HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/1994, C-2 - GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1994 #1
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 FOR THE ELECTION
OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO CHARTER CITIES
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION I. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California
relating to Charter Cities, and Section 302 of the City Charter, there is called and ordered
to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, a
General Municipal Election to fill the following offices:
(a) Mayor - two (2) year term
(b) Two (2) Council Members - four (4) year terms each
SECTION 2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content
as required by law,
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure
and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment
and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the
election.
SECTION 4. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock am. of
the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock
p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed.
Resolution No. (1994 Series) Page Two
SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall
be held and conducted as provided by law for the holding of municipal elections.
SECTION 5. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and
the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of
the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT.-
the
BSENT:the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of June, 1994.
ATTEST: Mayor Peg Pinard
City Clerk Diane R. Gladwell
APPROVED:
tt e
#2
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO REQUESTING THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo is hereby
requested to order the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide
General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, and said Board of Supervisors
is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the election called and the election shall be
held in all respects as if there were only one election and one form of ballot, namely the
ballot used at such general election shall be used. The precincts, polling places and officers
of election for the General Municipal Election hereby called shall be the same as those
provided for said Statewide General Election and as set forth in Section 23312 of the
Election Code.
The Board of Supervisors is requested to certify the results of the canvass of the
returns of the General Municipal Election to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
which shall thereupon declare the results thereof.
SECTION 2. The Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to
the County Clerk and Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding
of said General Municipal Election. The City will pay its pro rata share of extra costs
incurred by the County in consolidating the elections pursuant to Section 51350 of the
Government Code.
Resolution No. (1994 SERIES) Page Two
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this
resolution with the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk and the Registrar of Voters of
the County of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
On motion of ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of June, 1994.
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
City Clerk Diane R. Gladwell
APPROVED:
Att rn
MEETING AGENDA
ITEM It
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
June 8, 1994l UNCIL D DIR
0 ❑ FIN DIR
C�'� O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TO: John Dunn, CAO FOR: Council meeting of June 14, 199 t�TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
�EERKKAIG ❑ POUCE CHF
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manage
t�'h.+ [3 PERS DIR
Cpm (/
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - Simplified annexation policies
At the June 6 meeting, Council began to make tentative decisions on the Annexation and
Services policy (1.13, page 15) of the Growth Management section. In response to a staff
suggestion, Council directed staff to present for this meeting a recommended, simplified
annexation policy which staff had prepared anticipating difficulties with the previously
recommended material.
Attached to this memorandum are:
A table summarizing policies under the adopted element, the Planning Commission
draft, and the potential simplified draft.
Draft text of a simplified approach for annexation policy, reflecting staff's
understanding of the Council actions at the June 6 meeting. The main intent of this
approach is to avoid the "exceptions to exceptions" nature of the adopted and draft
texts as they have evolved to this point. While all the basic ideas of the adopted and
draft texts are included, this new version is more than a format change. The
summary table highlights the differences.
One item in the attached text does not completely reflect Council action from June
6. Policy 1.13.2 does not include the statement "However, no major expansion area
should be annexed until its water supply and treatment, and sewage collection and
treatment, needs can be met." This statement was deleted because the term "major
expansion area" is no longer used in this policy format.
