HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/1994, 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRAL REPORT ON PROPOSED POLICY CONCERNING INTENSIFIED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ALONG MID HIGUERA STREET. z
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
June 16, 1994
TO: John Dunn, CAO FOR: Council meeting of June 28, 1994
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director O
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manag
pm
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - Planning Commission referral report on
proposed policy concerning intensified retail development along mid Higuera
Street.
SITUATION
While considering the Land Use Element update on June 6, Council took a tentative action
to include a new policy in the Commercial and Industrial Development Section, following
policy 3.1.2 concerning locations for regional attractions:
The City shall consider the potential enhancement of underutilized commercial land
along Higuera Street and Parker Street, between Madonna Road/South Street and High
Street.
This policy was included, rather than one recommended by the Environmental Quality Task
Force (EQTF),which called for this area to be considered ahead of other potential locations
outside downtown for additional major retail development. Council directed, pursuant to
State law, that this new policy must be referred to the Planning Commission for a report,
since the Commission had not explicitly considered it.
RESPONSE
The Planning Commission considered this item at its June 15 regular meeting and voted six
to none (one absent) to recommend that the policy be included, with the change that the
referenced area extend to the Marsh Street intersection. Some Commissioners said that
intensified retail use in this area should not take the form of a strip which would detract
from the nodal character of the commercial core.
LUF-CO MEM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 17, 1994
TO: John Dunn, CAO FOR: Council meetings of June 28, July 12, and July 26, 1994
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director /;0
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 Council-
adopted policies;
May need to be referred to the Planning Commission, because the Planning
Commission did not discuss them;
May need additional environmental review, because the potential impacts have not
been addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or the EIR
Supplement.
Requirements for consistency, for Planning Commission consideration, and for
environmental review are established by State law. Staff has been asked to identify these
items as the Council proceeds through the draft element, and to provide a written summary
of the features, and recommended wording to address potential inconsistencies, before the
meetings.
It is staff's understanding that the Council intends to discuss the following parts of the draft
Land Use Element on the indicated dates:
June 28 - Commercial and Industrial Development Programs (evaluation provided in
May 5 memorandum);
- Irish Hills (including Froom Ranch) and Orcutt (including Righetti property)
map designations) (text policy issues evaluated in previous memoranda);
- Airport Area (evaluated below);
July 12 - Public and Cultural Facilities (evaluation provided in May 27 memorandum
no issues outstanding);
- Resource Protection (evaluation provided in June 8 memorandum);
- Optional Use and Special Design Areas (evaluated below);
July 26 - Review and Amendment (no issues outstanding);
- Implementation (no issues outstanding);
- Definitions (evaluated below);
- Land Use Map (some questions noted previously);
- "Clean-up" items (unknown at this time).
Page* Item Concern
Airport Area
79 Policy 7.4 Consistency/clarity: The added sentence does not say what degree of
protection is to be achieved, or how much area is to be protected.
Neither does policy 1.13.5.13, concerning open space for Airport Area
annexations,which was tentatively approved by Council June 14. Clear
statements on these issues are important if"annexation, in whole or in
part, is contingent upon achieving..." Staff asked the EQTF at its June
16 meeting to clarify its intent.
The EQTF said the intent was to have parts of the greenbelt protected
as parts of the Airport Area are annexed, and that the protection had
to be more than adoption of policies.
Recommendation: Revise policy 7.4 to read: "Annexation of the
Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be
consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas
outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses.
An Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed
area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the
Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods:
A. Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the
City or to a responsible land-conservation organization.
B. Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedicating land or easements,
which fees shall be used within a reasonable time to secure
greenbelt open space near the,Airport Area."
' of the EQTF draft
Page.� Item Concern
Optional Use & Special Design Areas
83 Policy 11.1 Consistency/clarity: The text coding (strike out and underline) is
unclear. The Planning Commission recommended that the Land Use
Element text not include a statement on use of this parcel as a park,
but that the updated Parks and Recreation Element call for acquiring
a park site in this neighborhood.
83 Policy 8.1.1 Consistency/clarity: This item should be checked for consistency with
Council action on policy 6.2.6.K(2) --which had not been taken when
this memo was prepared-- noted in the June 8 memorandum,
concerning map designations for the area from the highway up the
slope of San Luis Mountain.
84 Policy 8.2 Consistency/clarity: There is not a direct inconsistency with policy
3.1.2.a(as tentatively approved by Council and referred to the Planning
Commission June 6), but the two sections do not say the same thing.
