HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/1994, C-1 - MINUTES DRAFT DRAFT
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1994- 9:00 AM
CALTRANS DISTRICT OFFICE- 50 HIGUERA STREET- ROOM A praff hfinufes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA fo be approved
ROLL CALL: sf Council Meefing
Council Members of
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa,Dave Romero,and Bill Roalman
Absent: Vice Mayor Allen K. Settle and Mayor Pinard
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Arnold Jonas,
Community Development Director; Ron Whisenand,
Development Review Manager
This meeting was called solely to facilitate compliance with the Brown Act; attendance by Council
Members was optional.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. CALTRANS OPERATING FACILITIES
Council participated with other agencies in a discussion regarding locating certain Caltrans operating
facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo, or nearby vicinity, in accordance with the City's General
Plan.
Discussion was held regarding prioritizing office/personnel needs over equipment/maintenance
needs.
Council Member Romero stated that the City would be supportive of moving the heavy vehicles and
equipment outside the City limits.
Evelyn Delaney. County Supervisor, indicated the County is currently hesitating in supporting a
relocation until the City has exhausted all possibilities within the City limits.
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, expressed the City's interest in maintaining the
operating facility on Higuera Street and relocating the equipment/maintenance facility to the industrial
area.
Ken Nelson. CalTrans, discussed a requirement for selecting a new location for their facility with
freeway accessibility.
Burt Polin, property owner in San Luis Obispo, offered to sell 56 acres located near Vachell and
Buckley Road, near Highway 227,as a possible site location. He indicated that if only 10-15 acres are
developed for this facility, the property could be subdivided and parceled back to him.
Steve Barasch, property owner in San Luis Obispo, indicated the availability of his property(50 acres
which has currently been submitted to the City for zoning and environmental consideration).
�L '
City Council Meeting Page 2
Wednesday, April 13, 1994-9:00 AM
Discussion was held regarding exchanging property and relocating the trailer storage facility.
Ron Whisenand. Development Review Manager, indicated the City would support finding a suitable
location within the urban reserve line as shown in the current Draft Land Use Element.
Upon questioning, Ken Nelson stated the timeline for selecting a new location was, though
undetermined, immediately as the state is currently four months in arrears of using the monies
designated for a new main office location.
John Dunn.City Administrative Officer,reviewed the upcoming series of Council Meetings to be held
for discussing and adopting the Draft Land Use Element(scheduled to be adopted by the end of June,
1994). He indicated the City's support of retaining the office operations within the City limits and
consider other locations for the equipment/maintenance facility. He stated that Administration and
Community Development Departments are available to work with CalTrans on this project.
Council Member Raooa requested the State submit the criteria needed for selecting a new location.
Defining the requirements would benefit those working on the project in finding suitable property.
Evelyn Delaney, County Supervisor, stated that the County will not respond until the City has
responded that they cannot accommodate CalTrans.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, indicated that City and County requirements are the
same and, therefore, it the City could not accommodate CalTrans, if is likely that the County could
not either.
Discussion was held regarding utilizing a portion of Madonna property, other property located the
highway, exchanging property as an option to purchasing, length of time for zoning the property and
the Prado Road interchange.
Ken Nelson felt that this meeting established a direction in which the government agencies could work
together in finding a solution.
Council Member Romero requested that CalTrans officials attend a Council Meeting wherein the Land
Use Element is scheduled to be discussed and present their package (site selection) for the City's
approval.
Ken Nelson agreed to convey the information discussed, including the request to submit the State's
proposal to the City Council, and will contact the City for assistance.
10:28 AM the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
/cm
C-1 -a.
DRAFT
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1994- 7:00 PM
CITY HALL-COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 990 PALM STREET Draft Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
to be approved
ROLL CALL: at Council Meeting
Council Members of
Present: Council Member Dave Romero,Bill Roalman,Vice-Mayor Allen
K. Settle and Mayor Peg Pinard
Absent: Council Member Penny Rappa
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Diane Gladwell, City
Clerk; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Ken Hampian, Assistant
City Administrative Officer; Arnold Jonas, Community
Development Director; Bob Neumann, Fire Chief
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
P.C.1. Ruth Wilhelm read a proclamation for White Ribbon Week to prevent teen pregnancy
(April 25 through May 1, 1994)
P.C.2. Leola Rubottom requested deletion of Section 5.44.060 of the Municipal Code relating
to mobile home rent stabilization allowing pass through increases (referred to staff by consensus).
P.C.3. Keith Gurnee representing RRM, submitted an alternative position relating to the
proposed Airport Area Annexation.
P.C.4. Vic Sterling, Southern California Gas Company, presented a check for$15,000 for the
acquisition of natural gas transit buses.
CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by RoalmanJSettle to approve the Consent Agenda as recommended by the City Administrative
Officer with the exception of C-6 and C-7 as noted; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa
absent).
C-1 BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS (File No. 123)
Council considered approving the bylaws of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt Resolution No. 8280 as recommended by the Bicycle Advisory
Committee; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-2 MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE BYLAWS (File No. 543)
Council considered approving the bylaws of the Mass Transportation.Committee.
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, April 19, 1994- 7:00 PM
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt Resolution No.8281 as recommended by the Mass Transportation
Committee; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-3 CONTRACT AWARD-WATER STORAGE TANK REPAIR (File No. 93-57)
Council considered awarding a contract to West Coast Industrial Coatings, Inc., in the amount of
$104,809 for°Water Storage Tank Repair- Serrano, Ferrini, Slack", Specification No. 93-57.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to approve award and authorize City Administrative Officer to execute a
contract with West Coast Industrial Coatings, Inc.; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappe
absent).
C-4 UTILITY TRENCH REPAIR PROJECT (File No. 94-17)
Council considered specifications for "Utility Trench Repair Project 1994", Specification No. 94-17,
estimated to cost $99,000 including contingencies.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to approve specifications,authorize staff to advertise for bids,and authorize
City Administrative Officer to award a contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the engineer's
estimate; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-5 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS FINDINGS (File No. 549)
Council considered the findings from the Unmet Transit Needs public hearing.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to find that there are no unmet transit needs based on Council-adopted
criteria; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-6 THURSDAY NIGHT ACTIVITIES (File No. 471)
Council considered three minor modifications to the Business Improvement Association's (BIA)
Thursday Night Farmers' Market Rules and Regulations.
Council discussed enforcement of sales within the BIA boundaries.
Moved by Settle/Romero to adopt Resolution No.8282 approving amendments;motion carried (4-0-1,
Council Member Rappa absent).