gm:LUE-CU MEM
RECEIVED
JUN 1 p 1994
Cm Cour X
sAn Luis OBISPO,CA
C C C
F ai a5 a7
lL d O N
¢ p o a
¢ R
D °'o E
LU 'DO
0 v
of
o a ca E
Jtm cm CD
dC a7 C C C C C E '00 •O
d ` _ Cc O ca
J x C 7 a) a) a) a) c� a) H H
Q cc ` c t t t •G H m a) d
C O_ O C y y C Z a Z
z `c 0 p � `c `c oi0i m E ° a y a
LU iG a d a) 0 c c
U cc$ p ca ca l9 ca C U E O
O O. d d O O O — O d d "' y O
a r cn cn cn a c v a v v z
N a
W Ir
0 ca
V Z o
O m
0 <A ca
CL �' z E co 'a r
o m m o E m y y = c
Z p E •° c0 m 0 " 3
R
F- U c c c —�°� ° o CD LO o 5 o c
Q O m r c� v ` E
t+x+ Z E a o axxi d o c c a`) �a
cc m
Z p E 0 a) c cC r- t = E aa)i co
o
Z Z E d d 0 U a3 ca c y y c E H ai
d a) ca w p :+ p a7
Q o m cn m co � 0 0 0 T m c a c
a
0
LL5
0 W a'D 0 v d
cn E -0 c ca
Z = 0) C
a0N O N = cc
C o d d
ca 3Z y
d
C d Occ X
0
co
Ln 0r_
E `° c °' c«a 0 CV -e c d E
dw z p U O tc0 c CL t`a cc0 m H a O
W a) a7 0 m N at ,�
0 O ca Q a 0 Q c o p N cn E o us
O p � E a d y G c of a1 p c a)
C1 ¢ w iii v w co m 3 ° E
0 0 o o
c c
EICL
E o ' E E o
y a
' c �
o y r.
a`) E w
i i « a1 c c
m O O C tm cd O
m w 3
c E 0 0 o cCL
V
O x
16 a O. a)
i c R ca o 0 m d
00 a a ` m c
OO. O.
U a) 0) v co m y �- E co &a
O V N C G
crE:
> > m m c v �� N n n
f- z z x a ¢ w in O Oil
U =
'1
DRAFT SIMPLIFIED ANNEXATION POLICIES
1.13 Annexation and Services
1.13.1 Water& Sewer Service The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City
water or sewer services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those
parties having valid previous connections or contracts with the City.
A. Outside the City limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water
system;
D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City
sewer system.
1.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth
management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect
open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with
urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may
annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex
areas which are to remain permanently as open space.
An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan
or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will
reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and
existing and proposed land uses and roads. (See also Section 7.0, Airport Area.)
1.13.3 Required Plans Land in an annexed area may be developed only after the
City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of
subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area. For the Airport,
Margarita, Irish Hills, and Orcutt expansion areas, a specific plan should be adopted
for the whole of each area before any part of it is annexed. For any other
annexations, the plan may be a specific plan, development plan under 'PD" zoning,
or similar development plan covering the entire area. The plan shall provide for
open space protection consistent with policy 1.13.5.
1.13.4 Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be
approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development,
without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing
development within the City. Water for development in an annexed area may be
made available by any one or any combination of the following:
A. City water supply, including reclaimed water;
B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will
be no net increase in long-term water usage;
L �
C. On-site well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability
of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is
demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's
municipal groundwater supply.
1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for
areas designated Open Space. The following standards shall apply to the indicated
areas.
A. Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an
area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed. (See also Hillside
Planning section 6.2.6.H.)
B. Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the
hills above the elevation designated in the hillside planning section and
riparian and wetlands areas as identified in the Open Space Element. (See
also Hillside Planning section 6.2.6.E.)
C. Orcutt Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the
Santa Lucia foothills and Mine Hill, as identified in the Open Space Element.
D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources
as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain
the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous,
commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to
directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid
when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south
of the City's southerly urban reserve line.
[Add a program: 'The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in-lieu
of open space dedication." Also, repeat item D in the Airport Area section, by
combining with policies 7.4. and 7.5.]
E. Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna
Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for the
approximately one-half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open
space.
F. Other area properties, which are both along the urban reserve line and on
hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be
developed (developed area includes building lots, roads, parking and other
paved areas, and setbacks required by zoning). (See also the Hillside
Planning policies, section 6.2).
AN%-ALT.OHD
PAttIINU. AIitNUA
r 07 ITEM #
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
UNCIL D DIR
June 8, 1994 �/� ❑ FIN DIR
��O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
}a�TORNEY ❑ PSV DIR
�-�LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
TO: John Dunn, CAO FOR: Council meeting of June 14, 1994 ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REO DIR
O ❑ C D FI' ❑ UTIL DIR
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director ❑ PERS DIR
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT. Land Use Element update - EQTF proposals involving consistency issues,
referral to Planning Commission, or additional environmental review
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 staffs understanding that the Council intends to discuss the following parts of the draft
Land Use Element at the June 14 hearing: the annexation policy of the Growth
Management section;remaining Commercial and Industrial Development policies(beginning
with 3.1.3),and Resource Protection. Staff has already provided memoranda concerning the
Growth Management and Commercial and Industrial sections. Staff will provide additional
evaluation of the EQTF features for parts expected to be discussed at future meetings.
