is if the contribution would further the achievement of public policy. A clear statement to the effect that the City wishes to encourage land owners to protect productive agricultural land would help a land owner in this situation. We recognize this is a very specific and technical area of land conservation. There are a great many legal issues that need to be considered in drafting a valid conservation easement. We are available at any time to discuss conservation easements and how they could be used to assist the City achieve its land use goals. Sincerely yours, 7RR4nayBe-11 lkenap Executive Director P n R n Y 1 77nA . ¢-a., T ,, ;c nl%; c.,,, ( A ozdnA IQAC % CAA ono,c RECEIVED RI ,��_� AGENDA I UpTE= # (:!AY 1 4 1994 ITEM Cln COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Irvin J. Kogan 937 Bluebell Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 14, 1994 f+6UNCIL 9rCDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR Councilman Roalman ❑ FIRE CHIEF DIR Ci of San Luis ObispoGr NEY ❑ PO CE City P CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street ❑ MGbtrTEAM ❑ REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIA Dear Councilman Roalman: In your continuing action on the general plan, I hope the highly organized and heavy handed actions of Mr. Garth of the Chamber of Commerce will not overly influence the actions of the Council. Having been an owner and operator of a business in SLO for 20 years (the Alta Vista School), I am sure that Mr. Garth does not represent my view of what our City is and should be. The referendum of 1989 clearly expressed the view of the the people regarding 1% growth. There are a great many people that have your idea of what our City should and can be. Keep up your efforts on behalf of us and our City. This letter is also being addressed to Mayor Pinard and Councilmen Settle. Yours truly, Irvin J. gan SETING ENDA Tl o" CW,dd,, s E ►� a # 670 Stoneridge Drive • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Fax (805)546-9095 Phone (805)546-9969 May 14, 1994 RECEIVED . 1994 Dear Councilman Settle: SAN LUIS OBISSPO.CA My husband and I own and operate two small businesses in the city of San Luis Obispo: American Muffler & Trailer Hitch and "I Do" Weddings. We attended the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 10th. It concerns me that with the LUE,you are considering a restriction of non-residential growth (in real terms, business growth). The recommendation has been to limit growth to 1%. 1% of what? Businesses yearly revenue, monthly revenue, number of employees, square footage,population of San Luis.Obispo, or what? At one point in the meeting, Mayor Pinard (I think in an effort to calm everyone) made the statement that the result of the proceedings would not affect existing businesses in San Luis, only new businesses. From past experience, I think you would be setting yourself up for a problem. Let me explain. We used to belong to an organization that had different rules for "charter members". Those members did not have to comply with the rules that were valid for new members. It created animosity between "new members" and "old members". Whose going to keep track of whose considered an old business or a new business? Create another iministrative expense job or two? What happens if an "existing business" is sold to a big arporate entity that wants to expand? What are you going to do if someone does grow beyond the 1%? Ask them to leave? Since the city of San Luis Obispo relys so heavily upon the support services that our small businesses offer the community, I can not imagine why you would even consider limiting that growth! As the owner of two small business in San Luis Obispo, San Luis is NOT the easiest place to try to do business anyway! There are already so many restrictions, fees, licenses, rules, etc. that already discourage businesses from trying to move their business to San Luis that I don't think you have to worry about big businesses trying to move here! However, I do think you need to take care of keeping the existing businesses you already have! I think we need to maintain a "healthy" business balance where businesses can operate and grow in the natural course that their business takes them and not have to worry about whether "mom and dad" (City of SLO) approve of the growth or not. It is hard enough to stay alive in our current business environment without having to worry about "getting too big". And if that's the case (like Hind)we have to try to think of how to keep them (and their tax dollars) here in San Luis! . Personally, I think the problem will take care of itself. If the "residential" growth measures are enforced, the city will only be able to support a certain amount of businesses anyway, and it will be a self-regulating situation. qincerel �UNCIL CDD DIR CAC— ❑ FIN DIA ❑ FIRE CH I EF IrA �NIIEY El PDIR i CLERWORIC ❑ POLICE CHF Susan Price ❑ MG TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ AD'FILE O UTIL DIR 0 FEAS DIR MEETINGAGENDA 1,5`17-N `�ITEM #. W pY NPCfIL ILE DD DI R O0GO CA ❑ FIN DIR AO ❑ FIRE CH I EF EY D PWDIR LERWOMG D POLICE CH D MTTEM DREC DIR ❑ UTiL DIR O%VF t� ❑ PERSDIR May 16, 1994 The Honorable Peg Pinard- and inardand the San Luis Obispo City Council City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93408 flFCFEIVE Re: San Luis Obispo Land Use Element MAY 1 i 1994 Mayor and Members of the Cit Council: CITY COUNCIL Madame Ma y Y yW Luls oslsPo, CA Having served on the Chamber of Commerce General Plan subcommittee the past six months, I have been willing to testify at your hearings identifying myself with the Chamber sub- committee. I enjoyed working with the Chamber group and with your staff. Although I was free to deliver my presentation as I ® wished, the subject material and direction of my statement was decided by the chamber. It' s not that I disagreed with the testimony, because I believed in their position. What hampered my testimony was the focus the Chamber administration wanted in their presentations. I have decided to write this letter to you as an individual and as a practicing City and Regional Planner who has made a career of studying this County and its entities. During my term as County Planning Director, I served both as chief environmental officer and principal economic advisor to the Board of Supervisors. I would like to lend you some incite about the subjects you are now considering. About Commercial Land Uses: Through the years there has been a number of important studies about nonresidential land use needs in the city plan. Many of these studies tried to find a relationship between the city population and the commercial land use needs of that population. And some of those studies actually found a ® relationship, suggesting that a certain given amount of commercial space is needed for a given population. But those studies always qualified their findings based on commercial land uses that are needed to serve the population. In other words, commercial land use acreage was more related to the market the uses were serving. Therefore they identified so many acres of commercial space was needed for a neighborhood shopping center, or a community shopping center within the City. But when it came to regional shopping centers, the market was the region, not the 1012 Fmity,.Suitoamsequently, the space needs for regional shopping San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 FAX 805.542.9949 805.546.9300 Page two SLO City Council centers was based upon the population of the region. Generally speaking, these studies resulted in the creation of a loose standard to measure the adequacy of retail commercial business space allocated in a general plan. There were two massive studies originally funded by the federal government during the depression that tried to correlate the land use pattern to the population. The first of these was a study funded by NRPB (National Resources Planning Board) and conducted by consultant Harland Bartholomew in the mid thirties. Their book entitled: Land Uses in American Cities has since been updated to modern times. Obviously, space needs