HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/1994, 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE-SUGGESTED TEXT FOR IRISH HILLS SPECIAL DESIGN AREA (RESPONSE TO COUNCIL DIRECTION ON JUNE 28, 1994) JUL. 14 1994
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM 4DIs',A; :!Si: .r.
SAN i!JiS E::S,30CA
July 8, 1994
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, CACL,--
V
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
C��
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - suggested text for Irish Hills special design area
(response to Council direction on June 28, 1994)
SITUATION
While considering the Land Use Element update on June 28, Council gave direction for the Irish
Hills expansion area (Froom Ranch and Duval property). The urban reserve line is to be as
recommended by the Planning Commission, and the area is to be divided about equally (along
the ownership boundary) into a northern residential area and a southern commercial area. No
specific plan would be required, but there would be a general annexation policy requirement for
a development plan. The area would be considered a "special design area" (Planning
Commission Draft Land Use Element, page 75).
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff concerning the proposed new text concerning the special design area.
DISCUSSION
A. Residential Area
Council did not provide direction concerning density for the northern residential area. The
Medium-Density Residential designation proposed in the attached text would provide for about
500 dwellings. This would be a reduction of about 100 dwellings from the "low" capacity for
the Irish Hills Expansion Area shown in Table 3 and discussed in policy 2.3.3 of the Planning
Commission Draft Land Use Element (pages 26 - 27). A capacity for 500 dwellings also
eliminates the "high" capacity for development credit transfers shown in Table 3.
The Medium-Density Residential designation would provide for development similar to the
Margarita Villa or Villa Rosa projects. Staff suggests an overall capacity based on medium
density because it would be compatible with nearby development, and it could provide affordable
housing in amounts comparable to the previously proposed residential expansion area. The
Council may decide another density is more appropriate.
A higher density would allow more dwellings, and could eliminate any net loss in housing
capacity. Depending on the additional density, receiver sites for transfer of development credit
could be provided. A density of about 15 dwellings per acre (midway between the medium-
density maximum of 12 and the high-density maximum of 18) would provide the same capacity
for the Irish Hills area as proposed in the Planning Commission's recommended version of the
Land Use Element.
A density lower than medium would further reduce the residential capacity of the Land Use
Element. Lack of residential capacity in the City's General Plan is one of the reasons the State
Housing and Community Development Department has stated that they will not recognize the
City's Housing Element update. Staff recommends that the density of the residential part of the
Irish Hills area not be reduced below the Medium-Density Residential designation.
B. Commercial Area
Council did not provide direction concerning the land use category for the southern area, other
than "commercial." Staff suggests General Retail as the most encompassing and consistent with
Council's previous direction in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 (locations for stores with regional
attraction and specialty stores). An emphasis on warehouse stores, or building materials and
vehicle sales, would best be accommodated by the Services and Manufacturing designation.
Unless Council directs otherwise, policy 3.5.7 and Figure 3 (as previously endorsed by Council)
will continue to reserve space opposite Auto Park Way for vehicle sales. Vehicle sales are
conditionally allowed in the zone (Retail Commercial) which is consistent with the suggested
General Retail designation of the Land Use Element Map.
LUE-CC&MEM
STAFF DRAFT
OPTIONAL USE & SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS POLICIES
8.x Irish Hills area
This approximately 110-acre area extends from Los Osos Valley Road to the base of the Irish
Hills, and from Madonna Road to Auto Park Way.
8.x.1 About 56 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is
designated Medium-Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500
dwellings. There should be a range of housing types, with low-density, medium-density,
and medium-high density development each occupying about one-third of the area.
While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in policy 1.13.3) are
required and should include the following:
A. Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no
driveway access, to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos
Valley Road.
B. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access between any separate development
sites, in addition to access provided by Los. Osos Valley Road.
C. Sufficient setbacks for traffic noise mitigation.
D. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills
from Los Osos Valley Road.
E. Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the
development area.
8.x.2 About 55 acres southerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is
designated General Retail. (See also policy 3.5.7 and Figure 3.)
While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in policy 1.13.3) are
required and should include the following:
A. Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no
driveway access, to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos
Valley Road.
B. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access integrating circulation among any
separate development sites, in addition to access provided by Los Osos
Valley Road.
C. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills
from Los Osos Valley Road.
D. Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the
development area.
IRISH-AD.LUE
CONMR ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 1994
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, C eA�
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
CPM
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - urban design overlay
While considering the Land Use Element update on July 12, Council directed staff to review
a proposal by Councilmember Rappa and to suggest language for inclusion in the "Optional
Use and Special Design" section reflecting the intent of her proposal. The attached is staff's
recommended material, shown as changes to the text section endorsed by the Council July
12.
Note: Several of the proposed optional use and special design areas would overlap (attached
sketch map). Additional.Council direction will be required if Council does not wish this to
occur. Since the draft policies for the identified areas do not conflict, overlap is not a
problem at this time but it should be kept in mind when considering any policy changes.
LUE-CCI I.MEM
Land Use Element City Council Draft
OPTIONAL USE & SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS POLICIES
8.0 Purpose and Scope
In and near the City are several areas where it is appropriate to consider a range or mix of uses
which do not correspond with any one open-space, residential, commercial, or public designation
used by this element. However, a particular use or mix of uses may not be desirable unless it
is chosen in combination with a specific physical design which solves problems of relationships
between activities within the site, and between the site and its neighbors. ta'aa'd'ti- At}' e;are
..:....:... .