The following concerns the Resource Protection section.
RECEIVED
JUN 10 1994
01.1 COUNCIL
MN LU 6 ODIVID&QA
Page' Item Concern
58 Policy 6.1.1 Consistency/clarity: Several terms are more inclusive than those of the
recently adopted Open Space Element or previous Council action on
the LUE:
Part A, "lands that are of value"vs. "sensitive habitats or unique
resources as defined in the Open Space Element;"
Part B, "prime agricultural soils within the Urban Reserve" vs.
policy 1.8.2;
Part C, "ecological sensitivity" vs. "sensitive habitats or unique
resources as defined in the Open Space Element;"
Recommendation: If the policy is to be added, revise it to read:
6.1.1 Open Space and Greenbelt Designations The City shall
designate four types of land as open space:
valley
< a `> :<::.:, >>'esiurc..s....as
A Upland andssveiab „ats.:.:>..:.::.>:.;.11n..:.: x.:::..::::::::,:::::.:::.,::::. :
deed i the Open Space Elemen#, including corridors which connect
habitats.
B. Undeveloped prime agricultural soils
agr,cultural use as prow ed �n p.0.V .1. .
C. Those areas which are best suited to nonurban uses due to:
infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or
slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard;
scenic value; wildlife habitat value, ,inctudrng sensttve..hat?tatsoa
inique resourCes:as defined ih the Opel Sp= Element, agricultural
a.. F:n::..:..v. v. .. n.
value; and value for passive recreation.
D. A greenbelt ... [as in EQTF draft].
59 Policy 6.1.2 Consistency/cldrity: Adding "and alterations to the landforms and
native or traditional landscapes” may not be consistent with Council
action on Greenbelt policy 1.7.2, though it reinforces the definition of
open space as land "which remains in a predominantly natural or
undeveloped state."
Recommendation: Determine whether this additional qualification
should be added.
of the EQTF draft
Page* Item Concern
61 Policy 6.1.6 Planning Commission review: The Planning Commission did not discuss
designating as Open Space the land between San Luis Creek and Los
Verdes Park.
Recommendation: If Council intends to designate the subject area as
Open Space rather than Interim Open Space, refer this change to the
Planning Commission.
62 Policy 6.2.1 Consistency/clarity: "Wildlife habitats" is more inclusive than the
recently adopted Open Space Element.
Recommendation: Modify sentence to read: "The location of the
development limit and the standards should avoid encroachment into
seris�tzve habitats or unique rstiurces as defined in the fJpen'Space
1�Ieineztt::'."
67 Policy 6.2.6.K(2) Consistency/clarity: It is unclear from the last added sentence
whether the map should show Open Space or Interim Open
Space for the areas between the highway and the existing inn,
and north of the circled numeral 1 on the Land Use Map.
Recommendation: Clarify whether the map needs to be changed to
reflect the text policy.
71 Policy 6.4.3.D1
73 Policy 6.5.1.A(4) Consistency/clarity: The EQTF-recommended policies differ
from the recently adopted Open Space Element (page 22,
LEA)which allows replacement buildings in the same footprint.
"May be required..." is not definite concerning when different
approaches would be allowed.
Recommendation: Clarify Council's preferred approach and give
direction.
72 Policy 6.4.3.G Consistency/clarity: The added statement does not allow
exceptions, as the Open Space Element does for "creek
alterations" when there is "no practicable alternative" (page 23,
1.F).