have drastically changed since the original study , mainly because of the need to accommodate the automobile. Bartholomew found that only 3 percent of the city land is needed for commercial uses. In translating that information into a standard, the study found that .33 acres per 100 persons is needed for all commercial uses (circa 1935) . After updating those standards to current land use needs, the commercial land uses now require more than twice that amount per 100 persons. The second study undertaken by the federal government was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service in the late 30' s, a study which expounded upon the preparation of general plans using the neighborhood as a basic unit of the general plan. That study has also been updated to modern times. Their publication, Planning the Neighborhood, picked up on the idea that commercial space needs could be calculated in much the same way as Bartholomew found in his national survey of cities. Except, Planning the Neighborhood takes the thesis further by finding an acres per hundred population standard for neighborhood shopping centers, community shopping centers and regional shopping centers. The problem with these studies is that many cities have skewed land use patterns which are affected by commercial uses not related to the local population or local growth. Of particular note are those communities which rely upon a tourist economy, in part or primarily. Tourist commercial, highway oriented business and recreational businesses have no relationship to the local population growth. The growth of the tourist industry does not bring with it a new labor force since workers are hired from the local sources. In the central city, (as differentiated by the satellite city) the commercial uses measured on the basis of acres per hundred is an acceptable measurement to determine the balance of community land uses. However, where there is an economic objective to develop land uses not dependent on community growth, then the land use standards cannot apply. Page three . City Council The same can be said for regional land uses that serve beyond the city. Where the City has enacted a growth control policy that regulated the growth of the commercial uses related to population growth and then apply it to a use which has a market area beyond the limits of the regulated growth, then the regional land uses will soon fall below the space needs for that use both for its space needs and for space needs. of its support facilities. This could apply to financial uses, government uses, health care uses, automobile related businesses, and transportation centers. The argument that nonresidential growth control minimizes traffic is fallacious and very naive because the regional facilities will begin to disperse and the crisscross traffic patterns will increase travel distances. a There can be no relationship between population growth and the growth of nonresidential use by square footage. The area requirements for each nonresidential use varies so greatly that increases based on population growth cannot foretell whether your commercial space needs are keeping pace with population needs. Then too, the commercial needs of the community regulates itself in many ways since surplus business activities of a given type will naturally weed out the weak overbuilt businesses through attrition. Finally, by restricting the growth of business, the city may very well short change itself and deny businesses that is really needed by the population. If the limits of growth are exhausted by a new Taco Bell, and what the community really needs is an imaging center, what have you done to the citizens of the community? What I am saying is that you may want to regulate retail commercial, and community commercial land uses (not regional land uses) with some kind of standard related to population growth, that is if you find the proper vehicle to do it. Frankly, I don't think that is necessary or needed. If you continue to encourage the development of a tourist industry in San Luis Obispo, then you had better not try to control the growth of that industry through restrictions on building permits. You can't have it both ways About regional land uses: Policy #22 on Community Goals states you want to maintain your position as the 'hub' for regional and tourist land uses. Making this your policy carries with it a great deal of responsibility that cannot be wiped out by conflicting policy. I spoke to you one night about the mandate to maintain internal consistency in the General Plan. Other policies in the plan must be complementary to that goal and your land use plan should advocate policies and implementation techniques that will make those objectives come about. If you also adopt policies that A Page four City Council would hinder those objectives, then thepublic is confused about your meaning and there is no clear definition about what your policy really is thereby confusing its administration. Here again you cannot have it both ways! If you have a transportation terminal like the airport, you should expect to classify enough land around the airport to support the proper functioning of the Airport. Forinstance, as an example, the staff recommended a small amount of land near the passenger entrance for tourist commercial uses. The Environmental committee recommended eliminating that land use on the grounds passenger can easily find accommodation in town, which misses the point entirely. At the same time, your section on tourism wants to encourage conference and visitor serving facilities. In this day ofd business air flight most airports are installing accommodations near airports for business conferences, its a very common occurrence. It is a convenience to fliers and we want to encourage as many flyins as the airport can accommodate. It is low scale and becoming necessary for proper airport functioning. Our airport should not shortfall these kinds of facilities. In the same sense, if you have regional a hospital facility in a section of town adjacent to residential areas, you should be able to accommodate support uses in close proximity to the hospital. That may mean in some instances, you will want to show on the plan some mixed land use areas. Protecting the integrity of your regional facilities means economic stability to this community. Each facility must be carefully planned to accommodate growth tailored to the growth of the region it serves. Expansion of the general retail areas: It has been suggested the City concentrate its efforts on redeveloping lower Higuera street area for additional general retail development. Then if that doesn't work out, it was suggested the City consider the expansion of the general retail category by restricting the expansion of the Madonna Road commercial areas to the existing developed areas. That means the .land owners somehow work out an agreement to intensify the existing shopping centers together. It may be that this City might want to sell its soul to the federal government through the establishment of a redevelopment authority, and thereby form the entity that could consolidate the numerous holdings along Lower Higuera. Most cities who hook into redevelopment programs soon find the federal bureaucracy. But I think if you look at that alternative, you will not want to commit this City to this kind of puppetry. I would look at the Page five City Council experience of Santa Maria and other cities who have attempted to do this before making a general plan policy that commits the City. On the other hand, the suggestion that the owners of the shopping centers on Madonna.Road simply get together and intensify the existing centers show just how naive this committee really is. Those kinds of arrangements are virtually impossible to accommodate. Its not only the Planning problems that get in the way, but it is more a business gridlock situation with tremendous legal obstacles. The environmental committee makes it sound easy, but I doubt anyone on the committee have had any business experience along these lines. What they are asking the city to do in these two