C-7 1994 BICYCLE LANE STRIPING PROJECT (File No. 94-18)
Council considered the"1994 Bicycle Lane Striping Project°,Specification No.94-18,estimated to cost
$240,225.50 including contingencies.
Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director, reviewed the history and proposed re-striping project.
Council discussed parking and traffic capacity issues and the goal of,establishing a network of
interconnecting bikeways.
Bob Neumann. Fire Chief,and Jim Gardiner.Police Chief, both stated that the proposal was workable
for emergency response purposes.
C-1- '�
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, April 19, 1994- 7:00 PM
Steven Sales.916 Lobelia, stated there was not the need to inconvenience motorists for bicycles and
suggested restricting the bikes from going underneath the underpass.
Don Coats. 1751 Sydney Street, stated traffic had increased, and changing the high school's hours
was not the right solution.
Everett Chandler, Skylark Lane, suggested removing pedestrian sidewalks from the underpass and
utilizing it for a bikeway.
Joan Sales. 916 Lobelia Lane, stated that there were only one or two bikes per day on Johnson
Avenue.
Sharon Sutliffe, Sydney Street, urged Council to approve the staff recommendation.
Cynthia Bochepresenting the Siena Club's Alternative Transportation Task Force, spoke in support
of the staff recommendation.
Ken San Flippo, San Luis Obispo, stated the proposal for the Johnson Avenue would not be
workable.
8:20 PM Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
8:40 PM Council reconvened; Council Member Rappa absent.
Dolores Simon. 313 Rose, stated the proposal was dangerous.
Dyer Campbell. 3050 Johnson Avenue stated that the survey and public notification was poorly done,
and the current traffic capacity was needed.
Catherine Reno, Sydney Street, stated since the opening of Scolari's and Payless, increased traffic
made the existing configuration superior to the proposal.
Clarence Reno. Sydney Street, opposed the proposal.
Ray Nicholas. 2460 Leona, opposed the reduction in traffic lanes.
Hans Mager. 1545 Tanglewood Drive, stated that traffic congestion made the proposal unworkable.
Ken Evans. 1197 Ella Street, expressed concern about emergency vehicles'access to the hospitals.
David Jeffrey. 1128 Iris Street, expressed concern about the ramifications to emergency vehicles.
Joan Shottz 1630 EI Caserio Court, stated that drivers are not held legally responsible.
Richard Elliott. 2480 Parkland Terrace, spoke in opposition to the plan.
Gary Sims, Sydney Street, stated that the proposal would result in confusion.
Joshua Johnson. 870 Del Rio Avenue, expressed concern about emergency vehicles being delayed.
David Brown. 1308 Broad St. #7, spoke In support of the staff recommendation.
C-1-4
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, April 19, 1994- 7:00 PM
Peter Andre. San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition of the staff recommendation and suggested
removing the sidewalks under the underpass.
Marybelle Romero, Skylark Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Richard Marshall.2517 Santa Clara Street, past Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, stated that
the railroad underpass proposal was designed to be safer, as cars would not change lanes to avoid
turning onto Pismo, and stated that bicycles are not ridden frequently because bicycle paths are not
in place.
Francis McNamara, 1919 Wilding Lane, objected to the single lanes proposed.
Kathryn Keller. 972 Buchon and a Mission Preparatory student, stated she rode her bicycle, but did
not ride on Johnson Avenue because there is not a safe bicycle lane on the street.
Mark Wilson. 1044 Islay, urged Council to adopt the staff recommendation.
Jesse Norris. 2047 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposals.
Beth Young, 979 Walnut#4, spoke in support of the staff recommendation.
Alex Smith, 228 N. Chorro #25, urged Council to provide the lanes for bicyclists.
Christopher Cook, 2038 Johnson Avenue, expressed concern about the congestion caused by the
proposal.
Wayne Williams, 276 Hermosa Way, stated that although the bicycles would be better if they did not
ride in the Johnson Avenue underpass,they will do it anyway and it would be safer with the proposed
plan.
Gary Felsman, 2234 Santa Ynez, supported selecting consultants to analyze the issue around the
hospital to Orcutt Road and the hospital to Scolari's, but supported the approval of the other projects.
Catherine Anderson, 1779 Tanglewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Frank Martinez 2383 Sunset, stated the present configuration provided an effective traffic system.
John Payton. 3380 Sequoia, stated it would be difficult for street parking with bike lanes in the area.
Joyce McKean, 1359 Oakwood Court, opposed the proposal as unsafe for both bikes and cars.
Stan Payne. 1420 Johnson Avenue, urged consistent 4-1/2 foot wide bike lanes.
Gary Fowler, 777 Mill Street, stated that Johnson Avenue was dangerous without the bicycle lanes.
Evelyn Talmage, San Luis Obispo, agreed with Gary Fowler.
Sterling McBride. 1633 Santa Rosa, supported the staff recommendation.
Lisa Camazzo. 1536 Garden Street, stated she did not feel comfortable traveling on Johnson Avenue
on a bicycle until the lanes were installed.
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, April 19, 1994- 7:00 PM
Gordon Paul. 3160 Johnson Avenue, stated there was no need for the proposed configuration.
Howard Kusumoto, 2444 Flora Street, stated the proposal would result in significant congestion.
Saro Rizzo. San Luis Obispo, stated the plan was confusing and urged Council to adopt a more
equitable alternative consisting of two lanes in each direction with no bicycles allowed in the
underpass.
Gerald Shiosgy. 1248 Marsh Street, stated that Payless had resulted in huge traffic problems in the
area.
W. Dexter. San Luis Drive, commended stafrs proposal.
Wes Conner. 216 Albert Drive, stated that if bicycling was to be a workable alternative, that money
must be spent on improvements.
Debra Jeffrey. 1128 Iris Street, opposed the plan.
Vic Barbosa. San Luis Obispo, spoke against the plan.
Council discussed safety and parking issues.
Moved by Romero/Settle to approve the plans excluding Johnson Avenue; motion carried (4-04,
Council Member Rappa absent).
Moved by Romero/Settle to direct staff to re-examine the alternatives for the Johnson Avenue
Underpass and outer Johnson Avenue, and bring back to Council on 6/7/94; motion carried (3-1-1,
Council Member Roalman voting no and Council Member Rappa absent).
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney, stated that the Johnson Avenue portion was 30% of the proposal.
Upon consensus, Council agreed that staff would be allowed flexibility at the timing and
implementation of the remaining portions of the striping project.