The previous section says:
"The City shall consider the potential enhancement of
underutilized commercial land along Higuera Street and Parker
Street between Madonna Road/South Street and High Street."
[See also memorandum transmitting Planning Commission
recommendation to extend the area to Marsh Street.]
Recommendation: Give direction on Council's preference,considering
these alternatives:
- As drafted by EQTF;
- As stated in previous section;
- Be more specific, by saying "The City will consider designating
this area General Retail."
84 Policy 8.3 Consistency/clarity: Policies 1.8.1 and 1.8.2, as endorsed May 17, delete
reference to the four-to-one replacement ratio.
85 Policy 8.4 Consistency/clarity: Policies 1.8.1 and 1.8.2,as endorsed May 17, delete
reference to the four-to-one replacement ratio.
Also, if the open space/trail linkage to the Irish Hills is seen as a
desirable component of any development of the frontage property, it
should be so stated in the opening paragraph rather than listed as an
option.
* of the EQTF draft
�-y
Paan' Item Concern
85 Policy 8.5 Consistency/clarity: This section would establish a higher level of
protection than provided by policies 1.8.1 and 1.8.2, as endorsed May
17, and higher than implied by the Land Use Element Map
designations endorsed June 14.
If some form of this policy is to be included, reference should be to the
"area" rather than to the "parcel" (there are several).
Definitions
91 "Creek" Consistency/clarity: This definition is not the same as in the recently
adopted Open Space Element,which refers to a map identifying creels
within the city. If Council prefers the EQTF recommendation, the
Open Space Element should be amended to conform, within a
reasonable time. The EQTF's defintion would broaden the application
of creek-protection policies in the Open Space Element.
92 "Greenbelt" Consistency/clarity: This definition is not the same as in the recently
adopted Open Space Element. If Council prefers the EQTF
recommendation, the Open Space Element should be amended to
conform, within a reasonable time.
of the EQTF draft
LUE-MAEM
MUTING AGENDA
DAL ITEM #
RECEIVED
CITY COUNCIL
�4N LUIS OBISPO, CA
June 16, 1994
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, California, 93401
Dear City Council and Mayor Peg Pinard;
I am writing to support densifying commercial development at the
Madonna and Central Coast Plaza Malls instead of expanding onto
the adjacent agricultural areas. The current mall and parking
surfaces are highly under-utilized, low density spaces and as a result,
are not pleasant places for people to shop. As an example, when I
shop at Luckys and must run an errand at Sears, the built
environment necessitates that I drive my car across the lot rather
than walk. The space is not geared towards the pedestrian
consumer, but for cars. I support increasing the current
development's density by building parking structures, linking
shopping centers by pedestrian friendly walks, and preserving the
open/agricultural space around the site.
Attached is a plan which was given to me which I believe is
conceptually correct.
Sincerely,
Laura Joines Novotny
726 Park Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CyDUNCIL CDD]DIR
O ❑ FIN
❑
�l� EY PNI
IYCLEMONG ❑ POLI
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC❑ D ILE ❑ UTIL❑ PER
PJn�K
ro1'{SGHA�K'S 6�U ,ut;Fra,6
M401)O&JA ROAD
,uv-fru6 6 PPYKINC4
PhVLKII.�(J WMVc{tj 6
3
r-
sn�ooru�
,siors 1
.�� ......
SHofS
v SHOF%
SEhRS
s�RV Ut'd Iz.0
1� } /t
1
CONCEPT PLAN
Potential Intensification of
Central Coast Plaza and Madonna Plaza
MEETING AGENDA
DATE Y 28-BTEM #=
1650.
Department of Planning and Building
4 San Luis Obispo County
� J JUN 81994 RECEIVD
J-1 96-/V
m JUN 2 31994
Alex Hinds, Director CITY CLERK
_ s OeisPo,C -
Bryce Tingle,Assistant Director Barney 1\4c ��adin Official
Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator Norma Sal' ervices Officer
June 24, 1994
Mr. John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager COUNCIL :OREC
DIR
Communis Development Department d/CAo FINDIA ;
Community P P CAO CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo /lD TTORNEY DIR
990 Palm Street O CLERK/ORIG CE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ MGMTTEAM DIR
❑ C READ FILE DIRHAND DELIVERED �.J — SDIA
Dear Mr. Mandeville:
SUBJECT: COA'IlVIFNTS ON LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LAND USE ELEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 1994
Enclosed please find our comments on the proposed update of the city's Land Use Element. As
you know, the county is updating the portion of its Land Use Element which affects lands
surrounding the city, so we have watched the policy discussions in the city with interest. We
have reviewed the city's draft plan to identify significant relationships with county plans and
policies, especially those in the county's San Luis Obispo Area Plan and the proposed county
Agriculture and Open Space Element.