Recommendation: Clarify Council's preferred approach and give
direction.
of the EQTF draft
gm:LUE-CONEM
h. _fly��_Q,�AGENDA
DATE_._._--ITEM #
MPA
MERRIAM PLANNING
ASSOCIATES COUNCIL CDD DIR
1B�CA0 ❑ FIN DIR
I(ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
W,'AT ORNEY ❑ PW DIR
8 June 1994 9 CLERKIRIG ❑ POUCE CHF
O MGMT TEAM O REC DIR
City Council of San Luis Obispo ❑ C READ FILE O UTIL DIR
Cit Hall
990 Palm Street 13 PEAS DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 934017 hJ1m
RE: Dalidio Area Application Processing. �' MyeY1�lG
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
As agent for the Dalidio Family, I am requesting that the Council take time at your June 14 meeting
not only to review the Dalidio area which is the next item on the LUE agenda, but to give specific
direction to the planning staff to begin processing the Dalidio application consistent with the draft
LUE.
Mr. Bird and the Dalidios had agreed to wait a couple of months in order to avoid confusion and
potential conflicts while the Council completed processing the General Plan Update. Our original
submittal was made in November of last year and was revised and resubmitted in April of this
year. To meet commitments to potential tenants and the option agreement, it is essential that staff'
begin processing prior to July or August when it looks like the final housekeeping language may
be complete on the General Plan Update.
In conclusion, I request the following direction be given to staff:
1) Start processing the Dalidio Development plan consistent with the LUE draft language approved
by the City Council: specifically sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3.
2)The attached map be found consistent with the General Plan Figure 2 and shall become the basis
for the start of staff evaluaticn.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely for the Dalidio Farrlily,
Andrew G.Merriam, AIA, A-ICP JUN 'i 199L>
Principal
CITY CLERK
1350 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, Calitorrna 93401 (805) 543-7057
Andrew G. Merriam.. AIA. A/CP
A= i 0! IOK
orcr' SPACE
B= III-1 I M! MC
w�Tt-roar
r_____„�____t�___.__� _ .___v"•_r_.__
C= CII NAC
1 N r rmTxruu! ori no=r rm b"U --marc surra 1
ICMT.J ICKIV.1 --r Iow.1 \ COL&CRCI.AL
•1
=i
=rte--------- -\
#�Low. roll orna
i
ICS
COMMERCIAL
ll —III—I I Imo; , : �"�,/ ;°; .••
(.!I— G I I L—LLIII 1 j I :r t i' SCALE T-SeD
�rfii i$p$ItAil l l�! I � a,�
I—I I I I I I—I I E
:-I�I—II I—I I I—I I 11 i i
�I
'- I I—I I I-1 I1=1 I I. � ' �`�•
—I_I II I I1 _.._..--.._._.._..� ,
fN P GE
P A
o r �
_
\ l
UFA Zoning Designations Requested ]v14/93
Merriam Planning
Associates Dalidio Development Plan Map 1
06/14/94 15:50 0057013534 PAGE 01
MEETINGAL-14DA
an Luis Obispo Y Count DATE -1 _c ITEM #-
yinphonya GrDD DfR
O"CAO ❑ FIN DIA
June 14, 1994 3 CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
Mayor Peg Pinard PfCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo County City Council ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIA
P.O. Box 8100 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ unL DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 �F— ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Peg:
As a member of the Visitors and Conference Bureau Board as well as the newly appointed SLO
Chamber of Commerce Tourism Council, I recognize the significance of tourism to San Luis Obispo
County residents. And I know that you too are fully aware of the facts: that year to date, we have
seen a TOT revenue increase of $108,000, without raising taxes, for instance. And in 1992, $700
million was spent by visitors in our county, generating 11,000 jobs.
As the you and the Council reviews the EQTF/Planning Commission Draft of the Land Use Element
Plan as it pertains to tourism, I urge you to pay particular attention to language in sections 3.4.1 and
3.4.2 which in my way of thinking is vague and undefined. Specifically, what is a "low impact upon
the environment°, who will set such standards and ensure their enforcement? Similarly, why
-uldn't there be visitor-serving overnight accommodations near the airport?
As you know, the San Luis Obispo County Symphony presents concerts county-wide, including our
Family Concert at Cal Poly and our blockbuster"Pops By The Sea" concert at Avila Bay Resort in the
South County. As marketing director for Symphony, I strongly believe it is my mission to promote
Symphony concerts and outreach programs to community residents but for special events such as
"Pops" and our new"Masterworks" concert; I also strive to reach out-of-area tourists.