,....::::..::::._.:............ . ... ::.::...................,.:.:::.:. .:.,...:::...................:.....:
areas:where special design concepts c2n help rentaiiz2tiott ef1.forts.; In optional use and special
design areas, the City intends to do over bath of the fvllowittg:
Make a choice about appropriate land uses based on information which will become
available. In some cases, the choice will be connected with approval of a development
plan, possibly with customized limits on specific activities and requirements for off-site
improvements or dedications.
Erlcvurage u nvvaUve design;cvncepcs whtC help x vttal�e and beautt y the area
. . . ..
Each optional use and special design area that is mostly opendad N,aean Vinay will be designated
Interim Open Space until the City approves a plan for use of the area.
Optional use and special design areas are designated by number on the General Plan Land Use
Map, and are indicated on Figure --. These areas and the guidelines for their development are
listed below. (The number following the decimal point corresponds to the map number.)
ateas.8 I through 8`S, xnavatavrt of streetscapes, landscaptng, d:btrtldurg facades is
ehcauraged The.0;ty shpuld wpk with property owners,ty prepare areat.plans contairun de$1gri
guideltnes and 2mlemeritattvr; pzograrns Prvgzams xray include unptementattal tncertttves
such as van ti from ctevelopinent standards or loan funds
m
8.I N4►dontta Rosd Regional Shopp►n Area
voft il.l i .Q k:AA ea
$ jrpad' tr Area:
84i ; ant 'Bacllara iStreetre
8.5 Mid-Higuera Area
The City will prepare and adopt a plan for this multi-block commercial area showing any
desired street and driveway changes, flood mitigation measures, andi'oppotttes; or
N :.::.....:...::...
near lk along Salt I.u1s Obtso Creel . The plan could also serve as a conceptual
redevelopment plan," guiding private construction on sites affected by any widening of
Hi uera Street or San Luis Obispo Creek. Se al a e € 4
SDA-CC.LUE 7/19/94
Land Use Element City Council Draft
8.6 Drive-in Theater Area
This 25-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without
significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued
agricultural use and low-intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing
substantial regional traffic also depends on providing a full interchange at Prado Road
and extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road.
Once flooding and access issues are resolved, and agricultural preservation requirements
are met, the area would be suitable for government agencies' regional offices (see also
policy 5.1.6).
8.7 Los Osos Valley Gap
This 16-acre site should be developed if land in common ownership to the east is
permanently preserved as open space. The following are possible uses for the area
designated Interim Open Space.
Vehicle sales;
Multifamily housing;
An open space corridor, trail, or both, to connect Laguna Lake Park and Prefumo
Creek with the Irish Hills.
8.8 Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area
This approximately 180-acre area of prime farm land bounded by Madonna Road,
Highway 101, Central Coast Plaza, and Prefumo Creek is in three ownerships. The City
intends to preserve significant parts of this signature working agricultural landscape at
the southern gateway to San Luis Obispo.
8.9 Maino-Madonna Area
8.9.1 This 70-acre area may be developed further only if surrounding hillsides on each
property are permanently protected as open space. (See also hillside planning policy
6.2.6.K, page .)
8.9.2 Land southwest of the Bianchi ranch house driveway (Madonna property),
designated Interim Open Space, may accommodate a generously landscaped, low-intensity
extension of the existing tourist facilities. Development locations and building forms
should respect the area's extraordinary visual quality and natural slopes, and should
maintain views of the mountain from the highway and nearby neighborhoods.
8.9.3 Land north of the Bianchi ranch house driveway (Maino property), designated
Interim Open Space, may accommodate carefully located and designed houses or
specialized group-living facilities, visitor accommodations or a restaurant, offices, or a
combination of these uses.
SDA-CC.LUE 7/13/94
Land Use Element City Council Draft
8.9.4 On both properties, the area immediately west of Highway 101 should be retained
as an open space buffer.
8.9.5 Any plan for further development in this area must address reconfiguration of the
Marsh Street interchange.
TO ir
This approximately 110-acre area extends from Los Osos Valley Road to the base of the Irish
Hills, and from Madonna Road to Auto Park Way.
8.10.1 About 56 acres northerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is
designated Medium-Density Residential. This area may accommodate about 500
dwellings. There should be a range of housing types, with low-density, medium-density,
and medium-high density development each occupying about one-third of the area.
While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in policy 1.13.3) are
required and should include the following:
A. Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no
driveway access, to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos
Valley Road.
B. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access between any separate development
sites, in addition to access provided by Los Osos Valley Road.
C. Sufficient setbacks for traffic noise mitigation.
D. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills
from Los Osos Valley Road.
E. Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the
development area.
8.10.2 About 55 acres southerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is
designated General Retail. (See also policy 3.5.7 and Figure 3.)
While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in policy 1.13.3) are
required and should include the following:
A. Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no
driveway access, to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos
Valley Road.
B. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access integrating circulation among any
separate development sites, in addition to access provided by Los Osos _
Valley Road.
SDA-CC.LUE 7/13/94
/-9
Land Use Element City Council Draft
C. Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills
from Los Osos Valley Road.
D. Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the
development area.