Overall, the draft plan appears to be well organized and written. It is not too long (something
we at the county are working on), yet it contains a great deal of information about the city's
policies affecting land use. In fact, there are so many policies in the plan, many of which read
like standards, that we wonder if some of the apparently conflicting policies may prove to be-..,
challenging to balance.
Most of the plan's contents are quite consistent with the county's existing and proposed plans.
Identifying all, or even most, of the policies and programs in the plan that are fully consistent
with county policies would require a very long letter. However, a few major similarities which
are worth noting include the following:
The compact urban form, surrounded by natural and.agricultural areas, lends to
the community's desirable character.
Scenic, watershed and biological attributes of the ridges and hillsides are worth
protecting.
County Covernmcnt Crntrr • San Luis Obispo 9 California 93408 • (805) 781-5600 • Fax (805) 781-1242 or 5624
John Mandeville June 24, 1 Page 2 e 2
Comments/draft SLO City LUE
- Additional housing, especially affordable housing, is needed.
The preferable scenario for urban development in the airport area is within the
city, i.e., upon annexation and provision of city servicces.
There is one major point that we recommend the city consider clarifying throughout the
document - how will the proposed policies or programs be carried out? As we read the plan,
it was often unclear whether a particular policy would apply to sites in the city, the urban
reserve (which is unincorporated territory), or in the rural areas of the county. Simply including
a blanket statement in an introductory chapter to the effect that the city will either implement
the policies themselves or influence other agencies or landowners to implement them would
remain unclear. Such a statement also might mislead city residents into believing the city plan
will mandate certain actions by the county or state, and therefore that the plan will be highly
effective in achieving city goals (at relatively little cost or effort). The city's land use policies
cannot be applied outside the city limits, since the city does not jurisdiction over land use
decisions in those areas. The city may, however, coordinate with the county, state and federal
governments to encourage them to adopt and implement policies which complement the city's
goals.
Therefore, we recommend that each policy or group of policies include a brief description of
who will be asked to implement them, and perhaps even whether implementation through outside
agencies is deemed feasible or likely. Some of the policies already include references to the
responsible agency. The manner in which the city responded to our similar comment on the
city's draft Open Space Element might be appropriate to apply to the Land Use Element.
Whether or not the county-owned airport property will be annexed to the city is an issue that has
been raised recently and that the city should consider before adopting an amended plan. We do
not believe that the recent action by the Board of Supervisors to oppose annexation of the airport
itself conflicted with the county's Land Use Element. The airport could remain as non-annexed
territory in the urban reserve, since it is a form of urban development, in order for county
residents who depend on the airport to have continued influence over the airport's future through
their elected Board of Supervisors.
A potentially major difference between the two plans is the approach for addressing development
in the airport area. The city's plan proposes that no community water supply or sewage disposal
systems be allowed (while under county jurisdiction), but the city plan does not include a target
date for annexing the area. In contrast, the county plan proposes to prohibit such community
systems only in areas which appear somehwat likely to be annexed within the 20-eyar horizon
of the plan, and would allow such systems in much of the airport area (but only if city services
were not available). Annexation and connection to city systems is the preferred approach for
providing the needed services for development, but annexation of the airport area appears
John Mandeville June 24, 1994
Comments/draft SLO City LUE Page 3
unlikely to occur within 20 years. Therefore, the county county draft plan proposes to allow
needed service systems to support commercial and industrial developments deemed important
to the county-wide economy in an area (the airport area) which has been planned for such uses
since 1974.
Additionally, once the outcome of the city's land use element update becoomes clear, we intend
to meet with the airport area property owners and request direction from the Board of
Supervisors regarding whether we should proceed with completing a sppecific plan covering
development of the area under county jurisdiction. We have held off proceeding with that effort
so far, in hope that the city would clarify that it will prepare its own specific plan and annex the
area.
Comments on specific items in the draft plan follow:
Page Item Comments
1. 9 1.6.3 - Interim uses: This policy calls for keeping expansion areas (urban
reserve) in agriculture or other open space uses until approved by the city for
other interim uses or for urban uses. This is a little unclear. After previewing
the later section on the airport area, we concluded that this policy was intended
to indicate the county should keep the expansion areas in low-intensity uses until
the city annexes them. However, policies in the airport area section suggest the
county may approve "rural commercial" developments. Therefore, this policy
does not appear to seriously conflict with the county's existing or proposed plans,
especially if the expansion areas are anticipated to be annexed within a reasonable
period of time.