recommendations is virtually impossible to implement and it would be terribly costly for the City to implement, let alone the cost to the owners. What would be more beneficial to the City residents is for the Council to consider the inclusion of the Concept Plan for the City Center into the Programs chapter of the Land Use Plan. Here is a plan that was conceived by some of the most proficient planning professionals in the City and it should be recognized, brought through the hearing processes as a specific plan and implemented. From what I have observed, the people of the city are quite enthusiastic about that plan and it should be sent through the proper processes, rather than take on idealistic, and nonworkable programs presented by a lay committee. The Council should look toward the formation of a Downtown Improvement District as prescribed by State Law, form a Downtown Implementation Commission and seek cooperation from the downtown business community. If you do not do this, you are missing an opportunity to improve this community under the authority of local agencies. I hope my comments will be helpful to you and you will consider my comments during your consideration of the current subjects before the Council. Respectfully,p ubmitted, Ned RogQwaY,; AI cc: Arnold Jonas, Planning Director David Garth, Chamber of Commerce Bill Thoma, Land Use Plan Committee h4jPETING AGENDA , , 'E �_� �C�c (TEM # WARREN A. SINSHEIMER III SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT ROBERT K SCHIEBELHUT A PROFE55IONAL CORPORATION STREET ADDRESS K. ROBIN BAGGETT MARTIN J.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET THOMAS M. DUGGAN POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE MARTIN P.MOROSKI DAVID A.IUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406.0031 805-541.2802 STEVEN 1.ADAMSKI THOMAS D.GREEN 805.541.2800 M.SUZANNE FRYER 0201024 CYNTHIA CALDEIRA CLIENT W. ARTHUR GRAHAM SUSAN S.WAAG ROY E. OGDEN THOMAS J. MADDEN III CHRIS A.CARR MARIA L HUTKIN May 17, 1994 FMGMT CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF Peg Pinard, Mayor ❑ PWDIR VIA HAND-DELIVERY City of San Luis Obispo G ❑ POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street M ❑ REC DIR P.O. BOX 8100 ❑ UTIL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 � Ew ❑ PERS DIR RE: General Plan Land Use Element/Alex Madonna Dear Mayor Pinard: This law firm represents Alex Madonna. As you know, we previously addressed correspondence to the City Council with reference to the General Plan Land Use Element, and its impact upon our client. This letter is written as a follow up to our previous correspondence, in order to more specifically address some of the issues with which we are concerned. As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Madonna owns property in the Dalidio, Froom Ranch and San Luis Mountain areas, as well as a substantial amount of the proposed greenbelt/open space area surrounding San Luis Obispo. In fact, an overview of the undeveloped property owned by Mr. Madonna within the outer boundary of the proposed greenbelt area demonstrates that approximately 95-98% of his undeveloped property subject to the General Plan is designated as open space, and therefore not subject to any economically viable development. Under the proposed Land Use Element, Mr. Madonna shoulders an inordinate proportion of the City's plan for_open space preservation. Under. such circumstances, one would therefore expect that City representatives would at least attempt to be as fair as possible with Mr. Madonna's remaining undeveloped property. However, a review of the current proposals demonstrates that exactly the opposite is true. Instead, current proposals clearly set forth measures which are not only unfair, but which appear to be aimed specifically at Mr. Madonna in a harmful manner. RECE►vE� 1:4AY 1 1 1994 . CITy COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Mayor Pinard May 17, 1994 Page 2 For example, under the proposed draft of the General Plan, the Froom Ranch area adjoining Los Osos Valley Road is divided, with a substantial amount of road frontage placed outside the Urban Reserve Line and designated as greenbelt/open space, notwithstanding the visibly apparent fact that the Urban Reserve Line actually had to be gerrymandered in order to accomplish this impact upon the Froom Ranch property. Moreover, Mr. Madonna's property on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road (the Los Osos Valley Gap) is also apparently singled out for special treatment. Although it appears to be the last undeveloped parcel on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road, development of that parcel is prohibited under the terms of proposed section 1.8.2 (unless that parcel can be described as a small, isolated parcel essentially surrounded by urbanization, which is unlikely since the contiguous properties on two sides are not developed). However, if some development of that particular parcel were to be allowed, it would not be allowed to occur unless the majority of the parcel were permanently preserved as open space (section 1.13.7). Other specific provisions relating to this particular site prohibit further development on the sixteen (16) acres fronting on Los Osos Valley Road unless the remaining property owned by Mr. Madonna to the east is permanently preserved as open space and additional land also permanently preserved to meet the requirement that four (4) acres be saved for every acre which is developed (section 8.4; see also section 3.5.7). This parcel is also singled out in section 8.5, which provides that if any of the parcels in the Dalidio area are developed, no more than 95-98% of the total land owned by all three landowners could be developed, with the remainder to be preserved permanently as agricultural open space. Given the inherent conflict between the three owners, this provision alone may guarantee the inability to develop this parcel. In addition to the currently proposed limitations to the Froom Ranch (including gerrymandering of the Urban Reserve Line alongside Los Osos Valley Road to exclude some of the road frontage, the proposed limitation of residential use only for the remaining frontage area of that property, and the probable application. of a save four acres for every acre lost formula to that property despite the fact that already the City has moved to place approximately 95-98% of Madonna's undeveloped property within the outer limits of the greenbelt under open space protection already), and the severe limitations which would operate to prohibit development on the Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio property owned by Mr. Madonna (see discussion above), the General Plan Land Use Element also singles out Mr. Madonna for punitive treatment with regard to the San Luis Mountain area. Those provisions, including sections 6.2.6(k) and 8.1.1., have been the subject of a prior letter to the City Council, and will not be addressed again here. A review of the General Plan indicates, however, that no other landowner has been separately treated in any similar manner through the imposition of substantial (and probably impossible) restoration requirements as a precondition to development of a separate and unrelated parcel of property. Moreover, the proposed terms go even further by appearing to require the permanent Mayor Pinard May 17, 1994 Page 3 dedication of open space of the entire area between Highway 101 and the top of San Luis Mountain, which would appear to be substantially all of the undeveloped property adjacent to the existing Madonna Inn. _ In summary, Mr. Madonna has been asked to shoulder far too great a burden in the interest of preserving open space for the residents of the City of San Luis Obispo. Further, even though approximately 95-98% of his undeveloped property is placed within open space categories, even the remaining 2-5% is subject to severe and, in all likelihood, impossible or impracticable limitations upon development rights. Based upon the above, it is our considered opinion that the General Plan Land Use Element simply goes too far