C-8 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS (File No. 90-47)
Council considered accepting completion of the "Unit 3 Water Reclamation Facilities Improvements
Project°, City Plan R-28S, and recording the Notice of Completion.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to accept completion and direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of
Completion within five days of acceptance; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-9 RECREATION FACILITIES STUDY (File No. 801)
Council considered a status report on Community Recreation Facilities Study and General Plan Parks
and Recreation Element update.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to defer further work on the Community Recreation Facilities Study until
upcoming work on the Park and Recreation Element update indicates that completing the study will
be beneficial; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-I.1
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, April 19, 1994-7:00 PM
C-10 TOBACCO CONTROL INITIATIVE
Council considered opposing the California Uniform Tobacco Control Initiative which would prohibit
local controls on tobacco and replace local anti-smoking ordinances with a weak statewide anti-
smoking law.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt Resolution No. 8283 to oppose the California Uniform Tobacco
Control Initiative; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C-11 LEAVE OF ABSENCE - PCC COMMITTEE MEMBER (File No. 123)
Council considered granting a leave of absence to Dianne Long,Promotional Coordinating Committee
Member, for the months of April, May and June.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to approve the a leave of absence for Dianne Long; motion carried (4-0-1,
Council Member Rappa absent).
C-12 PARK RENOVATION PROJECT (File No. 93-43C)
Council considered°Park Renovation Project-Meadow,Throop and Laguna Lake Parks",Specification
No. 93-43C, engineer's estimate $352,000, including contingencies.
Council discussed parkland acquisition funding.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to 1) approve specification; 2) authorize staff to advertise for bids; 3)
authorize CAO to award a contract If the lowest responsible bid is less than the engineer's estimate;
4) appropriate$60,000 of approved grant revenue to the park renovations project; and 5) appropriate
$276,000 from the parkland development fund to the park renovations project budget; motion carried
(4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent)-
C-13 CESAR CHAVEZ DAY
Council considered a resolution recognizing Cesar Chavez.
Moved by Roalman Settle to adopt Resolution No. 8284 designating the last Monday of March as
Cesar Chavez Day; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
There were no Council Liaison Reports.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. TENTATIVE MAP-TRACT 2154 (File No. 410)
Council held a public hearing to consider a tentative map for Tract 2154 (TR 10-94)to create an eight
unit residential condominium (planned unit development)on the north side of Foothill Boulevard (680
Foothill Blvd.) west of Fernni Road; Richard H. Porter, applicant (continued from 4/5/94).
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
City Council Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, April 19, 1994- 7:00 PM
Steven Frank. 44 Country Club Drive, requested Council approve the project.
Mayor Pinard read a statement received from Anna Barbosa, which stated that the Ferrini area
residents commended the applicants but requested a concrete fence to the rear rather than a wood.
Rick Porter. 1026 Chorro, expressed concern about the height of the proposed concrete wall.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed allowing Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to make the determination on
the wall.
Council Member Roalman stated that he would like the ARC to pay particular attention to the sense
of neighborhood and not to block the project off, expressing concern that a 6-8 foot wall would not
be conducive to the neighborhood.
Moved by Settle/Romero to adopt Resolution No. 8285 accepting tract map and requested the
Architectural Review Commission look into the rear wall; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member
Rappa absent).
2. REVISED BANNER POLICY (File No. 805)
Council scheduled a public hearing to consider revising the banner policy to eliminate all banners at
Mission Plaza,provide a broader definition of events and limit banners to the announcement of events
only.
Moved by Settle/Romero to continue this item to May 24, 1994;motion carried (4-0-1,Council Member
Rappa absent).
3. TENTATIVE MAP SERRANO WAY (File No. 411)
Council held a public hearing to consider a tentative map creating three lots from one lot at 539
Serrano Way, with an exception to the subdivision standards for lot design (MS 17-94, SLO 94-019);
Don Koberg, subdivider.
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, reviewed the proposal.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Bann Williams, 1491 Monterey Street, representing the applicant, Don Koberg, expressed concern
about Condition #11, which was a 10 foot setback for buildings B & C.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed issues relating to the setback.
Moved by Romero/Settle to adopt Resolution No. 8286 granting approval of tentative map deleting
Condition #11; motion carried (44)-1, Council Member Rappa absent).
C.4-1
City Council Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, April 19, 1994-7:00 PM
4. POWER BLOWER REGULATIONS (File No. 703)
Council held a public hearing to consider amendments to the noise regulations, restricting hours of
operation of power blowers in residential and non-residential zones, and review of a draft education
program to inform landscape maintenance workers of appropriate use of blowers.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Alan Friedman, 3101 Rockview#3,thanked staff for their efforts but stated that citizens needed some
help to ban all gas powered blowers in residential areas.
Mayor Pinard read a letter from Anna Barbosa, San Luis Obispo, stating that are many sources of
noise pollution including garbage trucks and parking lot sweepers.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed implications to the downtown areas.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to introduce to print Ordinance No. 1261 amending the hours of operation
of power blowers to between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM; motion carried (3-1-1, Council Member Romero
voting no and Council Member Rappa absent).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to direct staff to bring back proposed limits for gas powered blowers and
the potential phased sunset of power blowers before the first meeting in September, motion carried
(general consent).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to accept an educational program to review in September; motion carried
(general consent).
5. SIGN ORDINANCE CORRECTION (File No. 424)
Council held a public hearing to consider a correction to the sign ordinance adopted on February 1,
1994 to include amendment made at the ordinance's introduction on January 18, 1994.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
No one spoke for or against this item.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Moved by Romero/Roalman to introduce to print Ordinance No. 1262 correcting an amendment to
sign regulations and rescinding Ordinance No. 1253; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Rappa
absent).
6. ORCUTT ROAD SETBACK LINE AMENDMENT (File No. 537)
Council scheduled a public hearing to consider adopting a revised setback line for Orcutt Road,
between Broad Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), and limiting vehicular access to two
locations on the south side of Orcutt Road, between Broad Street and the SPRR.
C�Irf a
City Council Meeting Page 9
Tuesday, April 19, 1994 - 7:00 PM
Moved by Settle/Romero to continue this item to May 24,1994; motion carried(4-0-1,Council Member
Rappa absent).
BUSINESS ITEMS
7. LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo MEETING
Council considered clarification of Nacimiento allocation and other issues related to the potential
annexation of the Airport Area.
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer, requested direction on how to handle the Nacimiento water
request.
After discussion, Council reached consensus to authorize Mayor Pinard and City Administrative
Officer to make a presentation opposing granting of powers to CSA-22.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMA. The Council Meeting of April 26, 1994 was cancelled (general consent).