2. 11 1.7.4 - Greenbelt parcel sizes and density: We do not recommend that this
policy refer to the county's 1989 LUE, since it will not always be easy for staff
to find an old copy when reviewing proposals. Also, it is possible the LUE may
be amended to further protect agricultural lands from inappropriate divisions or
excessive density. Also, the policy leaves unclear whether it is just the county
1989 LUE standards, or also the 1989 Land Use Ordinance (LUO) standards that
should be used. Finally, we noted that the plan includes another similar reference
on page 60, under Prefumo hillside standards, only to the county's 1991 LUE.
Instead, the city might wish to indicate that the county should not allow parcel
sizes or configurations that would result in conflicts with existing agricultural
operations. Better yet, the policy could simply support the county's requirements
as justified and necessary to protect agriculture.
John Mandeville June 24, 1994
Comments/draft SLO City LUE Page 4
3. 11 1.8 - Prime agricultural land: Is this policy intended to mean that the county
should require developments in the airport area to preserve land outside the-urban
reserve? While the county may evaluate such a requirement as part of the
pending transfer of development credits program, county staff is uncomfortable
with proposing such a requirement in the county LUE just yet.
4. 12 1 9 Residential clustering for oven space protection: Apparently, this is
another program the city plan contains twhich would be implemented not by the
city, but by the county. The county's Land Use Ordinance already contains
provisions for agricultural cluster divisions, and it provides what may already be
an adequate density incentive. For example, if a 1,600 acre site would normally
qualify for 160-acre minimum parcel sizes, then it could be split into 10 separate,
non-clustered parcels, each with two single family dwellings. Through an ag
cluster, the site could be split into 20 separate homesite parcels, each with a
single dwelling. Thus, while the number of dwellings does not increase, the
number of homesite parcels which can sold separately is doubled. We believe
this may be an adequate density incentive, and further that improvements to the
other requirements and processing of such applications will enhance the
attractiveness of the cluster option to property owners. In contrast, the density
bonus described in the city's draft plan (as we understand it) would allow 40
separate clustered homesites, which could result in substantial increases in
potential homes in rural areas. Also, as recommended in the county's draft
Ag/Open Space Element, a "minor agricultural cluster" option may be worth
considering, since it would be available to smaller ownerships.
5. 12 1.9.4 - Public access: Providing for controlled public access through areas of
land subject to open space restrictions may be reasonable in some areas, but it
would conflict with the county policy if required through agricultural areas and/or
did not provide a linkage to or between trail corridors shown in the adopted
county Trails Plan.
6. 13 1.10 - Air quality: We do not recommend locking the city into reducing
development capacity if air quality declines. This is a difficult issue to deal with,
but there may be other options which can be effective without the economic sting.
For example, if most air pollution is from commuters employed in town, perhaps
more housing suitable for those employees and located downtown could help
reduce vehicular air pollution. Also, improved transit services for commmuters
might reduce air pollution. The policy should be more flexible, indicating the
city would reconsider existing plans to establish appropriate and timely responses
to future air quality problems.
John Mandeville June 24, 1994
Comments/draft SLO City LUE Page 5
7. 13 1 11.3- Phasing residential expansions: We heartily agree with the concept of
using the provision of affordable housing as a factor influencing the sequencing
for development of the city's expansion areas.
8. 16 t 13 3 - R Quired plans: This recently proposed policy would prohibit any
annexations in the Airport, Margarita, Irish Hills and Orcutt expansion areas until
a specific plan is prepared and adopted for the whole of each area. This policy
sounds like good planning, but in practice it will probably cause the controversial
nature of major area specific plans to prevent any annexations in these areas.
9. 20 1 16 8 - City-countyagreement: A memorandum of understanding between the
city and county is worth pursuing, as it could help clarify city and county
commitments to better consider each other's interests in land use planning
matters. However, our legal staff have indicated that the county cannot grant the
city authority to deny general plan amendments or land use permit applications
outside the city limits. We recommend working together to reflect mutually
accepted goals and policies in the city and county plans as an appropriate method
of influencing land use decisions.
10. 21 1 17.3 - Refined planning area map: This policy appears to indicate the city will
pursue activities that will complement the county's work on implementing a pilot
project of its "transfer of development credits" program. The policy could also
include a reference to the county TDC program.
11. 27 2.3.4 - Transfer of development credits: We fully agree with this policy and
will work with the city toward making TDC work. Pilot projects in the planning
area are being sought at the present time.