in proposing to regulate land use with respect to the property of Alex Madonna and, as such, that those regulations constitute an unconstitutional taking as applied to each individual parcel, and as applied to Mr. Madonna's property as a whole, requiring compensation to Mr. Madonna. Accordingly, we appeal to your sense of fairness and justice in your consideration of these provisions relating to and impacting upon the Froom Ranch, the Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio property owned by Mr. Madonna, and the Madonna Inn/San Luis Mountain area. We do not believe that it would advance the interests of the residents of San Luis Obispo to approve such provisions over objection through the adoption or application of overreaching and excessive regulations. We request that you give appropriate consideration to the rights of Alex Madonna to the economic and productive uses of his property, and especially those parcels in the Froom/Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio areas. No other landowner has been required to sacrifice as much as Mr. Madonna insofar as the proposed greenbelt and open space areas are concerned. Given the nature and extent of that sacrifice, the additional provisions relative to the Froom Ranch/Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio properties can only be described as punitive and excessive. Very truly yours, SINSH ME HI BELHUT & BAGGETT MAR uT TA G MAN MJT:tjP g:\1tr\Madonna\5Pinard.516 cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgenson, Esq. MEETING AGENDA ATE ITEM# FROM ALLEN SETTLE 1 RECEIVED MAY 1 1994 Cm COUNCIL SAID I.Uas OBisp%SIA. REVISED WORDING IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT SECTION 1.8 AGRICULTURAL LAND 1.8.1. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION: IT .IS THE CITY'S POLICY TO ENCOURAGE PRESERVATION OF ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.:WITHIN THE URBAN RESERVE AND CITY LIMITS. THE CITY SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF FARMING THROUGH .STEPS SUCH AS PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING. r. I 1.8.2 PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND:, DEVELOPMENT OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND, WITH .THE EXCEPTION OF SMALL PARCELS ESSENTIALLY' SURROUNDED.:: "BY;,.URBANIZATION, MAY BE PERMITTED, PROVIDED DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE URBAN RESERVE OR GREENBELT BY ONE OR MORE THE THE FOLLOWING METHODS,. 'OR AN :EQUALLY. EFFECTIVE METHOD: ACTING AS A RECEIVER SITE FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDIT; SECURING .FOR THE. CITY. OR FOR. A SUITABLE LAND CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS OR FEE .OWNERSHIP WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS; HELPING TO DIRECTLY. FUND THE. ACQUISITION OF FEE OWNERSHIP OR OPEN. SPACE EASEMENTS BY THE CITY OR A SUITABLE LAND CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION. i is ,.�t"CIL. JRN O D O otTomw O O AAOMffTEMI O O �FILE OY MEETING AGENDA ' � Q DATE ' - 7-9 ITEM # l v►,c / /0 .�.e, (2) 1.9.1. ( Page 12 of PC Draft and 14 of EQTF Draft) Residential Clustering for Open Space Protection Omit word under 1.9.1 A "contiguously". Reasoning is that it is overly restrictive of design and land use options. Also noted in RRM letter of May 39 p. *4 by Ms. Hagmaier. 1.9.3 Public Access Areas in preserves should include public (EQTF word): trail access, controlled to protect the natural resources, to assure reasonable security and privacy of dwellings, and to allow continuing agricultural operations. (Farm Bureau rec.): Pubic access will not be considered through production agricultural land unless it is agreed to by the landowner. DESIGN STANDARD 1.9.4 (Page .12 PC Draft,Page 15 EQTF) (Revised combination of Staff, PC and EQTF wording) Design Standards Cluster development shall: I A. Be set back approximately 150 feet from public roads. B. (PC rec.): Be screened from public view. by land forms or landscaping, (EQTF rec.): but not at the expense of habitat. (As rec. in May 5 staff memo) .However if the visually screened locations contain sensitive -..habitats or unique resources as defined' in theLbpen Soace element avoid development in those areas .Tand instead design the cluster in the form of vernacular farm building s complexes to blend with the traditional agricultural working landscape C. Be located on other than i primeagricultural land and be situated to allow continued agricultural use D. Prohibit building sits, 'and roads 'within . stream corridors and other wetlands, on ridge lines, rock outcrops, or visually prominent or steep hillsides, (Staff added rec.): or other sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the (Open Space Element E. Preserve historic or ardhaeological ` resources. i i I i • III (3) 1.11 Growth Rate & Phasing 1.11.1 Growth rates (EQTF word) should provide for the balanced evolution of community and the gradual assimilation of new. residents. Growth must (PC rec:) be consistent with the City's ability to' provide resources and services and with .State . and City requirements for protecting --the environment arid' open space 1.11.2. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH. RATE (PC rec.): The City's housing supply shall growno faster than one ' percent per year.(EQTF rec:)_: averaged over a 36 month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with -very low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element This rate of growth continues; so long as the city basic service capacity is assured Tabled 2 shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents •,which would result from the one percent. maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. rationale: Tie. residential growth to service capacity rather than the urban reserve line. 1.11.3 Phasing`Residential _ Expansions. (Staff rec.): Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a. specific plan or. a development plan for it. Such plans for residential, expansion projects will provide for phased de'vel'opment' consistent with the population growth outlined in Table 2, and taking into account expected (EQTF word: incremental residential development within the 1994 City limits. (4) I REVISED WORDING FOR LAND USE ELEMENT1.11.4 I NON RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE THE CITY SHALL MONITOR THE RATE OF NON- RESIDENTIAL GROWTH WHICH WILL BE EVALUATED ANNUALLY BASED UPON EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. AT SUCH TIME IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE RATE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH .HAS . EXCEEDED AN AVERAGE RATE OF 1 % ANNUAL INCREASE OVER 'A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, THE CITY SHALL DEVELOP. ANb IMPLEMENT A NOW RESIDENTIAL GROWTH: MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. THIS POLICY WILL. IMPLEMENT MEASURE G WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN.:- 1989. IN 'ACCORDANCE TO M ASURE G, THIS PROVISIONS WILL NOT, APPLY TO EXPANSION OF EXISTING „BUSINESSES,, DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONES, TO CHANGES -INEMPLOYMENT LEVELS WITHIN EXISTING FACILITIES;, 1.10. EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT RELOCATE, TRANSFER TITLE 'OR ARE SOLD; OR TO PUBLIC AGENCIES. II I I (5) EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES NEAR THE CITY (wording a combination of !various recommendations) 1.12.1 Overall Policy Communication and cooperation between the City and nearby government institutions is important and must be maintained because changes in the number of workers, students and inmates of the three major public institutions near the City directly influence the City's economic base, land use, circulation and ability to manage growth. The city should continue to work with Cuesta College and Cal Poly's approved enrollment master plan targets as to their impacts on the city. 1.12.2 The City favors Call Poly's approved enrollment master plan targets and these should not exceed campus and community resources. The City favors additional on- campus housing, enhanced transit service, and other measures to minimize impacts of campus commuting and enrollment. ' rational, the city has long known Cal Poly's enrollment master planning targets and these have not changed. PC's background section is wordy and not necessary. Also iwording is consistent with observations made .by Frank Lebens, Vice President for Administration and Finance, letter of May. 2 to Mayor Pinard. 