COMM.2. SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CITY PARKING STRUCTURES
Council considered a communication from Council Member Romero asking that upgrade of seismic
standards for City parking structures be referred to staff for analysis.
Council will wait until standards come out; Chief Building Official to examine if not significant
workload impact.
11:45 PM there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned
the meeting to Tuesday, April 27, 1994 at 2:30 PM in the Council Chambers.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:-
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
DRG:cm
DRAFT
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, MAY 9, 1994- 1:15 PM
CITY HALL- COUNCIL HEARING ROOM - 990 PALM STREET Draft Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA to be approved
ROLL CALL:
at Council Meeting
of
Council Members
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Bill Roalman,
Vice-Mayor Allen K. Settle and Mayor Peg Pinard
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney;
Council held a closed session pursuant to Government Code S 54957 to discuss public employee
performance evaluations for the following appointed officials:
1:15 PM = City Clerk, Diane R. Gladwell
2:00 PM = City Attorney, Jeff Jorgensen
Upon consensus,the evaluation for City Administrative Officer John Dunn was rescheduled to be held
Wednesday, May 18, 1994 at 1:30 PM.
3:00 PM there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned the
meeting to Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL,
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
DRG:cm
AFS'
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1994- 1:30 PM
CITY HALL- PERSONNEL CONFERENCE ROOM - 990 PALM STREET Draft Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA to be approved
ROLL CALL: at Council Meeting
Council Members of
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Bill Roalman,
Vice-Mayor Allen K. Settle and Mayor Peg Pinard
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Council held a closed session to discuss the public employee performance evaluation for City
Administrative Officer, John Dunn (continued from May 9, 1994).
3:00 PM there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned the
meeting to Thursday, May 19, 1994 at 11:00 AM in the Council Hearing Room for Employee
Negotiations.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL,
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
DRG:cm
"RAF
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1994- 11:00 AM
CITY HALL- COUNCIL HEARING ROOM - 990 PALM STREET Draft Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
to �e approved
ROLL CALL: a'Council Meing
Council Members
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa,Dave Romero,Bill Roalman,and
Vice-Mayor Allen K. Settle
Absent: Mayor Peg Pinard
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Jeff Jorgensen, City
Attorney; Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer;
Council held a closed session to confer with labor negotiators from the following employee
organizations:
San Luis Obispo City Employees Association
San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association
San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officers Association
San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association
San Luis Obispo Battalion Chiefs Association
Unrepresented Management Employees and Appointed Officials
Council gave direction to staff for negotiation parameters, to return to Council for final action.
1:20 PM there being no further business to come before the City Council,Vice Mayor Settle adjourned
the meeting to Thursday, May 19, 1994 at 7:00 PM at the Church of the Nazarene, 3396 Johnson
Avenue, In the Old Fellowship Hall.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
DRG:cm
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1994-7:00 PM
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE- 3396 JOHNSON AVENUE Draft Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA to be approved
at Council Meeting
ROLL CALL:
of
Council Members
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa,Dave Romero,Bill Roaiman,and
Vice-Mayor Allen K. Settle
Absent: Mayor Peg Pinard
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Jim Gardiner, Police
Chief; Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director,Wayne Peterson,
City Engineer;Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
This meeting was called solely to comply with the Brown Act; attendance by Council Members was
optional.
Council attended a Neighborhood Workshop sponsored by the Public Works Department to receive
public testimony on the proposed installation of bicycle lanes on Johnson Avenue between Monterey
Street and Orcutt Road.
INTRODUCTION
Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director, gave a brief review of the history and adoption of the Bike
Plan and related documents:
1982- Circulation Element was developed naming Johnson Avenue as a bike route.
1985- Bicycle Facilities Plan was developed naming Johnson Avenue as a bike route.
1990 - A traffic study indicated that 73%of SLO transportation was done by car and 17%was
alternative transportation (i.e., walking, biking, and riding the bus).
1993 - Draft Circulation Element was presented to Council for consideration including an
option to change the ratio of 73/27%to 59/41%; currently awaiting Council adoption.
1993- Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted encompassing a network of bicycle paths,
including Class 11 Bike Lanes on Johnson Avenue.
He further explained the process of hiring Boyle Engineering to prepare construction plans that
implement the Bike Plan. These plans were presented to Council and approved to send out for bids
with the exclusion of Johnson Avenue, which was pulled for further consideration.
He reviewed various projects currently in progress as part of implementing the Bike Plan, including
the Jennifer Street bridge, Madonna Road bike lanes and upcoming projects in the downtown.
Mike discussed "traffic calming° and the Neighborhood Management Plan (consisting of five
neighborhoods identified in the Draft Circulation Element in which 'traffic calming° would be
implemented).
City Council Meeting Page 2
Thursday, May 19, 1994-7:00 pm
In preparing for tonight's meeting,the Public Works Department surveyed those neighborhoods most
affected by the proposed bike lanes and loss of parking. Of the 2,496 surveys mailed out,
approximately 14% were completed and returned to the City. The results were as follows:
Option #1 - remove parking
Option #1A- (proposed by neighbors) remove parking on one side
Option #2 - eliminate two traffic lanes, install center turning lane
Option #3 - narrow all lanes
Option #4- leave as is
Option #5- other suggestions
Ouestionnaire Live on Johnson Off Johnson Totals
Option #1 10% 14% 14%
Option #2 21% 16% 16%
Option #3 24% 16% 18%
Option #4 38% 51% 49%
Option #5 7% 3% 3%
TOTAL (100% 61 292 353
Upon questioning, Mike McCluskey discussed options used on other projects to reduce traffic speed
while installing bike lanes (i.e., Orcutt Road widening scheduled for Council consideration in June;
Broad/Orcutt, Bishop Street overpass to be included within the Circulation Element).