12. 28 2.4.4 - Rural residential density: In the SLO planning area, the county LUE and
LUO provide that the minimum parcel size in the Residential Rural (RR) land use
category is 10 acres, and that each 10-acre RR parcel may include one single
family dwelling plus a secondary dwelling no larger than 1,200 square feet in
area.
13. 50 5 110 - Building intensity for public facilities: Is this policy intended to apply
to county buildings? We assume that it is. We believe that a floor area ratio of
2.0 downtown and 1.0 in outlying areas is acceptable, but cannot rule out the
possibility that the county might have to exceed these limits in the future to meet
some, as yet unforeseen, public needs. We also understand that the county
Department of General Services refers plans for the county's buildings in the city
to the city for review and comment, while the city's comments are advisory only.
John Mandeville June 24, 1994
Comments/draft SLO City LUE Page 6
14. 53 6.1.2 - Open space uses: Is this site coverage standard intended to apply outside
the city? If so, it appears that in most cases rural homesites and agricultural uses
will easily remain under the 5% site coverage limit. However, the county does
not require discretionary review for most individual dwellings, and the standard
appears inappropriate for inclusion in the building and construction ordinance, so
this standard would be difficult for the county to enforce.
15. 55 6.2 - Hillside policies: It would appear that the county's existing and proposed
standards applicable to development on hillsides in the planning area already meet
most of the standards proposed in this section. The county has applied a
combining designation, or overlay, to the morros, the hillsides above Johnson
Avenue and Cal Poly, and to the Miguelito hills south and west of the city. This
overlay is called the "Sensitive Resource Area" (SRA). While the SRA does not
preclude all development above its boundary, it does direct it away from most
steep, visible, or otherwise sensitive areas of the hillsides. The existing SRA
prohibits structures that silhouette above ridges against the sky or are located on
slopes steeper than 30%, requires conservation easements to preserve portions of
a site not being developed, and requires a county conditional use permit to enable
careful consideration of specific site characteristics and application of conditions
to minimize visual and environmental impacts. SRA standard is proposed to be
revised to lower the slope limit to 20%. The county is also proposing to
dramatically extend the area covered by the SRA to include both the east and west
Cuesta Ridges, since they provide a scenic backdrop and comprise an important
part of the area's watershed and natural habitat. The city's support of these
proposed changes could help with their adoption.
16. 71 7.2 Airport Land Use Plan: We fully agree with this policy of requiring
consistency with the ALUP. The county's existing and proposed plan require
ALUP consistency.
17. 71 7.4 Greenbelt protection: It is not clear to us how annexations in the airport
area, which is fully within the city's urban reserve, have to do with inaintaining
areas outside the URL in rural uses.
18. 72 7.6 Development before annexation: The county already requires master plans
showing compatibility of new development with future city services in areas
identified as future business parks, but not necessarily in all portions of the
airport area. This requirement could be extended through the pending county
area plan update to cover other new developments subject to discretionary review
by the county. In addition, applications for new development in the airport area
are referred to the city for review and comment. Where county standards are not
John Mandeville June 24, 1994
Comments/draft SLO City LUE Page 7
already consistent with city standards, the county can apply reasonable conditions
requested by the city. The city can work with the county toward county standards
which meet the city's needs, but the county cannot simply require new
development to meet city standards. .
19. 72 7.9.1 - Business parks locations and uses: While the county is requiring master
plans for any interim development or divisions in these areas, the county is not
proposing to enact a moratorium of development or division of these areas to
preserve them for city annexation. These areas have been zoned for industrial
development for twenty years, and such a severe down-zoning seems
unwarranted.
20. 72 7.9.2 - Business varks building intensity: We concur with this policy of a
building intensity (upon annexation) of 1.0, since that is probably enough intensity
to encourage the owners to annex.
Sorry we did not provide these comments earlier.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments further.