SDA-CC.LUE 7/13/94 n
Land Use Element City Council Draft
't
J CAL POLY
i
/�\� LAGUhA LAKE' i l
C i
`1' � , � - �,SSE .� .-______ \ +•
10 6
t ---------
1/
J
I
AIRPORT
nN SCALE t-=3500• ,
w CITY LIMIT LINE:-----
FIGURE OPTION USE & SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS
CI� O r
� NUMBERED AREA - SEE TEXT
San LUIS OBISPO ® ADJACENT AREAS OVERLAP
990 Palm StreetlPost Office Boz 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
7/13194
SDA-CC.LUE
IV
F-L;I uw AVGVUA
T�7-a26- 9 ITEM #=
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 1994
TO: City Council JUL 1 4 1994
VIA: John Dunn, CAO<� :, .J .": j (, '
U-115 CiE ��
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director o
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - individual map designation proposals
While considering the Land Use Element update on July 12, Council asked for a list of the
individual map designation proposals which have been received, for consideration on July 26
or later. The proposals are listed below. Council has received correspondence or testimony
on these items. Not all proposals were for explicit changes. Those marked with an asterisk
have not been specifically considered by the Council in this round of hearings.
Location Pro op nent Status
*1338 Santa Rosa Hiltbrand Proposal reflected in Planning Commission
recommendation
*Tank Farm & Broad Rogoway Proposal reflected in Planning Commission
recommendation
*Calle Joaquin/101 McBride Proposal not reflected in Planning Commission
recommendation
*914 Olive Jones Proposal not reflected in Planning Commission
recommendation
*Dalidio Dalidio/Bird Proposal partially reflected in Council action
(6/28/94); clarification needed
*Fuller Road/Broad Ahearn Proposal partially reflected in Planning Commission
recommendation
*Tank Farm & Higuera T-K Exclusion from Airport Area to be considered
S.L. Mountain/Marsh Maino Proposal not completely reflected in Planning
Commission recommendation or Council action
(7/12/94)
(list continues)
f
L,ocation Pro oR nent Status
Froom Ranch Madonna Proposal partially reflected in Council action
(6/28/94)
Foothill Nelson Proposal reflected (7/12/94) in Planning Commission
recommendation
L.O.V.R. Gap Madonna Planning Commission recommendation confirmed by
Council action (7/12/94)
Orcutt Righetti Proposal partially reflected in Council action
(6/28/94).
LUE-CC I O.MEM
T
UTE I
�6pyAGEN. _ITEM
July 26, 1994 JUL 2 6 1994
CITY CLERK
r _UIS 01318120r C:�
Dear SLO City Council Members,
We request that our neighborhood(from Johnson and Ella southerly to adjoining R-1 areas)be
included in current zoning studies We feel our R-2 zoning is inappropriate and should be changed to R-1.
Although we have a number of rental units and a few larger apartments the area is essentially Rl by
definition(Zoning regs,pg. 54,section 7.24.010).
We appreciate your consideration and present to you petitions of community support of this
position.Many of our neighbors are out of town on vacation-we are confident much more support for this
petition exists and will become evident as the study process continues. We simply desire to become
eligible for review.In fad,the Council directed staff to pursue this 2-3 years ago,we believe that staff
cutbacks and a hectic list of other priorities caused this issue to"fall through the cracks".
Sincerely,
Linda and Sam McManus 1016 George St
John Evans 1136 George St
Barry and Stacy Williams 1103 Ella St.
Pete Evans 2040 Rachel St.
Dale Williams 1013 Ella St.
Carol Pennington 1110 Iris St.
Nancy Weitkum 1195 George St.
t1NCIL WUD DIR
�
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
(VACAO ❑ .FIRECHIEF
tr'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
�LERK1ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑fr ILE ❑ 11TIL DIR
13 PERS DIR
I
7ZU4 1994
To the SLO CiA4 Counait
The uad,&Ui.oned &",Ldent4/p&opev4 aw ear .in. the n.ei.gAboidwad
af- Uta Stn.eet and �ohnooa Rve. to Radtet St. and Bu4hneit St.pztito.an
thei Gi.I Counc C to cn.i t i orte a jroaing chan �ge Aoac " 2 .to '-1. Gle beLizve
out u e44ential.4 2-1 anal ahouL.d have that de4-i.gnat oa.
Rame S Lana u&e
3 Al/AR 10 �o!� s-zo
4 v X� �
Ua V,
6 tUA /06� pK6E ST,
LZ�
s r � ,
70 C-4
�.
_ 11 //rt/ L a�
13 �
14 I,I a15
16 , 0 s spa
17
1s �pJ� �r� ���tzr ► � ;� 5 � U
19 60
<.cn
21
2z -
1 I
Tau y. 1994
To the SLO Cit4 Couacit
Th•e uadeJ tcaed 2e4-LdvLt4/pwae&t4 avaeA4 ZrL the ae i.ghiro-Vwod
of- -ULa St&ee.t and aohnwoa Rve. to Rache.L St. o_nd Bu4hnxit St.geti ioa
the Cit* Co un c U to jn,i t iq to a p aing change .°nam '-2 to 21-1. Gle bet eve
out aeighlro�thood .4 e4,6entia.L4 R-1 and --hoLUd have that de4t9nzUorc.
Raate Stanatu e_ 8dd�ee�a -
1 Zwr cl / 1217 lJeor
2 /C' /vGj 2 U S i 4.
3 -SLJ
Rove ov
6 t= �
8 0, CJeA-1LA 14 % �sf
g i) 44
lo 1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. � r
7aJ4 1994
Tc the SLa C 4 Ccuar iU
Th,*- undPJris.i.gned netsd...esr t s/p.,WjaeA4 o vn A4 la the n e,LghGc aha o d
o.- Etta St&ee t and 7vhndoa Rue. to Rachet St- aad Budhne l t S.t.p.etZt i-an
.the C.i,4 Councit .to .F.ntti-a-te a wataq. change .,tom R-2 .to '-1. We be.Li.eve
out ne i.ghboahuod ams eo.oen t-ia U4 R-1 and dhou td have that dem Lgna t f oa-
Raae `sterna tuAe 8ddlte44 _
/ dam, �• \ � i
3
/ 4 ' / / 1 W
� c
6f2jema AL �ui _ 1 SSEuf Sr .