ORCUTT ROAD TO L®E
Public comments and recommendations were discussed including:
-appreciation of the proposals
- support of the bike lanes
- support of bike lanes (Option 2)
- air degradation vs. number of bikes used as transportation
- Option 2 for Laurel Lane
- concern for Churches and parking for members
- bike licensing, current law and recommendations
- safety issues, benefits of Option 2
-traffic speed on Johnson Avenue
- supporting date indicating reduced traffic speed
- rejection of lanes, eliminating parking, making a gentle °S° shape curve in the road,
accommodating access for emergency vehicles
-traffic calming
- cost of painting streets ($150,000)
- left turn into driveways
-recreational driving
- reduce speed
- °Bicycle friendly City°, potential accidents, uniqueness of Johnson Avenue underpass,
European routes, traffic count
- Laurel/Southwood, no parking removal
- student accessing lanes, restrictions
-ambulance route, right turns, Scolari Center
City Council Meeting Page 3
Thursday, May 19, 1994- 7:00 pm
- community benefit
- opposition to bike lanes, issuing tickets
- Railroad right-of-way, emphasis form Tank Farm Road to Cal Poly
-difficulty with railroad, expenses, long range Master Plan
- safety at lights, pedestrian crossing, signal at Sydney
- affects on six churches located on Johnson Avenue
- previous contributions towards bikers, access to medical services
- opposition to constricting traffic
- improvement to the environment
- no bike lanes in China which has many bikers
- support of Class III
- problems near SLO High School
- support of City accommodating bikers
The following ideas were proposed as alternatives:
1. Bike lanes on sidewalks
2. Narrow all lanes (Option 3)
3. Improve signals
4. Lizzie St. signal timing improved
5. Connect paths through the downtown area
6. No parking removal
7. Option 2
8. Option 4
9. Partial elimination of parking & weave traffic
10. Option 1A
11. Reduce traffic speed
12. Option 4
13. Connect lanes to railroad
14. Option 5
15. Right turn lanes
16. More bike ticketing
17. Prioritize railroad bike path construction
18. Pedestrian crossing and signals installed
19. Use of Flora St. as Class III
A vote was taken to reach consensus on the favored Option. The vote was as follows:
Option #1 - 0
Option #1A- 0
Option #2 - 26
Option #3 - 32
Option#4 - 87
Option #5 - 13
Option #6 - 2
Option #7 - 4
9:15 pm Mike McCluskey declared a recess.
9:25 pm meeting reconvened.
LME TO BUCHON
City Council Meeting Page 4
Thursday, May 19, 1994- 7:00 pm
Option #1 - narrow travel lanes/Install narrow bike lanes
Option #2- prohibit pedestrian use and allow bikes
Option #3-eliminate one southbound lane/install wide bike lanes
Option #4-eliminate one northbound lane/install wide bike lanes
Option #5- narrow sidewalk east side/install 4-ft. bike lanes
Option #6- narrow both sidewalk/install two 6-ft. bike lanes
Discussion was held to consider concerns and recommendations toward these Options including:
- student drivers, safety for bikers
- studies indicating 1000 cars/10 bikers
- accommodating emergency vehicles, installing advisory signs
- motivation for creating Bike Plan to implement land and encourage bikers
- safety Issues, young riders
- presence of bikers on Johnson (or lack of)
- alternative transportation routes
- opposition to the "L.A. look"
- various studies at affected intersections
- support of Option #4
- opposition to reducing lanes, access for bikes over the railroad
- bike lanes for underpass
- center turn lanes
- enforcement of helmet requirements
-false sense of security, sharing & responsibility
- bikers use of sidewalks
- bike plan booklet
- sidewalks used by high school, recent accident
- support of Option 3
- support changing the existing situation
- safety for vehicles and bikes
- consideration of a °tube° for bikers only
- develop lanes from Johnson to San Luis, under the railroad, through the creek, to Pacific
(involvement of Fish & Game, biologists, Railroad Right-of-way, etc.)
- sign sharing for roads and bikes
- visual questionnaires, bike awareness
- Cal trans requirements
- bikes/cars sharing lanes during peak hours (recommended by world traffic calming expert
David Engwich of Australia)
- opposition to cars sharing lanes with bikes
- safety issues
- merging
-access for emergency vehicles, access into driveways
- left turn lanes and right turn lanes
- alternative routes other than using underpass
From the discussion, the following alternatives were proposed:
1. Stripe right lane as °shared° bike lane/vehicle lane
2. Bike signals
3. Advisory signs for San Luis Drive use
4. °Warning Iighto activated by cyclists to point out bikes to motorists
City Council Meeting Page 5
Thursday, May 19, 1994- 7:00 pm
A vote was taken to reach consensus of the favored Option. The results were as follows:
Option#1 (4 lanes, 1 bike lane) -22
Option #2 (3 lanes, 2 bike lanes)- 15
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mike McCluskey requested further discussion of Johnson Avenue
(including bulbouts, speedbumps, and lanes between Buchon/Monterey to the June 7, 1994 City
Council Meeting at 7:00 pm.
10:35 PM the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
/cm
�-1-19
DRAFT
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Draft Minutes
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1994- 9:00 AM
CITY CORPORATION YARD - 25 PRADO ROAD to be approved
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA at Council Me ting
of
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa and Dave Romero
Absent: Council Member Bill Roalman,Vice-Mayor Allen K. Settle and
Mayor Peg Pinard
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Diane Gladwell, City
Clerk; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Ken Hampian, Assistant
City Administrative Officer; Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Director;Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director;Bob
Neumann,Fire Chief;Jim Gardiner,Police Chief; Paul LeSage,
Recreation Director; John Moss, Utilities Director; Wayne
Peterson,City Engineer,Bill Statler,Finance Director;Ann Slate,
Personnel Director
This meeting was called solely to facilitate compliance with the Brown Act; attendance by Council
Members was optional.
The Management Team and Council attended a training exercise held at the City Corporation Yard for
the purpose of reviewing and training in the City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plans. A disaster response
was simulated and evaluated.
A quorum of the Council was not present.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL,
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
DRG:cm
7- —
ETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
July 6, 1994
t7NCtL :13REC
D DIR
® C9/ O N DIR
COMMUNICATION ITEM
VK!rAC I RE CHIEF
JRNEY DIR
RWORIG LICE CHF
TO: Council Colleagues ❑ MGNRTEAM DIR
❑ . FILE IL DIR
FROM: Dave Romero RS DIR
SUBJECT: ANGUS MCDONALD REPORT
REGARDING AIRPORT ANNEXATION
With a detailed discussion of the Airport Area scheduled for our meeting on July 12, 1994,
I felt it would be appropriate to present significant quotes from the Angus McDonald Fiscal
Impact Analysis report.
SIGNIFICANT QUOTES
Page Para.
1 1 "The report examines whether taxes and other revenues
generated in the Airport Area after annexation would be
sufficient to support the expenditures that the City would incur
to provide public services on an annual basis."
3 last 'There is a significant surplus of revenues over expenditures."
4 1 'The revenues associated with growth exceed the City's cost
to provide service."
4 4 'Three important qualifiers are relevant to this conclusion."
4 5 * 'The City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the City's
management team projects the delivery of City services
at a fixed cost per person served (measured in real
dollar terms, net of cost inflation) that did not increase,
as development took place."