Sincerely,
DANA C. LIL
Senior Planner
cc: Members of the County Board of Supervisors
David Garth, SLO Chamber of Commerce
Leeanne Hagmaier, RRM Design Group
Airport Area Specific Plan Technical Advisory Committee
MEETI'', GENDA
DATE 'Q ITEM#
� F
U� t!1
.RECEIVED Esq , s't`�'j QO��
JUN 2 7 19% X41S 0
Cm COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO,Ca
June 27, 1994
JNCIL ]RECDIR
R
A�
Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard U ►C IEF
San Luis Obispo City Hall IN NEY
990 Palm Street rRwoAia CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ MGMT TEAM❑.C F LE RRe: General Plan Update - IR
Dear Mayor Pinard:
At your last Council Hearing, the Council reconsidered the language concerning development and
services, Policy 1.13.4. I have written the Council previously to request changes to this policy. Most
of my suggested language was endorsed by the Council, however, at the last hearing modifications
were made which continue to hinder the development of a small amount of housing that might be
supplied by well water. Item C under this policy now specifies that on-site well water may be used
as an interim source so long as this well water would not diminish the City's municipal groundwater
supply. I would like to request that "on-site well water" be replaced by the wording "private well
water" for the following reasons:
1. The remaining language in this policy 'more than adequately protects existing City
groundwater supplies.
2. The remaining language in this policy clearly specifies this as an interim source of water.
3. Adequate well water cannot be provided on a site-to-'site basis, especially in the Margarita
Area where some property owners have minimal well water and other properties have none
at all. By leaving the language "on-site well water" this policy would preclude most of the
properties within the Margarita Expansion Area from utilizing well water on an interim
basis, including myself, thereby frustrating-the very intent of this policy.
Concerning Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans - I realize that this policy has been debated at length,
however, the wording as presently exists, that land in an annexed area may only be developed after
the City has adopted the plan prior to annexation, severely limits the Margarita Area property
owners ability to secure financing to complete these required
plans. As you know, I have sponsored the preparation of the Concept Plan and Specific Plan for
the Margarita Area and have been involved with this effort for the, past five years. The plan for
the Margarita Area is very well established and enjoys broad support from this Council. I would
. BUSINESS OFFICE: 744 ALTA VISTA WAY,ARROYO GRANDE,CA93420 (805)544.7778
RETIREMENT CENTER:440 PRADO ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO
N s O:
��DLII S OB,c�Q
Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard
Page 2
June 27, 1994
like to request that the word "Margarita" be dropped from the second sentence of this policy for
the following reasons:
1. Annexing this area to the City will give the City full and complete control of the planning
process.
2. Annexation requires the adoption of a pre-zoning ordinance which will specify the amount
and types of land uses permitted within this area.
3. The pre-zoning ordinance could provide language requiring the preparation of a Specific
Plan prior to any development within the area.
4. My abilities to generate financing for the completion of the Specific Plan, EIR and
infrastructure studies will be increased dramatically by the annexation of this area to the
City.
5. The City will not lose any control over the planning and timing of development within this
area by simply annexing it with a pre-zoning ordinance prior to the preparation of a Specific
Plan, thereby fulfilling the intent of Policy 1.13.3.
That concludes my comments on the General Plan Policies. I respectfully request that these issues
be raised at the June 28th City Council Hearing and they be changed as indicated for the reasons
described above.
Sincerely,
RICHARD DEBLAUW
Property Owner
cc: John Mandeville, City Planner, SLO
Arnold Jonas, Planning Director, SLO
John Dunn, C.A.O., SLO
BUSINESS OFFICE: 744 ALTA VISTA WAY,ARROYO GRANDE,CA93420 (805)5447778
RETIREMENT CENTER: 440 PRADO ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEF'AlG AGENDA
/� DATA 'Zg"9 ITEM #
ZOe,.ggyeosa7
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Architect nr•Planning•En, nn i'vir • 6rli nary Lan.{rapt.1rl;rh,irnt
June 27, 1994 f 9 9 4
DECEIVE®
The Honorable Peg Pinard JUh C 7 1994 L ]LD
R
Mayor of San Luis Obispo Bf:KO
990 Palm Street CITY COUNCIL KCLERKIORIG
IEFSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,C6 EY CHF
Re: Draft General Plan Update Policy No. 1.133 ❑ �� EAM
p Y ❑ D ltE RIR
Dear Mayor Pinard:
After the City Council meeting on the evening of June 14, 1994, I contacted Mr. Arnold
Jonas of City Planning staff to ask him how, in his opinion, Policy 1.13.3 would be
interpreted relative to a project known as the T.K. Business Park Annexation. Mr. Jonas
indicated that as he interpreted the policy, the T.K. Annexation would be precluded until
a Specific Plan for the entire Airport Area was prepared and adopted by the City of San
Luis Obispo. This- new policy, if adopted as written, is in conflict with the direction we
were given two years ago when we initially started the annexation procedure, and is also
. in conflict with the testimony received from members of the public at the bearing on the
annexation. At the hearing on the annexation, it was clear from the members of the public
who spoke that they felt if development was going to occur on this site (which it certainly
is since it has already commenced), it should happen in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Since March of this year, after the City Council's hearing denying the annexation, we have
had four neighborhood meetings to discuss the T.K. Annexation and what development
might be implemented there under City control or under County control. In these four
neighborhood meetings, there has been a lively discussion about what use of the property
was most appropriate and whether it should be.service-commercial, light industrial, or
retw':1, or a com>;inatior: of both. B�pt. :.here.has been little debate about whether or not the
property should be developed under City or County jurisdiction. The majority of the
people we've talked with have been quite clear that they see it as preferable that this
property develop under City development review procedures and within the City's control.