The partnership between the arts and tourism has the potential to attract targeted tourists who often
will return to our county for the same or similar cultural arts events as well as other recreation and
entertainment. For the third year, Symphony is co-promoting "Pops" with the Arthritis Foundation's
"Central Coast Wine Festival" Labor Day week-end and each year we attract more and more tourists
from as far away as San Diego and Orange County. Also, the Visitors and Conference Bureau
facilitated promoting a special hoteVrestaurantfconcert package last March for our Masterworks
concert, with a degree of success for a first-time venture.
As all of our resources are limited, such partnerships between arts organizations, other non-profits,
the tourism industry and government are essential to "get the best bang for the buck"! I urge you to
seriously consider the Chamber's recommendations regarding the expansion of policies and
programs relating to tourism. These suggestions strike me as not_only.reasonable but essential to
effectively compete for tourism and its associated benefits for San Luis Obispo. As several local arts
organizations anticipate presenting events at the new Performing Arts Center, we are fully aware that
we must reach not only deeper within our community but wider within California and beyond to fill the
h—se. RECEIVED
S'O ZP of.
,SUN t 4 1"4
CITY CLERK
Post Office Box 658 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 • (805) 543-3533+uis oetam,c.7.
VU/ 14/
Land Use Element, Tourism
Page 2
J appreciate your consideration of my concerns regarding the existing language and intent of the
current recommendations of the EQTF. As you know, I am an ardent supporter of maintaining the
environmental quality of our community as well as the cultural richness. A healthy tourism industry is
one avenue for accomplishing these goals.
Cordially,
Sandy Baer
Marketing Director
MEET A ALMA
DATE
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781.2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, Executive Director
June 13, 1994 ,COUNCIL ]DIR
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members IEF
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street ❑ CHF
❑San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑❑
RE: Land Use Element Update
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce provides the following comments for the
June 14 Land Use hearing. For your convenience, the Chamber provides a copy of our
June 6 letter which outlines Chamber recommendations for the Commercial and
Industrial Development section of the Draft LUE, some of which is still under
consideration at the June 14 hearing.
In fllis letter, the Chamber provides a recap of its comments on the Resource Protection
section of the LUE. This discussion includes Chamber comments on the June 8 staff
memorandum on internal consistency issues. Additionally, the Chamber offers its
recommendations on the June 8 staff memorandum on simplified annexation policies.
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. While we
support many of the EQTF goals, such goals do not belong in this
document.
RECFIVED
JUN I A 1994
PITY�GERK ACCREDITED
E
1 C ouueen OF Cor WA
I� �I T y .� CHAYBCP OF COVMIPCE
C, INE u.17[0 Sinus
6.1.1
Concern: Because the EQTF policy was internally inconsistent, the Chamber
previously supported the Planning Commission draft language.
Upon review of staff's June 8 memorandum, the Chamber agrees
that in order to maintain internal consistency, staff's suggested
language should be adopted.
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. The
Chamber recommends the Planning Commission draft language
for internal consistency.
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 is inappropriate.
In regards to the June 8 staff memorandum on simplified annexation policies, the
Chamber finds policies 1.13.1 - 1.13.4 to be both acceptable and preferable. In reference
to policy 1.13.5 F, the Chamber of Commerce generally opposes arbitrary and
prescriptive standards such as the 4:1 ratio. The.Chamber believes that such standards
should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The Chamber of Commerce encourages your close review of these recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
William A_ Thoma, Vice President
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, Executive Director
June 6, 1994
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Land Use Element Update
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce asks that you consider the following
comments pertaining to the various sections of the Draft Land Use Element that are
scheduled for review this evening. These comments begin with the Growth
Management section.
Growth Management Policies
1.12.1 While the Chamber prefers the Planning Commission language, the
Chamber finds the wording proposed by Councilman Settle (May 17, 1994
memo) to be acceptable.
1.12.2The Chamber supports language offered by Councilman Settle. (May 17,
1994 memo).
1.12.4 The Chamber supports language offered by Councilman Settle (May 17,
1994 memo).
1.12.1 The Chamber continues to argue that added EQTF language is
inappropriate and internally inconsistent. Land use outside the city is
permitted, and such uses should not be preyented:from independently
obtaining their water needs.