9 < +I-e
JIM/ iq
12 %/11,6
13VV__ 1 7190 E
14
15 l OD
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7u44 1994
To the SLO Gifu Caunc it
The un z&4, aned &e,-3 r den t s1pAopeAt4 aunz" ter. the aeAghbajdwod
o.- Uta St&eet and aohn4oa Rue. to Rach.ek St. and BuahneLC St., eti.ti.aa
the City. Coun U to ini,tiaate a pning. change .,wm '-2 to ?-1. We Leiteue
sins aeic7hbonhood .i4 e44ea.taa R-1 and -,h.outd have that de4tgnat oa.
flame SZan AvAe _Rd k".e _
1 Gvi
2 �L k S
3 l_o-,s Gum II Ell S�
4mE3 4PGAU- Ilal ELT ST
'2 1( 1- C-LLA S—
7
70
s
9
77
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DATE MEMNG
r� AGENDA �a�-CEWEE'
--nu JUL 2 1994
Interoffice Memo
ADi,'AN J i r,.ti-I',r,
.,
SAN I_liiS OBISPO,CA
To: John Dunn, City Administrative Officier
Via: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director o
From: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
Date: July 25, 1994
Subject: Communication with County after Council adoption of LUE
Arnold and I have scheduled a meeting with you Friday (8/29) at 2 p.m. to discuss this
as requested in your July 20 memo. The following background information may be
helpful.
City and County staff have been coordinating with one another as the City and County
land use plans were being prepared. Staff's from both planning departments met on
several occassions to discuss consistency between the two plans. At this point in time
we basically know the differences in land use and policy between the draft LUE and the
County's draft SLO Area Plan. The differences are now few.
As you know, the County (Dana) provided additional comments on the February 94
draft LUE to the City Council. The Council did not give staff any direction to respond
to the County's comments in any way during the meeting.
At this time our next step would be to have the Council adopt the LUE, and get back to
the County staff regarding any additional differences the LUE may have with the draft
County plan. Draft LUE Policy 1.16.7 (p. 20 of 2/94 draft) states that "the City will
seek County Board of Supervisors approval amending the County Land Use Element to
make it consistent with this element". After Council adoption of the LUE, and as the
County resumes work on the SLO Area Plan, we would implement this policy by
encouraging the County to make their plan consistent with our within the planning area.
In addition to staff level meetings, a more formal request involving a letter under the
mayor's signature identifying the points of difference between the two plans
encouraging the County (pursuant to our policy) to amend their plan to be consistent
with ours is also envisioned.
Alternatives to this approach, including invitations to the County to hold joint meetings
are possible. We can discuss alternatives further if you wish to do so at our upcoming
meeting.
COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
CC: Glen Matteson, LUE project planner dCAO ❑ FIN DIR
�e CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
;al"CLERWORIG ❑ .POLICE CHF
RECEIVED ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
JUL. 2 6 1994 ❑ READ FILE ❑ UnL DIR
11 r(� ❑ PERS DIR
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
.ETINc , AGENDA
DATE ITEM #----
John E. & Sue Van Etten
63 Contemta Court
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Phone: 549-9477
July 23, 1994 CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
;tCLERKORG
❑ FIRE CHIEF
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard CrAl D PW DIR
990 Palm Street ❑ POUCECHF
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403 [[r3:EAILE
D REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Subject: T.K. Property
❑ PERS DIR
Mayor Pinard :
We have been following development plans for
the subject property since it' s inception. We are
very interested in their plans as presented to our
Homeowner' s Group, last Thursday, July 14, 1994.
Their proposed plan to develop a retail center
With a Major Grocery Supermarket & compatible shops
Would be of great value to nearby residents.
We now have to drive some distance to existing
shopping centers of this type which is inconvenient
and places more automobile traffic on nearby roads.
County zoning for such property is not exactly
compatible with nearby residential property.
However, city zoning and development standards
would greatly enhance the quality of life in this
immediate area.
We respectfully urge you & the council to give
serious consideration to the developers of the T.K.
Property and their request for annexation to the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Sincerely, RECEIVED
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
�® MEETING AD'-..1A
\0 DATE Q ITEM July �3, 1994
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard
990 Palm Street:
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403
Subject: 22 Ac. TK property atcorner of Tank Farm Road
and South Higuera Streets
As residents living in the I• eadotirs across the street from the
subject property we agree with the view that the 22 Ac. parcel
should be annexed prior to development.
This is with the understanding that the owners would agree to pay
a reasonable and fair share for city services.
We believe the owners of the TK property have a richt to develop
their land and sooner or later t-oe property trill be developed.
As proposed improvements would mostly serve city residents and
working people in the vicinity of lower Higue-ra Street it
seems lo;*,ical that any development proposed should follow city
guidelines.
to would like to see a Procary store and shops to serve the
residents of t e area.
Yours truly,
—0'.—
CEJ-00UNCIL M-M DIR
Fred 0. iionson WeAO" ❑ FIN DIR
- — e-AEAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
�. B-ATMRNEY ❑ PW DIR
Norma i ions on 0-C6EAKMO ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGWr TEAM ❑ REG DIR
❑ C READ F_ILEE3 UTIL DIR
cc: Victor ITontgomery,RRIi
i,
3026 S. Higuera b PERSDIR
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Fred O. Monson
45 Chuparrosa Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
MEER _ AGENDA
DATE 9-2A-fY 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
July 25, 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 (Resource Protection)
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
For your convenience, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce provides a copy of
comments submitted earlier in the hearing process on Resource Protection.