1.12.3 and 1.12.4 (omit the (background sections ) 1.12.4 . Cuesta Community College (my revised wording) Policy: The City favors measures such as course offerings at satellite campuses and enhanced transit service to avoid housing and commuting impacts of increasing enrollments at Cuesta College. i i (6) 1.13 ANNEXATION AND SERVICES (Page 15-16 of PC draft, Page 18-19 of EQTF draft) 1.13.2 Omit EQTF wording: "in addition to those of the planned capacity of incorporated areas." Wording unlcear in use and application. 1.13.4 Development and Services: Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when the City can provide adequate services for the annexed area as well as for existing and potential development elsewhere within the City, except as explained below and in part's 113.6 and 1.13.7. Actual development in ai major annexation area may proceed in accordance with !the goals and policies described in this General Plan, as long as the development of the annexation area does not result in the reduction of services or cause an increase in the cost of such services to existing and potential dIevelopment elsewhere within 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 Muncipal Water, reclaimed water and water conservation. Uses of private well water my be considered on an interim basis until municipal water becorries. available: Rationale: permits landowners in areas such as Margarita, if annexed, to develop some increment of housing prior to the delivery of Nacimiento water. Encourages the continuation of work of specific plans. 1.13.5 (F) 1 under Minor Annexation Requirements: omit "equal to at least four times the area to be developed." 1.13.7 C (1) revised: Ownership's within the areas adjacent to Highway .101, Madonna Road, and 'Los Osos Valley Road, where about one half of each ownership should be preserved as open space. . (p. 18 PC/ p. 21 EQTF) Rationale: use this wording for (consistency and clarity with the open space element. i i (7) PROGRAMS 1.16.6 Regional Growth Management The City will advocate a regional growth management program, which should include: SEC D Reword: Voter approval . for any significant change in designation from open space, agricultural or rural land use to urban land uses. i 1.17 RURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING 1.17.1 Accept planning commission recommendation and add: The city should protect the agricultural water supply for continued agricultural use and production practices necessary to continue to economically produce the agricultural community. 1.17.1.a Agricultural Zoning: accept EQTF wording and add: Any zoning of land as agricultural should include positive incentives and commitment from the city to work with the agricultural property owners to promote economic viability of the land. New Agricultural buildings may be subject to planning commission review. 1.17.4 Cluster District The City should encourage the County to adopt a "mandatory cluster district" for appropriate areas of the Greenbelt under County jurisdiction in orderto implement Policies 1.7 and 1.9 and better preserve the open space qualities of the land. The city recognizes the County major and -minor clustering programs and TDC programs: i i (8) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.0 Commercial Siting i (Page 33PC Rec or page 35 �EQTF Rec) i i 3.0.3 (revised wording for consistency and clarity): Expansion of incompatibleor non-residentially-oriented Commercial and Industrial uses into designated residential areas will not be approved. 3.1.1 Retain "warehouse stores" Rationale: For consistency and clarity plus we have some now and revision could result in legal non conforming uses i. 3.1.2. Locations for Regional Attractions: The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of: downtown, the area around :the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101 and the area around 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. (modified', wording underlined) rationale: appropriate to existing auto park way and related uses. I 3.1.2.a and Program 3.7.2.a '(Page 33PC Rec or page 35 EQTF Rec) Omit the EdTF section 3.1.2.a and Program .3.7.2.a because this creates a problem of consistency and substantial departure from the policies in the EIR, staff and planning commission re'commen'dations. The general plan update should not be delayed for this additional provision and time for its. evaluation. However, possible rewording could be: 3.1.2.a Mid-Higuera Retail Development: The area of mid- Higuera along Higuera and Parker Streets between Madonna/South and High Streets should be considered as a possible additional future retail expansion area. (9) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued 3.1.3 & Program 3.7.2.b planning commission recommendation should be adopted. 3.1.4 Specialty Store Locations Most specialty retail stores .should locate .downtown, the Madonna Road area or Los Osos Valley Road area: some may- be located in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve a neighborhood rather than a citywide or regional market. 3.1.5 planning commission recommendation should be adopted. 3.2.3 Expanding Centers: Planning commission recommendation should be adopted. EQTF addition does not appear consistent with revised 2.2.1 (This issue is also noted in the Chamber of Commerce "letter by William Thoma of April 29, exhibit 13, page. 4 and letter from LeeAnne Hagmaier of RRM Design Group, May 3, page 7.) 3.2.4 Stores in Residential Areas: Planning commission recommendation should be adopted. Existing zoning conditions address this and Chamber notes this can be an unnecessary intervention into operations of private businesses. 3.2.5 Building Intensity: modify .planning commission wording "Architectural review will determine building intensity" to read: "architectural review will determine project's realized building intensity, within the maximum floor, area ratio, to reflect .existing_ or - deaired architectural character in a neighborhood. Rationale: suggested rewording;. from Glen Matteson (May 5 memo, page 3 #8 in response to my memo of April 1.) Glen offered a clearer way of stating the .intent between the ARC and PC in determining building intensity. "The idea was... a review and refinement is made as part of design review." "Involving the Planning Commission would complicate the permit process for a design issue that falls within the ,charge of the ARC." Matteson (10) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued 3.3 Offices (Page 36 PC / Page 38 EQTF) 3.3.1 Purposes and Included, Uses. Adopt staff and planning commission wording, and add EQTF wording "Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations" Rationale for wording addition: ;Restoration of deletion from earlier LUE draft. 3.3.2 Office Locations: A, B, �C., D., and E. should be EQTF wording as its essentially part of existing LUE. I 3.3.3; 3.3.4, 3.3.5. Staff andi Planning Commission recommendations should be ! adopted. 