4 6 * 'The fiscal impact evaluation is based on the
assumption that the City of San Luis Obispo will use
fees, charges and assessments to recover the full cost
of all services that provide a direct and particular
service or benefit to an individual or business."
Page 2
7 1 * ". . .development projects must finance the full cost of
public improvements. However it is assumed that
development will pay its own way regarding public
improvements and that general purpose revenues will
not be used."
8 2 . . the process of preparing a Specific Plan at the
appropriate level of detail, a set of design guidelines and a
Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP), is demanding,
challenging and time-consuming. This process is vital if San
Luis Obispo is to achieve and maintain control of development
in the Airport Area."
13 4 "In every instance, care was exercised to be sure that service
to the Airport Area would not be at the expense of service to
existing residents and businesses."
Assumed Tax-Sharing
18 5 "This traditional arrangement was assumed for purposes of
the Airport Area fiscal analysis."
19 2 "If, for example, the source of water to serve the Airport Area
proves to have a higher cost-per-acre foot than is currently
the case, the City reserves the right to recover this cost from
those who benefits from the more expensive water supply,
rather than assigning a portion of this higher cost to existing
City rate-payers."
19 3 "If the Airport Area is annexed, the period after annexation but
before growth and development begins would produce an
annual fiscal surplus to San Luis Obispo."
19 4 'The Airport Area continues to produce a fiscal surplus after
annexation, when growth and development begins to occur."
26 2 'The fiscal impact analysis has confirmed that the City of San
Luis Obispo has the capacity to serve the Airport Area without
imposing an additional burden on city taxpayers."
26 4 "If the Airport Area is not annexed by the City of San Luis
Obispo there is a high probability that development will take
place under standards applicable in the unincorporated area
of San Luis Obispo County."
f•
Page 3
26 5 'The choice before the City may well be whether to manage
growth in the Airport Area under City standards or to be an
observer as growth occurs, beyond direct City control."
26 6 "A strategy to annex the Airport Area sometime in the future
after additional development has taken place will almost
certainly add to City costs."
27 last "As a practical matter, the only money to pay for public
improvements must come from the increase in land values
that occur because land has the potential to be developed."
28 3 ". . .if a decision is made to annex the Airport Area, financing
for public improvements will depend on development."
DR:ss
h:airport.dav
. .TING AGENDA
DATE /2N ITEM #__
July 6, 1994
[B'�PGNCIL DD DIR
zrwl ❑ FIN DIR
COMMUNICATION ITEM jAr ❑ FIRE CHIEF
RNEY ❑ PW DIR
Cl�U
LG ❑ POLICE CHF
TO: Council Colleagues ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑_ FlLE 13UTILDIR
FROM: Dave Romero ❑ PERS DIR
SUBJECT: ANGUS MCDONALD REPORT
REGARDING AIRPORT ANNEXATION
With a detailed discussion of the Airport Area scheduled for our meeting on July 12, 1994,
I felt it would be appropriate to present significant quotes from the Angus McDonald Fiscal
Impact Analysis report.
SIGNIFICANT QUOTES
Page Para.
1 1 'The report examines whether taxes and other revenues
generated in the Airport Area after annexation would be
sufficient to support the expenditures that the City would incur
to provide public services on an annual basis."
3 last 'There is a significant surplus of revenues over expenditures."
4 1 'The revenues associated with growth exceed the City's cost
to provide service."
4 4 'Three important qualifiers are relevant to this conclusion."
4 5 * 'The City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the City's
management team projects the delivery of City services
at a fixed cost per person served (measured in real
dollar terms, net of cost inflation) that did not increase,
as development took place."
4 6 * 'The fiscal impact evaluation is based on the
assumption that the City of San Luis Obispo will use
fees, charges and assessments to recover the full cost
of all services that provide a direct and particular
service or benefit to an individual or business."
Page 2
7 1 * ". . .development projects must finance the full cost of
public improvements. However it is assumed that
development will pay its own way regarding public
improvements and that general purpose revenues will
not be used."
8 2 the process of preparing a Specific Plan at the
appropriate level of detail, a set of design guidelines and a
Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP), is demanding,
challenging and time-consuming. This process is vital if San
Luis Obispo is to achieve and maintain control of development
in the Airport Area."
13 4 "In every instance, care was exercised to be sure that service
to the Airport Area would not be at the expense of service to
existing residents and businesses."
Assumed Tax-Sharing
18 5 'This traditional arrangement was assumed for purposes of
the Airport Area fiscal analysis."
19 2 "If, for example, the source of water to serve the Airport Area
proves to have a higher cost-per-acre foot than is currently
the case, the City reserves the right to recover this cost from
those who benefits from the more expensive water supply,
rather than assigning a portion of this higher cost to existing
City rate-payers."
19 3 "If the Airport Area is annexed, the period after annexation but
before growth and development begins would produce an
annual fiscal surplus to San Luis Obispo."
19 4 'The Airport Area continues to produce a fiscal surplus after
annexation, when growth and development begins to occur."
26 2 'The fiscal impact analysis has confirmed that the City of San
Luis Obispo has the capacity to serve the Airport Area without
imposing an additional burden on city taxpayers."
26 4 "If the Airport Area is not annexed by the City of San Luis
Obispo there is a high probability that development will take
place under standards applicable in the unincorporated area
of San Luis Obispo County."
. Y �
Page 3
26 5 'The choice before the City may well be whether to manage
growth in the Airport Area under City standards or to be an
observer as growth occurs, beyond direct City control."
26 6 "A strategy to annex the Airport Area sometime in the future
after additional development has taken place will almost
certainly add to City costs."
27 last "As a practical matter, the only money to pay for public
improvements must come from the increase in land values
that occur because land has the potential to be developed."
28 3 ". . .if a decision is made to annex the Airport Area, financing
for public improvements will depend on development."
DR:ss
h:airport.dav
fvlttIINU AtitNUA
DAT" 7-41 - 9 ITEM #
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 6, 1994
TO: John Dunn, CA01<4 7c—.
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director���- A0
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manage
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - components of plans for annexations and
developments
The information required in various kinds of plans has been an issue in Council consideration
of the Land Use Element update, specifically the annexation requirements. The attached
comparison of the three basic kinds of plans acted on by the City may be helpful in further
discussions. The three basic plans include typical project specific development plans reviewed
by the Architectural Review Commission, annexation area development plans that will be
required by LUE Policy 1.13.3 recently endorsed by the Council, and specific plans that will
be required by Policy 1.13.3. recently endorsed by the Council and Policy 2.3.1 (number in PC
Draft).
An excerpt from "California Land Use and Planning Law" by Daniel Curtin, Jr. is also attached
to provide additional information on specific plans.