The Chamber encourages your close review of these recommendations. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely, �)
',,, VA-
Sheree Davis
Director of Governmental Affairs
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
COUNCIL DPERSDIR
R
WCAO
,�ACAO HIEF
Fgb I�! e.ATTORNEY
�r CLERWORIG CHF
1994 ❑ MGMTTEAM R
AL 9 S ❑/C RErADVILE IR
':*J F� IR
CITY CLERK - ACCREDITED
.. .UIS OBIS -•C'-; - MA"E OOFCMEP
CHAMBEQ 0g COu4CACC
OF 1HE UNITED SIAIFS
R '
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street e San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, Executive Director
June 13, 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 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 this 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.
0
ACCREDITED
CHMBER OF COMMERCE
c...o n or co" 1 c[
OF,iuii[D S . FS
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 S�
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
�.- `EETING AGENDA f
RECEIVEDSATE ZG" ITEM #
JUL `Z 1994 ZOnv�'sai'�.
g R R t`1 DESIGN S I G N G R O U P
SM LUtSCOUNCN
OBISt"D, F,PAO
CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
July 25, 1994 ! 9 9 ❑ PtV DIR[3 FIRE IEF
❑ POLICE CHF
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard ❑ REC DIR990 Palm Street ❑ UTIL DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Pinard:
I would Eke to commend you on your diligent efforts and time spent on preparing the
City's LUE Update. There are many difficult decisions and far-reaching issues to be
weighed. It is certainly no easy task.
As the Update proceeds, it has become clear that the Council genuinely wants the
Margarita area to move forward. This is very encouraging to the property owners who
share your commitment to good planning and neighborhood building. As a result of this
direction, I met at length with the planning staff last Wednesday to see how we might
proceed with annexation of the Margarita area in a way within the resources available to
the property owners. It was my hope that the existing Concept Plan and LUE
Environmental Impact Report would somehow satisfy the City's need for defining the area
to be annexed before approving the annexation. After exploring many possibilities, we all
concluded that because policy 1.13.3 requires a "Specific Plan" be "adopted" prior to
annexation, utilizing the Council-endorsed Concept Plan in its present form is not possible.
Specific Plans must meet basic State requirements and minimum criteria contained in the
LUE. Changing the Concept Plan into a Specific Plan would require a fair amount of
effort and may require some additional environmental review. In addition, processing of
the Specific Plan for adoption would require a high degree of technical assistance and a
large time commitment to get through both Planning Commission and Council review.
All of these efforts are expensive, an issue which is at the root of this discussion. The
property owners can afford to pay for the cost of turning the Concept Plan into a draft
Specific Plan, but cannot afford to pay for the EIR and processing of the plan as well, prior
to being annexed.
The issue here is not if a Specific Plan and EIR will be prepared for the area, it is rather
a question of when these documents will be prepared. Timing of these actions is extremely
important as it will dictate how and by who this effort will be paid for. Having discussed
the ramifications of this policy language with staff, the property owners feel there is some
common middle ground between the City's needs and what. they can provide prior to
annexation.
1. Both the City and the Margarita property owners agree that this area should be
annexed to the City.
ZO����y�sar�.
Mayor Peg Pinard f 9 9 4
Page 2
July 25, 1994
2. Both the City and the Margarita property owners agree that a Specific Plan needs
to be completed for the area.
3. Both the City and the Margarita property owners agree with the Concept Plan that
presently exists (approved by the City Council March 24, 1992).
Because of these commonalities, we propose the following compromise:
1. The City will initiate annexation of the Margarita area. This would involve the few
relatively simple changes to the present Airport Area annexation applications,
making the Margarita area a separate annexation application.
2. The City will accept the Council-endorsed Concept Plan and General Plan EIR as
the basis for the annexation.
3. The property owners will pay for and work with staff to complete an administrative
draft of the Specific Plan and submit it for processing concurrent with the
annexation process, but prior to annexation hearings.
4. The Margarita property owners agree to and will diligently prepare and process the
bearingdraft Specific Plan and requisite environmental documentation immediately
following annexation.
5. The City will write and adopt a prezoning ordinance as part of the annexation
proceedings identifying future zoning, revising the LUE language to require
adoption of a Specific Plan prior to any further development activity in the
Margarita area.
We feel this is a win/win compromise whereby the City receives an administrative draft
Specific Plan prior to annexation, are assured of the completion of the Specific Plan and
the property owners are annexed allowing them to generate funding to complete the plans.
This compromise requires the following action by the Council:
1. Change policy 1.133 in one of the following ways:
A. Substitute "Specific Plan shall be adopted"with the words"Council approved
Concept Plan shall be required" in the second sentence.
4r
�0
Mayor Peg Pinard I 9 9 4
Page 3
July?S, 1994
B. Remove "Margarita" from the second sentence.
C. Replace the word "annexed" with "developed" at the end of the second
sentence.
2. Direct staff to work with LAFCo to initiate the annexation of the Margarita area.
3. Direct staff to work with the property owners and their representative to prepare an
administrative draft Specific Plan for submittal to the City prior to annexation
hearings.
Thank you for your consideration of this compromise.