3.4.1 Basis for Tourism: (Page 36 PC or Page 40 EQTF) PC wording should be adopted: The City should be an l attractive place for short-term stays, as well as an attractive destination for long-term visitors. The City should base its attraction on the character of the community;1 - its natural equalities, and its educational and cultural facilities. The City should emphasize conference and visitor=serving facilities which provide low-impact visitor activities and low impact means of transportation. Chamber of Commerce Letter by William Thoma of April 29, Exhibit B is correct that EQTF added wording can be perceived as ambiguous ! and judgmental. RRM letter by LeeAnne Hagmaier of May 31 also notes similar concerns. i (11) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued 3.4.2 Locations: Planning commission recommendations should be adopted as the LUE map shows a Tourist Commercial designation for ,the airport entry road area and a change may require this to be referred to the Commission to preclude the airport for overnight accommodations. (note Mattson memo of May 5 responding to my question on this item) 3.4.4 Keep planning commission wording and delete reference to commissions as.l it would rule out the use of administrate use permit review or minor ARC review. i 3.4.5 through 3.5.4 should be adopted as recommended by the planning commission, with the added EQTF changes in 3.5.2 F i 3.5.5 Air & Water Quality: Planning commission recommended wording should be adopted: Industries locating . or expanding in SanLuis Obispo shall comply with all applicable air-quality and water-quality regulations. (Reasoning: These are. performance standards clearly outlined by air and water. quality rules that are more specific now than five years' ago. Similar concerns also noted by RRM Design Group, :May 3 memo) 3.5.7. A Auto Park Way: Adopt planning commission recommendation with added wording: If a plan for vehicle sales expansion onto prime 1 farmland is approved, it should provide for permanent preservation, within the urban reserve or Greenbelt. 1 If a plan for vehicle sales expansion into wetland or creek areas is approved, mitigation should consist at least of restoration and permanent preservation, within the urban reserve, or Greenbelt. I (12) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued MAPS New Map of Land Use Element Figure 3 showing Vehicle Sales, and Planning Commission recommendation should be adopted. Corrected Map of Urban Reserve Line and Principal Expansion Areas Figure 2 of Dalidio Property should be determined as recommended 1 by the planning commission and Froom Ranch should bel designated as "interim open space" and small commercial designation across from current auto park way (what lis now shown on the Map). (Reasoning: an application has been submitted and determination of acceptance !is yet to be made) I MEETING AGENDA JE 5'► '9q Me FROM ALLEN SETTLE RECEIVED MAY 17 1994 CITY COUNCIL SALE 1,UIS OBIOP_06 Ce REVISED WORDING IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT. SECTION 1.8 AGRICULTURAL LAND 1.8.1. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION: IT IS THE CITY'S POLICY TO ENCOURAGE PRESERVATION OF ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WITHIN THE URBAN RESERVE AND CITY LIMITS. THE CITY SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF FARMING THROUGH STEPS SUCH AS PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING. 1.8.2 PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND: DEVELOPMENT OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SMALL PARCELS ESSENTIALLY SURROUNDED BY URBANIZATION, MAY BE PERMITTED PROVIDED DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE URBAN RESERVE OR GREENBELT BY ONE OR MORE THE THE FOLLOWING METHODS, OR AN EQUALLY EFFECTIVE METHOD: ACTING AS A RECEIVER SITE FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDIT; SECURING FOR THE CITY OR FOR A SUITABLE LAND CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS OR FEE OWNERSHIP WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS; HELPING TO DIRECTLY FUND THE ACQUISITION OF FEE OWNERSHIP OR OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS BY THE CITY OR A SUITABLE LAND CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION. ..�O3UNCIL CDD DIR 1`ww O FIN DIR CAC O Flip CNIEF i#�TORNEY O PW DIR 4ORIQ O POLICE CHF O M13MITTEAM O REG DIR O FILE ❑ UTiL DIR 0 PERS DIR ( 3 ) 1.11 Growth Rate & Phasing _ 1 .11 .1 Growth rates (EQTF word) should provide for the balanced evolution of community and the gradual assimilation of new residents. Growth must (PC rec:) be consistent with the City's ability to provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the environment and open space. 1.11.2. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE (PC rec.): The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent Per year.(EQTF rec.): averaged over a 36 month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This rate of growth continues so long as the city basic service capacity is assured Table 2 shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result from the one percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. rationale: Tie residential growth to service capacity rather than the urban reserve line. 1.11.3 Phasing Residential Expansions (Staff rec.): Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a specific plan or a development plan for it. Such plans for residential expansion projects will provide for phased development, consistent with the population growth outlined in Table 2, and taking into account expected .(EQTF word): incremental residential development within the 1994 City limits. ( 4) REVISED WORDING FOR LAND USE ELEMENT1.11.4 NON RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE �} THE CITY SHALL MONITOR THE RATE OF NOW RESIDENTIAL GROWTH WHICH WILL BE EVALUATED ANNUALLY BASED UPON EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. AT SUCH TIME IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE RATE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH HAS EXCEEDED AN AVERAGE RATE OF 1 % ANNUAL INCREASE OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, THE CITY SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A NON- RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. THIS POLICY WILL IMPLEMENT MEASURE G WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 1989. IN ACCORDANCE TO MEASURE G, THIS PROVISION WILL NOT APPLY TO EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES, DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONES, TO CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT LEVELS WITHIN EXISTING FACILITIES, TO EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT RELOCATE, TRANSFER TITLE OR ARE SOLD, OR TO PUBLIC AGENCIES. ( 5 ) EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES NEAR THE CITY (wording a combination of various recommendations) 1.12.1 Overall Policy Communication and cooperation between the City and nearby government institutions is important and must be maintained because changes in the number of workers, students and inmates of the three major public institutions near the City directly influence the City's economic base, land use, circulation and ability to manage growth. The city should continue to work with Cuesta College and Cal Poly's approved enrollment master plan targets as to their impacts on the city. 1.12.2 The City favors Cal Poly's approved enrollment master plan targets and these should not exceed campus and community resources. The City favors additional on- campus housing, enhanced transit service, and other measures to minimize impacts of campus commuting and enrollment. rational: the city has long known Cal Poly's enrollment master planning targets and these have not changed. PC's background section is wordy and not necessary. Also wording is consistent with observations made by Frank Lebens, Vice President for Administration and Finance, letter of May 2 to Mayor Pinard. 1 .12.3 and 1.12.4 (omit the background sections ) 1.12.4 Cuesta Community College (my revised wording) Policy: The City favors measures such as course offerings at satellite campuses and enhanced transit service to avoid housing and commuting impacts of increasing enrollments at Cuesta College. ( 6) 1.13 ANNEXATION AND SERVICES (Page 15-16 of PC draft, Page 18-19 of EQTF draft) 1 .13.2 Omit EQTF wording: "in addition to those of the planned capacity of incorporated areas." Wording unlcear in use and application. 