COUNCIL CDD DIR
�fCAO C�FIN DIR
❑ ATTORNEY C�7 PV DIR CHIEFCAO OfiIRE ¢� E` �
❑1CLERXIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF R E C E I V E L,
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
o_c HEAD BILE iJ unL DIR JUL - i 1994
�. F/!� :' ❑ PERS DIR
CITY CLERK
^''' LUIS OBISPO,CA LUE-CO MEM
a
H
a
O
z
y �." N y '�• U .r
o
0
C •27t Cu, ami OY_ c� C •U p N 7
NN - Cw a •c�
C]. N L m GL L ^
.D py C G -a C y E
1L�..� v•y 0 C O L •U IJ •"
t4Cd
a `V N y Q•,� 'UD C N C VV w y T N
_ y ° U .0 y L yy •N Cd
7 y cz .O .�. O. y O N •�N .0 ..' 1..'
U 'b U C 7 v1 T L C
Z ry C G, E" V] Cl.
O 7 L W d
W
Z
O
U y
Z = 9 uco m
O. U Gcw, ° d n. aCi
`> > c T 3 e
3
..
0
L
L p U y •� •U •a G, j
DA" C C N w cd
p" fd O
I�1R � � 2 _ Cy3 L • 7 •too
Cc x °
On a � 0 ° � � ETvna r L'ci7 o
3 U
a Q Or cn CL C. V) ... L
Q
V1
cc d
3 y N o •l N N O O
O. L _
O ° fd
VW y In 6! ate. (� �C U ",' rfdy
T T Cl s .2N cC ❑ w vs
u
Q m v � L) � H w i
3
Specific Plan
A. Overview
The specific plan is just below the general plan in the land use approval
hierarchy and is used for the systematic implementation of the general plan for
specific areas. Gov't Code § 65450. Zonings, subdivision, public works projects and
development agreements all must be consistent with the adopted specific plan.
Gov't Code §§ 65455, 65867.5. Also, land projects (Second Home Recreational
Use) must be consistent with a specific plan and, in fact, a specific plan must be
adopted prior to a land project approval. Gov't Code § 66474.5. It is important for
the developer's attorney to inquire whether or not a specific plan has been adopted
covering the client's property.
B. Contents
A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all
of the following in detail:
1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open
space,within the area covered by the plan.
Z. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support,the land
uses described in the plan.
3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for
the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where
applicable. ■ 31
CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW
4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs,
public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out
paragraphs(1), (2)and (3)above.
The specific plan must include a statement of the relationship of the specific
plan to the general plan. Gov't Code § 65451.
j The specific plan may address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the
planning agency, are necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan.
....Gov't Code § 65452.
C. Adoption
The procedure for adoption of a specific plan is basically the same as for a
general plan except that it may be amended as often as necessary. Also a specific
j plan may be adopted by ordinance or resolution. The adoption of a specific plan,
like a general plan, is a legislative act. Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal. 3d 561 (1984).
Pursuant to Gov't Code § 65456, cities can impose a specific plan fee upon persons
seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the
specific plan.These fees can defray the cost of preparation of the specific plan.
Specific plans like general plans must be consistent with a county Airport
Land Use Plan adopted pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 21676. See Section 3.33 for
further discussion.
D. Interplay with CEQA
To assist and encourage cities and developers to use specific plans, Gov't Code
§ 65457 exempts, with certain exceptions, residential development projects from
further CEQA requirements if they are undertaken to implement and are consistent
with a specific plan. Also see use of Master Environmental Report Process
contained in the Dills, Allen, Sher California Environmental Quality Act Revision
Act of 1993, Pub. Res. Code § 21156 et seq.—applicable to specific plan adoptions.
See discussion in Chapter 7, CEQA, infra.
For a discussion of the use of the specific plans, see Specific Plans in the Golden
State,March 1989, State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
E. Judicial Review
Since adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act, judicial review is limited to
an examination of the proceedings before the city to determine whether its action Fj
was arbitrary or capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or whether it
has failed to follow the procedures and give the notices required by law. Mitchell v.
County of Orange, 165 Cal. App. 3d 1185 (1985); CCP 1085. This "arbitrary and
capricious" test also applies to challenges to a specific plan's conformance to a
general plan.Mitchell, supra.
32a ;'�.
ME"t -9
G t AGENDA
DAI,. ITEM #
MEMORANDUM +
July 12, 1994
To: City Council
Via: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic�
From: Ken Hampian, Assistant CAO
Subject: CSA 22
In reviewing the Board of Supervisor's agenda for today's meeting, staff noted an item
related to CSA 22, and acquired a copy of the staff report, which is attached. In essence,
the report introduces an ordinance, and sets a hearing date, for increasing CSA 22 service
charges to cover the next phase of study for the Nacimiento water project. The funding
method is that the County's General Fund makes loans to the CSA, which are paid back
through the service charges. The report also notes that a strategy will be forthcoming for
funding the County Specific Plan for the area.
Staff thought that Council should be aware of these actions in advance of tonight's
consideration of the Airport Area.
KH:mc
Attachment
h/area22
COUNCIL G?Ipt DIR
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
2dACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
r C e)7TORNEY
O PLY DIR
"LER"aG O POLICE CHF
JUS 1 1994 ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE UTIL DIR
CITY CLERK ! O PERS DIR
OB18D0.CA
T kallo itt,E
C, HGNDERSA�
5
SHP LUIS OBI PO COURTY DEPARTMENT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ROOM 207 • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408
CLINTON MILNE PHONE (805) 781-5252 FAX (805) 781-1229
COUNTY ENGINEER
GLEN L.PRIDDY
DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
NOEL KING ROADS
DEPUTY COUNTY ENGINEER TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION
FLOOD CONTROL
WATER CONSERVATION
COUNTY SURVEYOR
July 12, 1994 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA
Subject: Service Charge Increase - County Service Area No. 22
San Luis Obispo Airport Area
Supervisorial Districts Nos. 3 and 4
Honorable Board:
Summary
County Service Area No. 22 (CSA 22) was formed in 1984 and has been providing area
planning efforts to property owners in the San Luis Obispo Airport Area. The financing of
these efforts has traditionally been provided through loans from the General Fund.
Repayment of the General Fund loans has been accomplished through service charges
collected from property owners. Recently, both your Board and the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved the further empowerment of CSA 22 so that it
may also provide water service. At this time, it is necessary to increase service charges
in order to fund planning efforts associated with the Nacimiento Water Project.