Sincerely,
- DESK GR UP
Erik P JusteSL
�)(jor property owners)
Vice resident
Planning Division
cc: Arnold Jonas, County of SLO
John Dunn, County of SLO
c/ej-margl.cc
---CREEKSIDE--- aeSVELM NP7 AGENUR 'o
DATE ITEM #
®'CPUNCIL &--C6D DIR
'• C 13FIN DIR
8'A o O FIRE CHIEF
WTAA RNEY O PW DIR
CLERIUDRU3 O POLICE CHF
cwcC4xd p MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Mobilabm tn.. .lry O_C FJLE ❑ UML DIR
3960 Soucy HicUERA • ❑ PER I NIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543-7113
To; 1/1<l9 41
entbetS Allen, SQtt IBJ B',l l Rov.�man
Dwe,
Ra: ��LSs► a�C Qn n{.x a�� ons' v 'f�.c, r�tj�� o C.a."�l.�►
protf M,
a S rt k c. `r;
k.4 e,t
'De-ac C%4 CvL.we: Ke., s
ir es �a� J o.� C,e_.e-1<s t4e 4 e, �s
ct, s�r 01%7 colus - 6' - fi f►e wQ 0 u I f kc_
io se- S o.6.e, r e-+gL% I d��foo 7
k. Vtppttfa.�-toys �t,� ►�u� 54. -9 .
C? e-.e. kg G. ro &er7 sfoft, SGoe"
CV ed1
ars, �`J'�'a=. t S ,oPs Close, b4i.AAI
-t�15 �Q��a� w��r� w, t ► o�v,s�ss [� �V�
3
,"FETING
ING Zb-9 AGENDA I -
ITEM #
R�G�2 5 �yy4 RECEIVED THISCDOCUMENT
JvC�,Sosspo.
July 22, 1994
.'Phe Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard
Penny Rappa }Members of SLO City Council
William Roalman}
David Romero }
Allen Settle }
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: 22 Acre T. K. Property, So. Higuera St. & Tank Farm Rd.
Dear Mayor Pinard and San Luis Obispo City Council Members :
As a sixteen year owner/resident of a home in Los Verdes
Park Two, I urge you .to support annexation of this 22 acre parcel
to the City of San Luis Obispo. Current county zoning of this
parcel as Airport-Industrial is incompatible with contiguous res-
idential and commercial properties . Four operating wells on the
property demonstrate that this annexation will not drain our
city' s current water supply. Our city' s ability to supervise de-
velopment of this area can only benefit the quality of life for
those of us who live near this parcel .
Sincerely,
Anne Sinsheimer
47 Los Palos Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CIL PtDD DIR
Wr ❑ FIN DIR
Y/CO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
V ORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ M TEAM [3 REG DIR
❑ .
MD-FILE ❑ UTILDIR
l e, 13 PERS DIR
-.. —. v--TING AGENDA poi
Dnp c � a=ITEM #
P.1/1
JILL 21 #94 10;59 ELO O"� OF COrt£RC£
To: Howard Carrou
From: Sherer Davis rowed)
Rr: Chamber Board Motion unanimously app
Jule 21, 1994
Motion: The Chamber accepts the OW attoma/t change in the No llltareat Loan Program
whew the loan is dire and payable at sale of props ty or at twonty years• 71'e
Chamber encourages the City to mcplore posub)e options to include in the loan
prognon�wnor$responsible for seismic
ram upgrades such as lessees.
t"
Erco
NCIL DD DIR
1rV'0 [FAr
❑ FIN DIR
AO ❑ FIRE CH
I
EF
EY ❑ PWDIR
ERMRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
MTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
CAt ❑ URL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
y —7v t
RECEIVED
'JUL 2 5 19V4
COUNCIL
IVI«I nrU AGENDA 1
HATE--- S-ITEM #=_
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
July 21, 1994 12r COUNCIL7FFIRE
R
JUL 2 2 1994 CAO
TO: City Council GAO HIEFCriTY CI�c ATTORNEY VIA: John Dunn, CAO ' ' o G' CI ERWORIG CHF❑ MGMTTEAMR
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director D 0 I ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Margarita Area Specific Plan and EIR status
We have been asked to outline for the Council the status of work on the Margarita Area
Specific Plan.
In 1992 Council endorsed as "the project," for preparing an environmental impact report
(EIR), a concept plan which consisted of a map showing land uses and streets, and a
background report. Council also noted several alternative features and concerns to be
addressed during environmental review. Staff had outlined a procedure for using the Land
Use and Circulation Elements update EIR to cover citywide and cumulative issues, and a
subsequent, focused EIR for issues of the site and its immediate surroundings. The planning
team then began to finalize the concept plan, alternatives, and subsequent EIR scope, but the
property owners hesitated to fund additional consultant services without assurances that the
City would annex the area and provide water.
The City's draft Land Use Element, state law, and previous Council direction provide
guidance for the specific plan contents. A lot of work has been done on the concept plan,
but it is not yet a draft specific plan. Key components needing more work are standards for
uses, subdivision, and development (where different from the City's usual standards), and the
extent, phasing, and financing of public facilities.
Since the draft Land Use Element (LUE) reflected the concept plan, the LUE EIR covers the
basic impacts of the proposed Margarita Area development. Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) staff have indicated that the LUE EIR appears to be adequate for the
annexation action (attached letter). However, as lead agency, the City must decide if the
LUE EIR is adequate for adopting a specific plan. Staff believes review of project-specific
features and alternatives --as previously requested by citizens and as directed by Council--
will require some additional environmental review, and that the form most likely to assure
timely action would be a subsequent, focused EIR referencing applicable sections of the LUE
EIR.