1 .13.4 Development and Services: Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when the City can provide adequate services for the annexed area as well as for existing and potential development elsewhere within the City, except as explained below and in parts 113.6 and 1.13.7. Actual development in a major annexation area may proceed in accordance with the goals and policies described in this General Plan, as long as the development of the annexation area does not result in the reduction of services or cause an increase in the cost of such services to existing and potential development elsewhere within 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 Muncipal Water, reclaimed water and water conservation. Uses of private well water my be considered on an interim basis until municipal water becomes available.' Rationale: permits landowners in areas such as Margarita, if annexed, to develop some increment of housing prior to the delivery of Nacimiento water. Encourages the continuation of work of specific plans. 1.13.5 (F) 1 under Minor Annexation Requirements: omit "equal to at least four times the area to be developed." 1 .13.7 C (1) revised: Ownership's within the areas adjacent to Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road, where about one half of each ownership should be preserved as open space. (p. 18 PC/ p. 21 EQTF) Rationale: use this wording for consistency and clarity with the open space element. (7) PROGRAMS 1.16.6 Regional Growth Management The City will advocate a regional growth management program, which should include: SEC D Reword: Voter approval for any significant change in designation from open space, agricultural or rural land use to urban land uses. 1.17 RURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING 1 .17.1 Accept planning commission recommendation and add: The city should protect the agricultural water supply for continued agricultural use and production practices necessary to continue to economically produce the agricultural community. 1.17.1.a Agricultural Zoning: accept EQTF wording and add: Any zoning of land as agricultural should include positive incentives and commitment from the city to work with the agricultural property owners to promote economic viability of the land. New Agricultural buildings may be subject to planning commission review. 1.17.4 Cluster District The City should encourage the County to adopt a "mandatory cluster district" for appropriate areas of the Greenbelt under County jurisdiction in order to implement Policies 1.7 and 1.9 and better preserve the open space qualities of the Land. The city recognizes the County major and minor clustering programs and TDC programs. ( s) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.0 Commercial Siting (Page 33PC Rec or page 35 EQTF Rec) 3.0.3 (revised wording for consistency and clarity): Expansion of incompatible or non-residentially-oriented Commercial and Industrial uses into designated residential areas will not be approved. 3.1 .1 Retain "warehouse stores" Rationale: For consistency and clarity plus we have some now and revision could result in legal non conforming uses 3.1.2. Locations for Regional Attractions: The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of: downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101 and the area around 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. (modified wording underlined) rationale: appropriate to existing auto park way and related uses. 3.1.2.a and Program 3.7.2.a (Page 33PC Rec or page 35 EQTF Rec) Omit the EQTF section 3.1.2.a and Program 3.7.2.a because this creates a problem of consistency and substantial departure from the policies in the EIR, staff and planning .commission recommendations. The general plan update should not be delayed for this additional provision and time for its evaluation. However, possible rewording could be: 3.1.2.a Mid-Higuera Retail Development: The area of mid- Higuera along Higuera and Parker Streets between Madonna/South and High Streets should be considered as a possible additional future retail expansion area. (9) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued 3.1.3 & Program 3.7.2.b planning commission recommendation should be adopted. 3.1 .4 Specialty Store Locations Most specialty retail stores should locate downtown, the Madonna Road area or Los Osos Valley Road area: some may be located in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve a neighborhood rather than a citywide or regional market. 3.1 .5 planning commission recommendation should be adopted. 3.2.3 Expanding Centers: Planning commission recommendation should be adopted. EQTF addition does not appear consistent with revised 2.2.1 (This issue is also noted in the Chamber of Commerce letter by William Thoma of April 29, exhibit B, page 4 and. letter from LeeAnne Hagmaier of RRM Design Group, May 3, page 7.) 3.2.4 Stores in Residential Areas: Planning commission . recommendation should be adopted. Existing zoning conditions address this and Chamber notes this can be an unnecessary intervention into operations of private businesses. 3.2.5 Building Intensity: modify planning commission wording "Architectural review will determine building intensity" to read: "architectural review will determine -I'a project's realized building intensity, within the maximum floor area ratio, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. " ' ' Rationale: suggested rewording from Glen Matteson (May 5 memo, page 3 #8 in response to my memo of April 1 .) Glen offered a clearer way of stating the intent between the ARC and PC in determining building intensity. "The idea was... a review and refinement is made as part of design review." "Involving .the Planning Commission would complicate the permit process for a design issue that falls within the charge of the ARC." Matteson (10) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued 3.3 Offices (Page 36 PC / Page 38 EQTF) 3.3.1 Purposes and Included Uses. Adopt staff and planning commission wording and add EQTF wording "Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations" Rationale for wording addition: Restoration of deletion from earlier LUE draft. 3.3.2 Office Locations: A, B, C., D., and E. should be EQTF wording as its essentially part of existing LUE. 3.3.3; 3.3.4, 3.3.5. Staff and Planning Commission recommendations should be adopted. 3.4.1 Basis for Tourism: (Page 36 PC or Page 40 EQTF) PC wording should be adopted: The City should be an attractive place for short-term stays, as well as an attractive destination for long-term visitors. The City should base its attraction on the character of the community, its natural qualities, and its educational and cultural facilities. The City should emphasize conference and visitor-serving facilities which provide low-impact visitor activities and low impact means of transportation. Chamber of Commerce Letter by William Thoma of April 29, Exhibit B is correct that EQTF added wording can be perceived as ambiguous and judgmental. RRM letter by LeeAnne Hagmaier of May 3 also notes similar concerns. (11) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued 3.4.2 Locations: Planning commission recommendations should be adopted as the LUE map shows a Tourist Commercial designation for the airport entry road area and a change may require this to be referred to ' the Commission to preclude the airport for overnight accommodations. (note Mattson memo of May 5 responding to my question on this item) 3.4.4 Keep planning commission wording and delete reference to commissions as it would rule out the use of administrate use permit review or minor ARC review. 