For the T.K. Business Park Annexation, the debate does not center around whether or not
the property will develop because development has already been initiated on the property
and approved by the County. The fundamental layout for internal circulation and
subdivision of property is approved and the initial project consistent with the Master
Subdivision Plan has been approved by the County and constructed within the County's
jurisdiction. The question is under whose jurisdiction should the .development of this
property be completed. And the answer to that question from the neighborhood's
perspective has been made clear that it should be under the City's jurisdiction.
;0_6 South Higuera Street,San Luis Obispo,California 9+401 &g/;43-1794
1012-nth Street,Modesto.California 95.154 Z09!544-1794
Al. ..•1 1-11...... ,1'"1!r..41
/l0'/µ
0����y�,saryl
Z
Mayor Peg Pinard
Page 2
June 27, 1994
The policy as written appears to foreclose the possibility for annexation of the T.K.
Business Park and development under the City's guidance, which is the neighborhood's
clearly stated preference.
We urge that the Council reconsider this policy as it has been written and provide for
additional flexibility with regard to applications for minor annexations to the City of San
Luis Obispo.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
C/
Vict n e ,
ief Exe tive ffi r
cc: e kampf, T.K. Development
e Tim , T.K. Development
Jim ght, Beaver Free Corp.
Dean Benedix, RRM
c/vm-tkanx.pin
MEr_1G AGENDA
DATE. ��"`� ITEM #
City of S.L.O. Land Use Element Update UNCILCDD DIR
DRAFT SIMPLIFIED ANNEXATION POLICI ❑ FIN DIA
AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Endorsed b Council June 14 1994 CLERK(!VTORRI ❑ PO DIR
Y � L4�CLERKiORIG O POLICE CHF
❑ MG TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
1.13 Annexation and Services ❑ PERS DIR
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.
RECEIVED A. Outside the City limits;
JUN Z 8 1994 B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water
CITY COUNCIL system;
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CL 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 shall 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 and for build-out within the City limits as.of July 1994, in accordance
with the City's water management policies. 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;
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. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply
when appropriate. 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 U 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.TXr
MEETING : AGENDA
DATE ITEM #=
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 28, 1994
[103C
OUNCIL CDD DIR
I& O FIN DIR
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members AO ❑/FIRE CHIEFCity of San Luis ObispoTORNEY 0 pW DIRERKOORIG ❑ POLICE CHF990 Palm Street MT TEAM ❑ REC DIRSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 EAD FILE O UTIL DIR�� CI PERS DIR
RE: LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE (AIRPORT AREA)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce provides the following comments on the
section entitled Airport Area which is scheduled to be discussed at the June 28 public
hearing.
AIRPORT AREA
The Chamber stands firm on its longstanding position that the airport area is effectively
a part of the city of San Luis Obispo, and should be annexed in the near future. Since
this area will develop with or without the City of San Luis Obispo, the Chamber
supports annexation of the whole area in order to control the nature and standard of
development surrounding our urban area. Annexation of the airport area would
ensure City control over open space and greenbelt acquisition.
It would be a tragedy if annexation of the airport area did not occur because the likely
result would be a the piecemeal development of a neighboring community — one that is
potentially inconsistent with the City's long-range plans, planning standards, public
services, and overall community objectives. Without City control over this area, City
residents will experience negative impacts such as increased traffic, decreased air
quality and noise. In addition, the City will gain no economic benefit or control over
recreation and open space uses. Inaction on the City's part will cause the formation of a
Community Services District which would preclude the City from ever controlling or
participating in development of this area.
ECEIVEL
JUN 2 6 1994
CITY CLERK C [CRor wlrTrEExD
UIS OBISPO,C;, C.s..6r00 COv.EaC[
011nf vxil[051.if5
In reference to the Airport Area section of the Draft Land Use Element, the City needs
a broad range policy regarding the airport area to encourage the concept of compact
urban form. The City needs to take a strong,pro-active role and encourage reasonable
and well planned development.