As soon as the LUE update is adopted, planning staff is ready to proceed with producing a
draft specific plan and subsequent EIR under the time contribution authorized by Council's
1990 approval of a "guidance package." Likewise, RRM staff is ready to continue work, if
funded directly by the property owners (or through the City, with cost recovery during
development).
MARG-MMEM
0 \\\
County of San Luis Obispo = "�
COLNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER.R?1.370•5.4,\LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA 93409■(805) 781-5011
OFFICE OF THE
July 19, 1994 COLNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. John Mandaville
Long Range Planning Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 5100
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403
Re: Comments on Applicability of the City's Land Use Element EIR to the Proposed
Margarita Area Annexation
Dear John:
At the request of Ken Hampian, I have preliminarily reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Report, dated January 1993, for the City's Land Use Element. Mr. Hampian had requested
an opinion on the extent to which the document can be used to address the environmental
issues associated with annexation of the Margarita Area to the City of San Luis Obispo. In 11
reviewing the document it is my opinion that it adequately addressed the issues associated I
with annexation of the area.
In this regard, please be advised that since I have requested that the City of San Luis Obispo
prezone the entire area of the proposed Airport Area Annexation (including the Margarita
Area), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act the City of San Luis Obispo will
be the Lead Agency for purposes of this area either in total or incremental part The Local
Agency Formation Commission will be a Responsible Agency for purposes of environmental
review and reserves the right to provide comments at a later date.
I hope that the preliminary staff opinion as to the adequacy of the Land Use Element EIR will
allow the City to proceed with submittal of the Margarita Annexation. Please be advised
however, that individual members of the Commission have indicated in the past that they I
would like to review and comment on any Environmental Impact Report prepared for an
annexation prior to its final adoption by the Lead Agency.
Mr. John Mandaville
July 19, 1994
Page Two
Also with regards to the revised annexation proposal, prior to processing the City of San Luis
Obispo, area property owners, or in the case of inhabited areas, registered voters, will need
to submit a revised annexation application, including a revised map and legal description.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
--V� v 60-e\
PAUL L. HOOD
Deputy Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
C - Members, Formation Commission
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
z MEETING WGENDA
RECEIVED .. / E - �'9 ITEM #
JUL 2 0 19V4 O �n yers�rry l
CZS COUNOBISP0.
SAlI LOUICIL
CA R R N1 DES IGN GROUP
yr;�,;(,. .:rr•1'!m:.:rr, i.r ;rnr, , h:., i.r!. !_rnr:i<rr,�rr• .-ct .:: 'hnr'
July 19, 1994 1 9 9 G
W0015UNCIL DIR
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard �A ❑ FIN DIR
and Council Members PLERWORIG
❑ FIRE CHIEF
City Of San Luis Obispo 5RNEY ❑ PW DIR
P.O. Box 8100 ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ EAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Re: T.K. Annexation -- Reconsideration of Annexation IW05�8.pja'f ; g7 PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Pinard and Council Members: J ✓ . MA ESov1
On behalf of the"T.K"annexation property owners,we are writing to request that the City Council
reconsider its prior action (March 1, 1994) denying annexation of this 22-acre property. We are
writing at this time in expectation that you will discuss reconsideration on July 26, 1994 as a part
of your discussion of how the"T.K"property should be shown on the City General Plan Land Use
Map.
As background to this request for reconsideration, we ask that you consider the following:
1. During prior review of the annexation request, the Planning Department Sta$ City
Administration, City Engineering Department Staff and City Planning Commission all
recommended approval of this annexation.
2. During prior review, the project was determined to be consistent with the adopted (1977)
General Plan. It is consistent with the Airport Area Conceptual Plan. It appears to be
consistent with the General Plan Update (1994) intent as expressed by the Council during
recent discussions.
3. During prior review,the annexation was determined not to have unmitigable environmental
impacts. This was based upon an initial environmental review which included an exhaustive
traffic analysis (cost waspaid by the applicant). The implementation of a project(s) after
annexation may be subject to additional environmental review.
4. Since March, 1994, the property owners have invited residents to attend neighborhood
meetings regarding their concerns and impressions of the project. Invitations were sent or
delivered for meetings with residents of Creekside Mobile Park, Silver City, Los Verdes
Park I,The Meadows and Los Verdes Park II. Based upon input received at these meetings
with our neighbors, the following appears evident: We believe that the vast majority of
residents want the property to be developed under City control. They favor annexation.
5. A majority of people favor inclusion of a retail component (grocery and shops) in addition
to C-S type uses. This seemed especially attractive to the many senior citizens who reside
in the area.
6. It is clear residents do not favor "big box" regional retailers at this location.
7. Many of the residents want any open space in lieu fees spent on open space improvements
in the immediate neigbborhood as opposed to remote-locations.
Based upon the comments received from the City Council during its discussions and input from the
neighbors, the property owners want to clarify their annexation request as follows:
_r 6uot:•. H,}: .: Sa .'r -..:n a... r! C':. l';i�a amid .-..- y v
/yam^ ,ti
2
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard 9 9
Page 2
July 19, 1994
1. WATER: The property owners will provide up to 100-acre feet of on-site well water
annually to the City. The water will be delivered at approximately 125 gpm treated or
blended to meet City standards as necessary. This additional water supply will be above and
beyond any project use of City water resources. The water will be provided at no cost to
the City. The developer will construct and then dedicate the water delivery system to the
City for continued City operation and maintenance. Retrofit requirements shall be waived.