ACCREDITED
C1 Xn Of CO�
C.PM6[P OE C0..r PC[
0r INE yb'lrO 5IA715
1.13.2 While the Chamber supports the Planning Commission language, it will
however, accept language offered by Councilman Settle (May 17, 1994
memo).
1.13.4 Comments offered by Councilman Settle in the first paragraph are unclear
and could be improperly applied. Development could not occur if a
deficiency existed elsewhere in the city. What is defined as "potential"
development use of well water is much more complex than it is presented
here. Well water is only used currently to supplement existing supply
and is not earmarked for specific expansion.
*1.13.5 G Comment: While new development should pay its way, new
development should not be expected to pay "twice" its share for water.
Growth Management Programs:
1.16.6 The Chamber of Commerce continues to disagree with the concept of
ballot box land use planning. This language is inappropriate in the Land
Use Element. Further, what is a definition of "significant?" How can
citizens vote on land use issues outside of our legal jurisdiction? It is not
legal.
1.17.1a The Chamber continues to argue that such land use does not belong
within the urban reserve line. It would be inappropriate to require
agriculture buildings to go before the ARC and Planning Commission.
This does not encourage farming, it adds burdens to their ability to farm.
This section is unnecessary and the proposed language provided the
EQTF and by Councilman Settle in his May 17, 1994 memo is
inappropriate.
1.17.4 The Chamber supports Councilman Settle's proposed language in his May
17, 1994 memo.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
3.0.3 The Chamber suggests adding a sentence: "Compatible mixed use
developments should be encouraged."
3.0.4 The Chamber suggests the addition of language that embraces the City's
adopted Downtown Physical Concept Plan.
3.1.1 The Chamber agrees with Planning Commission language as suggested
by Councilman Settle in his May 17, 1994 memo.
3.1.2 The Chamber supports the proposed added language by Councilman
Settle (May 17, 1994 memo) and would also like to see language on the
Downtown Physical Concept Plan and its associated programs added.
3.1.2a Add Programs 3.7.2 a and b. The Chamber supports the suggestions of
Councilman Settle that the EQTF language cannot be added. This section
should be deleted. Language encouraging redevelopment=of the mid-
Higuera area would be acceptable but not mandatory.
3.1,3 Adopt the Planning Commission Draft language.
3.2.3 and Adopt the Planning Commission Draft language (which was also
3.2.4 acceptable to Allen Settle in his May 17, 1994 memo.)
3.2.5 The Chamber is supportive of Planning Commission Draft language and
is confused as to the intent and wording as suggested by Councilman
Settle (May 17, 1994 memo). This concept requires further clarity if
Councilman Settle's language is to be considered.
3.3.2 E The Chamber suggests that the review remain as a "use permit" as
,. prescribed in the zoning ordinance. The applicant and staff time involved
in a Planned Development Zoning application are unnecessary.
3.3.3 Adopt Planning Commission Draft language.
3.3.4 (Also supported by Councilman Settle -- May 17, 1994 memo)
3.3.5
3.5.1
*3.4.1 The Chamber recommends expanding policies and programs to include:
1) encouraging development of destination full-service resorts with
complete recreational facilities for golf, tennis, equestrian activities,
swimming, fishing and eco-tourism
2) developing additional meeting and conference space to
accommodate the fast growing medium size,conference market
3) working with the new Performing Arts Center in promoting arts
oriented tourism
4) developing more aggressive tourism marketing programs
5) developing new tourism concepts such as rail tours, sea cruises,
and bicycling touring
3.5.2 F The Chamber suggests that the review remain as a "use permit" as
prescribed in the zoning ordinance. The applicant and staff time involved
in a Planned Development Zoning application are unnecessary.
3.5.5 The Chamber strongly urges your adoption of the Planning Commission
Draft language which is also supported by Allen Settle in his May 17,
1994 memo.
3.5.7 The Chamber urges your adoption of the Planning Commission Draft
language without modification. Language suggested by Councilman
Settle (May 17, 1994 memo) is also acceptable.
3.5.7 A&B As suggested by the EQTF, this language is internally inconsistent and
should be eliminated from the document.