The Chamber of Commerce believes the language in both the EQTF and Planning
Commission Drafts is short-sighted and counter-productive to both desired urban form
and ultimate control over San Luis Obispo's boundaries. Unfortunately, this issue has
become highly political, resulting in seriously fragmented policy language.
It is the Chamber's position that the whole area should be comprehensively planned.
Further, the City should employ long-range, pro-active methods of funding the
preparation of a specific plan to be repaid by the property owners as they annex.
Annexation of individual properties should be allowed provided the annexation is
consistent with City goals and standards.
Greenbelt Protection
In reference to Greenbelt Protection, Policy 7.4 of the Airport Area, the Chamber
reiterates its support of increased density in appropriate areas including the downtown
area in return for acquisition of greenbelts. However, it is unreasonable and
impractical to hold the airport area owners solely responsible for acquisition of green
space areas outside the airport area boundary.
In closing, the Chamber of Commerce urges your support of policy language that
enables annexation of the airport area. We look to this Council to demonstrate a true
vision for our community at large. Thank you for your consideration.
!Sincerely, A
William A. Thoma, Vice President
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
MEETIM AGENDA
DATE_ITEM #
,. . _.6050COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
bepaptment of genEizal seRvl ces
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 • (S05)781.5200
Il} DIANE P. LEIB, DIRECTOR
RECEIVED
\ ..:'► 4�
JUN 2 11994
June 21, 1994 Crry OF SAN LUIS 08I5PO
COk=Nm DEMOPAEp!T
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
Community Development Department F, C E I
City of San Luis Obispo JUN 2 2 1994
990 Palm Street, Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 CITY CLERK
" WIS OBISPO.C.:
PERSONALLY DELIVERED
CONSIFNTS ON LEGISLATIVE DRAFT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO LAND USE
ELFAIFNT (FEBRUARY 1994)
John, we are pleased to be able to comment on your proposed update of the Land Use Element
(LUE) for San Luis Obispo.
Our comments follow regarding specific items we noted in the draft plan.
PAGE ITEM COMMENTS
1. 15 1.13.1 - Water & Sewer Service We suggest some rearrangement of
sentences to properly convey the message
which we presume is your intent.
Recommended change is as follows:
"The City will serve those parties having
valid previous connections or contracts with
the City. However, the City shall not
provide City water or sewer services to the
following areas:
COUNCILDD DIR A.
(��AO N DIR B.
ACAO RE CHIEF C.
�TTORNEY DIR D.
0 CLER)WRIGLICE CHF
❑ MGMT T� C DIR
❑ C READ FILE 13:3 IL DIR
RS DIR
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
June 21, 1994
Page two
PAGE ITEM COMMENTS
2. 16 1.13.3 Required Plans The County Airport needs to be able to develop in
response to market demand and
Countywide/regional need. If the City were to
annex the Airport, this Item would seem to enslave
Airport developments to a broader Specific Plan.
Our recommendation is that you adopt language
which would exempt this County facility from such
a broader plan.
3. 16 1.13.4 Development & Services This paragraph has similar risks as does 1.13.3
above. The Airport has a contract with the City for
authorized levels of consumption. We intend to
manage business development within the limits of
that contract. As written, this item seems to draw
the Airport into the debate regarding City growth.
4. 7.2 Airport Land Use Plan As operators of the Airport, we feel this paragraph
should be more definitive. We feel that the City
should be actively involved with the development,
update, revision, and implementation of this Plan.
It is desirable that the City actively recognize and
embrace the Plan as a means of ensuring
community compatibility.
Further, we feel that disclosure to "prospective
buyers" should be emphasized. The LUE should
refer to and support the County's Avigation
Easement disclosure document or develop an
equivalent instrument of its own to be signed and
recorded by the Buyer.
5. 73 7.1 Tank Farm Uses We note that the "tank farm" now has only one
remaining tank and have recently read as to its
ultimate demise. Have comments been solicited
from Unocal in regards to this item?
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
June 21, 1994
Page three
PAGE ITEM COMMENTS
6. 73 7.12 Airline Service and Impacts Federal law gives airlines the right to enter
markets and to withdraw from markets at
their own choosing. These actions often
occur with very little advance notice. We
will certainly work with you to assess the
circulation impacts of manifested and/or
anticipated demand.
Please contact myself or George Rosenberger if you want to discuss these or other items further.
U
PAUL GIMER
Airports Manager
c - Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
Paul Hood, Administration
Dana Lilly, Planning
ritw:\,ue.Pc