3.4.5 through 3.5.4 should be adopted as recommended by the planning commission, with the added EQTF changes in 3.5.2 F 3.5.5 Air & Water Quality: Planning commission recommended wording should be adopted: Industries locating or expanding in San Luis Obispo shall comply with all applicable air-quality and water-quality regulations. (Reasoning: These are performance standards clearly outlined by air and water quality rules that are more specific now than five years ago. Similar concerns also noted by RRM Design Group, May 3 memo) 3.5.7. A Auto Park Way: Adopt planning commission recommendation with added wording: If a plan for vehicle sales expansion onto prime farmland is approved, it should provide for permanent preservation, within the urban reserve or Greenbelt. If a plan for vehicle sales expansion into wetland or creek areas is approved, mitigation should consist at least of restoration and Permanent preservation, within the urban reserve, or Greenbelt. (12) COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, continued MAPS New Map of Land Use Element Figure 3 showing Vehicle Sales, and Planning Commission recommendation should be adopted. Corrected Map of Urban Reserve Line and Principal Expansion Areas Figure 2 of Dalidio Property should be determined as recommended by the planning commission and Froom Ranch should be designated as "interim open space" and small commercial designation across from current auto park way (what is now shown on the Map). (Reasoning: an application has been submitted and determination of acceptance is yet to be made) City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, May 170 1994-7:00 PM C-3 TREE PLANTING GRANT (File No. 94-06) ' Council considered plans and specifications for"SBA Tree Planting Grant Project: Various Locations:, Specification No. 94-06; engineer's estimate Is $77,000 including contingencies. Moved by Settle/Rapg_a to approve the plans and specifications, authorize staff to advertise for bids, and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid Is within the engineers estimate; motion carried (5-0). C-4 MISSION PLAZA EXPANSION PROJECT (File No. 875) Council considered authorizing the use of$100,000 from the Open Space Acquisition Budget to pay for remaining costs of the Mission Plaza Expansion Project. Moved by SettleJRapoa to authorize use of$100,000 as recommended by staff; motion carried (5-0). C-5 PARK RESTROOM DESIGN SERVICES (File No. 94-20A) Council considered a Request for Proposals for'Design Services: Santa Rosa Ballfield Restroom and French Park Restroom°, Specification No. 94-20A, estimated to cost $18,000. Moved by Settle/Raooa to approve the Request for Proposals and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award contact If the cost does not exceed $18,000; motion carried (5-0). C-6 COAST RAIL HIGH SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN PROJECT Council considered a resolution supporting the implementation of the Coast Rail High Speed Passenger Train Project. Moved by Settle/Rapoa to adopt Resolution No. 8291 in support of the Coast Rail High Speed Passenger Train Project; motion carried (5-0). COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS There were no Council Liaison Reports. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (File No. 462) Council held a public hearing to consider revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (continued from 3/28/94, 4/5/94, and 5/3/94). Arnold Jonas.Community Development Director,briefly reviewed the progress made on the Land Use Element. _Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open. City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, May 17, 1994-7:00 PM i Marilyn Britton.Farm Bureau,reviewed different problems with interfacing agricultural and residential uses. Jack McKean. San Luis Obispo, spoke against the proposed growth cap as frivolous and hard to decipher. Wanda Strassburg. President of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF) recommendations, and made several suggestions for the growth cap Including making it consistent with the County growth rate calculating growth rate on a square footage basis,exempting the downtown planning area,manufacturing,light industry and research businesses and utilizing a five-year rolling average starting with an initial 300,000 square foot 'bank'. Darlene Kellet, President of B&K Packaging, spoke against growth controls and increased taxes. Don Smith. Vista Lago, stated that growth control should apply to the airport area and suggested an exception provision with a 4/5 Council vote. Dennis Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, showed a three-phase development plan for the Froom Ranch. Mike Spangler. San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the EOTF recommendations. Christine Peralta, San Luis Obispo, encouraged Infill in existing malls rather than building on new areas for shopping expansion and urged the preservation of the Dalidio flood plain. Pat Veesart. San Luis Obispo, stated that the non-residential growth control was a ballot measure f approved by 70%of the voters in 1989 and recommended against basing controls on square footage. Kurt Kupper, San Luis Obispo, cautioned against allowing the gap between the jobs and housing balance to increase. Art Aguilar. San Luis Employment Agency, stated there were 33,000 unemployed in the County and spoke against a growth limit. Mayor Pinard-declared the public hearing closed. Council discussed the concept and definition of prime soils and agricultural uses within the City limits. Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt Section 1.8.1 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no). 9:55 PM Mayor Pinard declared a recess. 10:10 PM Council reconvened; all Council Members present. Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt Section 1.8.1 to add °land° in addition to 'agricultural operations°; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no). Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt Section 1.8.2 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle adding the clause 'from prime agricultural land of equal quantity` and the word 'infill° between °small° and 'parcels'; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rapp& and Romero voting no). 10 e City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, May 179 1994- 7:00 PM Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt the Planning Commission's version of Section 1.9.1A-C (without Table 1); motion carried (4-1, Council Member Rappa voting no). Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt Table 1 as recommended by the Planning Commission; motion was lost (2-3, Council Members Rappa and Romero and Mayor Pinard voting no). After discussion, moved by Romero/Settle to adopt the Planning Commission's version of Table 1; motion carried (3-2, Council Member Rappa and Mayor Pinard voting no). Moved by Settle/Romero to adopt Section 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle; motion carried (5-0). Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt Section 1.9.4 and proposed by Vice Mayor Settle; motion carried (5-0). Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt the Planning Commission's version of Section 1.10;motion carried (4-1, Council Member Romero voting no). Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt Section 1.11.1 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle adding°economy° to the last line; motion carried (5-0). Moved by Settle oalman to adopt Section 1.11.2 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle amended to read, 'This rate of growth may continue..4; motion carried (5-0). Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt Section 1.11.3 as recommended by the Planning Commission " replacing the word'incremerrtal°with°inTill°,and adding°within our urban reserve';motion carried(5- o). Moved by Settle/Rappa to adopt Section 1.11.4 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle amended to include a 1% annual rolling average increased over a five year period with an initial 300,000 square foot *bank"; deleting the words win accordance to measure G°;replacing the word °zones°with °core°and adding the clause °manufacturing,light Industrial and research businesses' to the end sentence; motion carried (4-1, Mayor Pinard voting no). 10:50 PM Mayor Pinard declared a recess. 10:55 PM Council reconvened; all Council Members present. Moved by Rapes/Roalman to continue the item to June 6, 1994;motion carried (4-1,Council Member Settle voting no). BUSINESS ITEMS 2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TASK FORCE (EQTF) EXTENSION Council considered a request from the.EQTF to grant an extension to November 29, 1994. Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the request. Moved by Settle/Roalman to approve an extension to November 29, 1994;motion carried(3-2,Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no).