3.7.8 Adopt Planning Commission Draft language as this program is a long
standing one and is consistent with City goals.
The Chamber of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to offer comments relative to
these important issues. If the Council truly believes in a sound, strong local economy,
we urge your support of the recommendations provided above. We look forward to a
continued working relationship as we proceed through the Land Use Hearing process.
Sincerely, l '
William A. Thoma
Vice President of the Legislative Division
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
M`RIN AGENDA
ITEM #
CENTRAL COAST
ENGINEERING
396 Bucklcv Road
San Luis Obispo 10 June 1994
California 93401 E1289
(805)544-3278
FAX(805)541-3137
t,p CDD DIR
13`CAO ❑ FIN DIR
9 ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City Council, 2rATTOANEY C3PW DIR
140RI
City of San Luis Obispo ;!rCLERG C3POUCE CHF
P.O. Box 1800 ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 ❑ C READ FILE, ❑ UTIL DIR
Re: Land Use Element (Froom Ranch) ❑ PERS DIR
Members...
Please consider the following observations with respect to Council's 06 June 1994
deliberation about regional shopping in the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos
Valley Road:
1. Future planning. The discussion focused on the interim zoning for the
property and the possibility of optional uses based on future needs. Without
a policy stating alternate uses, any future proposal not emphasizing
residential use would be inconsistent with the General Plan and EIR,
impositioning any application because it would, (1) not have staff support, and
(2) require findings for exceptions and variances. Citizen interest for additional
shopping is high, and there is real possibility that the County may permit
regional commercial use if the City does not take action. In this scenario, the
City absorbs the impacts, but not the sales tax revenue.
The Froom Ranch:
•gives the City control of regional commercial expansion.
•contributes the the City general fund
•provides spin-off sales to City merchants. RECE�vED
•implements City land us%irculation element policies.
•provides community benefit to the City. JUN 1 " 1994
clTr couNCIL
SAN,LUIS OBISPO■CL
jn694dlb.wps
2
2. Leapfrogging and Sprawl. These associated terms are typically referenced to
areas that are completely isolated from the City's urban sphere of influence.
The Froom Ranch is:
* within the City's sphere.
*surrounded on 3 sides by the City limits.
*currently designated for City urban use.
*on a City designated major thoroughfare.
*adjacent to City services.
*in the City General Plan.
*designated for City use in regional documents.
*consistent with LAFCo. "contiguous"standard.
3. Commercial Zoning. While it may be true that there are empty commercial
buildings and unbuilt lots within the City limits, the majority of these
examples are to small and unable to mitigate traffic and community concerns
(for discussion sake, should we limit the area to the two other designated
regional areas or the entire City?).
The Froom Ranch:
*is adjacent to Hwy. 101 and LOVR
*makes the least traffic impact (based on LOUR).
*provides for current and future shopping demand.
*appropriate for commercial development.
4. Housing. Since Council has decided not to meet State Housing mandates,
there is no need to fix housing capacity at a certain amount or percentage. If
Council chooses to resolve concern for housing capacity loss because of the
land use changes, the Froom Rand: Commercial Expansion Project offers to
replace that in, and adjacent to the Lunita Special Design Area. This
mitigation meets the unwritten policy of replacing at a 1:1 that which is taken
from the inventory (point brought up during Council's recent use deliberation
for the Jewish Temple).
To conclude, the Froom Ranch Development Plan (Application #41-94) has been
submitted and is on hold with staff waiting for direction from Council. I have asked
jn694dlb.wps
3
the planner assigned to the project (W. McElvaine), if she understood the issues,
and if she had questions that would effect the acceptance and processing of the
application? From her response it is clear that in order expedite policy
interpretation and review of the development elan (Application #41-94). Council
needs to provide specific direction to staff by designating commercial use on the
Froom Ranch property (Figure 2 and the land use element map), affirming
specifically where regional shopping is permitted.
Our LAFCo. application is accepted and their staff (P. Hood) has forwarded his
request to the City for prezoning and CEQA determination.
Thanks for your time and consideration. If you have questions please contact me...
.7
-
6W1 I 19t
Dennis c ml t
jn694dlb.wps