2. OPEN SPACE: The property owners continue to offer an open space
acquisition/improvement fee to the City in an amount of $88,000.00. This fee will be
guaranteed to the City by irrevocable letter of credit provided upon Council approval of
annexation and prezomng, but not to be cashed until after final LAFCo and City Council
approvals of annexation are granted.
This fee amount represents a payment of$4,889.00 per acre for the vacant land (18 acres)
within the TX annexation. In view of the wishes of our neighbors, we request that
$80,000.00 of these funds be spent on open space acquisition/improvements within the area
west of South Higuera Street, south of Prado Road and east of U.S. 101.
The balance of the funds ($8,000.00) should be earmarked to fund an analysis to identify
specific sites for priority open space protection. This analysis is a key step toward
implementation of real open space protection.
3. LAND USES /PREZONING: It appears based upon our meetings in the neighborhood a
majority of existing residents favor a retail component to the annexation. If Council also
supports a retail component (as do the T.K. property owners), we suggest that
approximately 8-12 acres at the southwest corner of the property be prezoned C-S-S (per
Conceptual Site Plan). The balance of the site would be zoned C-S. The C-S-"S"
designation would provide for consideration of a retail component (grocery and shops) as
a part of project implementation,subject to Planning Commission review. If Council cannot
support a retail component, the entire site should be designated C-S.
4. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: All frontage site improvements to serve the property are to
be constructed by the developer. The developer is paying connection fees to conned with
City utilities. The developer is required to provide off-site improvements to City
infrastructure. In addition,the City will accrue incremental future increases to property and
sales taxes.
The provision of water supply (in excess of project use) represents a fiscal benefit to the
City, both in terms of cost of supply and revenue if the water is resold. The following is a
calculation demonstrating the value of the water over a period of 10 years — the lead time
for Nacimiento water to be on line:
100 acre feet X $800 /acre feet X 10 years = $800,000.00
excluding revenue from sale of the water and 0 & M costs of the delivery system.
i
July 19, 1994
Dear Resident:
About a month ago, we scheduled a meeting with you to discuss the annexation of the 22-acre
"T.K Property" to the City. Many of you attended those meetings, and we pledged to keep you
updated on progress of the project
On July 26, 1994 at 7:00 PM at City Hall, the City Council is scheduled to discuss how the TX
Property should be shown in the City General Plan and discuss reconsideration of annexation to
the.City. This will provide an opportunity for you to express your opinion regarding whether this
property should develop under City or County control. You may appear at the hearing and speak,
call or write a Council person in advance to let your view be known.
Most of you who attended the meetings with us felt strongly that the property should be annexed
to provide City control of development, to have City standard improvements, and City uses as
opposed to County industrial uses. We are in favor of annexation and hope that you'll let the City
Council know about your preference for annexation.
The City Council also needs to know about your preferences regarding retail use on a portion of
this site. Many of you wanted to see a grocery store and shops on some of the site, in addition
to the business park types of uses. You need to let the City Council know your opinion on this
issue as well. We clarified at the neighborhood meetings that "Big Box" uses such as Costco,
Home Club, K-Mart, Wal-Mart are not proposed! At this point, we don't have specific tenants,
but have discussed the site with grocery and shop tenants who have expressed an interest in this
site. We are also seeking business and corporate tenants, however, our efforts at attracting tenants
have been stymied for this past few months because of uncertainty about annexation.
At the July 26, 1994 meeting, the City Council will be focused primarily on the question of
annexation of the property into the City and what benefits to the City are offered as a part of
annexation. We are asking them to reconsider their prior action to deny annexation.
We urge you to contact the Council members and express your views. We are committed to
developing the property in a quality manner in either the City or the County. Annexation to the
City will permit a range of business park uses which we feel are clearly more compatible with your
homes and neighborhood, and with your support and City
Council support, we may include a retail (grocery store and shops) component of the project
To those of you who were able to meet with us THANK YOU! We appreciate your input and
opinions.
Z
utzkampf Mike Timm
cc: San Luis Obispo City Council
Victor Montgomery, RRM
Attachment
c/vm-tkann.res -
Z
The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard 9 9 4
Page 3
July 19, 1994
We believe this project balances favorably for the City both in terms of short tern and long
term finances.
5. TIMING: Recent Council discussions of the General Plan Update appear headed in a
direction wherein the City will not annex the Airport Area as a single unit in the foreseeable
future. Therefore,annexation of this area appears reasonable at this time given its location,
size,consistency with current minor annexation policies prior commitment to development
by County zoning and current development on the property which is partially completed.
We urge the Council to carefully consider these clarifications of the project description, to clearly
indicate in the General Plan Update that this property may be annexed at this time and to
reconsider the Council's prior action on annexation.
If you have questions, please don't hesitate to call me or the 'T.K." property owners. We plan to
attend the July 26, 1994 hearing and we have informed our neighbors (see enclosure).
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Vict ontgo ,
of ve O r
E closure: er o Property Owners
eutzkamp& T.K. Development
ke imm, T.K. Development
ean Benedia, RRM
Council Members: Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman, Dave Romero, Allen Settle
e/vm-tk=.pin
r
City Council Meeting Information
When: July 26, 1994 at 7:00 PM
Where: City of San Luis Obispo, City Council Chambers
City Council Address
To: The Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
City Council Teleubone Numbers
Mayor Peg Pinard: 781-7100
Allen Settle: 756-2624
Bill Roalman: 781-7263
Dave Romero: 781-7415
Penny Rappa: 781-7115
i