Recommendation
That your honorable Board:
1. Introduce and set July 26, 1994 as the date of a public hearing to consider an
Ordinance increasing service charges in County Service Area No. 22 and
authorizing collection on the 1994-95 tax roll.
2. Direct the County Clerk to publish a notice of the public'hearing in the Telegram
Tribune in accordance with Government Code Section 6066.
y ��
r
Discussion
From its inception, service charges in CSA 22 have been calculated based on the
estimated acreage for each parcel. The next phase of the Nacimiento Water Project
represents project planning, and it is recommended to maintain the current method of
apportioning costs that have traditionally paid for area planning efforts.
If participation in the implementation of the Nacimiento Water Project is recommended for
CSA 22 after the next phase of project planning is complete (anticipated in 1996), then the
proposed method of financing the implementation will be brought to your Board at that
time.
The recommended service charges are calculated to cover the costs approved in the CSA
22 budget. Those costs represent repayment of the existing General Fund loan over the
remaining four-year amortization period (pursuant to loan resolution 93-424), participation
in planning phase III of the Nacimiento Water Project over the next two years, and general
and administrative costs. The service charge revenues are not sufficient to fund costs
associated with area planning efforts. A method of financing those efforts will be brought
to your Board at the time that recommendations are presented to your Board for the
development of the specific plan.
Other Agency Involvement
The Office of County Counsel has reviewed the attached Ordinance and approved it as to
legal form and effect. The Office of the County Clerk publishes the required notice. The
Auditor/Controllers Office and the Treasurer/Tax Collectors Office are involved in the
collection of service charges placed on property tax bills. A meeting with CSA 22 property
owners will be conducted prior to the July 26 public hearing.
The County Planning Department leads efforts associated with area planning efforts of
CSA 22. The Environmental Coordinators Division of the Planning Department will be
involved in environmental aspects of the next phase of the Nacimiento Water Project.
Financial Considerations:
Included in the CSA 22 budget is an estimate of$34,700 for participation in the next phase
of the Nacimiento Water Project. The attached ordinance proposes to increase service
charges by about$29,000, or about $5,700 less than the requirement for the Nacimiento
Water Project.
The new total annual revenue requirement of just under $60,000 (up from the current
amount of just over$30,000) is sufficient to cover repayment of the existing General Fund
loan, participation in the next phase of the Nacimiento Water Project and administrative
and general costs at approximately$5,000 per year. Any additional revenue requirements
that may be needed to pay for costs associated with development of the Airport Area \
Specific Plan will be addressed at the time your Board considers recommendations for that
Plan's development.
Respectfully,
uzep
CLINTON MILNE
County Engineer
Attachment
mAadminsup\don na\pao\csa22.blt
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SERVICE CHARGES
FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 22
The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Pursuant to Government Code Section 25210.77a within County
Service Area No. 22 the annual service charge for fiscal year 1994-95 and for each and
every fiscal year subsequent to fiscal year 1994-95, until modified by the San Luis Obispo
County Board of Supervisors, for area planning shall be $69.85 per acre for each parcel
of real property within County Service Area No. 22, as shown on the report entitled Exhibit
"A", which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
SECTION 2: The annual service charges as shown on the report entitled Exhibit
"A", which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth shall
be placed upon the tax roll and collected in the same manner and at the same time as
County general and ad valorem taxes are collected and as specifically set forth in Chapter
3.17 of the San Luis Obispo County Code.
SECTION 3 : This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage of
this ordinance, it shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of
Supervisors voting for and against the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation
published in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
v\
iVIt INU AIitrWA
DAT' ITEM #
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 6, 1994
TO: John Dunn, CAO/<4 ?rL_
/J
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Directorr4-7
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
l"
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - components of plans for annexations and
developments
The information required in various kinds of plans has been an issue in Council consideration
of the Land Use Element update, specifically the annexation requirements. The attached
comparison of the three basic kinds of plans acted on by the City may be helpful in further
discussions. The three basic plans include typical project specific development plans reviewed
by the Architectural Review Commission, annexation area development plans that will be
required by LUE Policy 1.13.3 recently endorsed by the Council, and specific plans that will
be required by Policy 1.13.3. recently endorsed by the Council and Policy 2.3.1 (number in PC
Draft).
An excerpt from "California Land Use and Planning Law" by Daniel Curtin, Jr. is also attached
to provide additional information on specific plans.
POATrORNEY
OUNCIL CDD DIR
AO ZIFIN DIR
R(PLV DIRIEF
LEPNORIW ❑ POLICECHF AECEI �1EL�GMfTEAM ❑ REC DIR
READFILE ❑ UTILDIRJUL 1994
& r ❑ PERS DIR
CITY CLERK
LUIS 081500.CA LUE-CC9.MEM
a
F-
a:
O
y � �
z
y y yw. U rr
o. ao H n 3 v n
O N
`R J4 'O HUS. _ •per+
N O
'L1 j •v C O cC '.'"..
d -p� y °" 3 y o cvd
cc
N vii y 4'� .� �7 C
U rUil y 'C1 L. y to
N 3 v•` �" N .x .co
> C� a... U •y 0 N C w U W 1.O y c 'V ^ y
� v 'b N C j T C y b .b cd 'L7 'in w M Gp
z ° -oz
3 W
W �
z
o �
z
W a e cd
c
o>dGOn w y
3>'�3
.03 :6c. aa > Q 04 w co
F Qc tC cO > y 0. y U y •
cd .5 �
.� N CI C Cd
G c � c U to O W
aa� 3CL."o 0 oy � o � I
c
Q w � � ,
C O y0.j c 0 >0.+ b a� a c
En rICCHv� a a a cd C/) C � C
.a
Q
a�
3 y y c V
0 C
V i.r Q� R' 0 •U U [D � L � �
Cd
d V
N bq j y 7
to cC m cd y U p, c� E wn
+U+ :.b N O y a.+ •cc C to dD
Q �noaAa. 3 � � oo C7 a'oUv, H � g' Z
Specific Plan
A. Overview
The specific plan is just below the general plan in the land use approval
hierarchy and is used for the systematic implementation of the general plan for
specific areas. Gov't Code § 65450. Zonings, subdivision, public works projects and
development agreements all must be consistent with the adopted specific plan.
Gov't Code §§ 65455, 65867.5. Also, land projects (Second Home Recreational
Use) must be consistent with a specific plan and, in fact, a specific plan must be
adopted prior to a land project approval. Gov't Code § 66474.5. It is important for
the developer's attorney to inquire whether or not a specific plan has been adopted
covering the client's property.
B. Contents
A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all
of the following in detail:
1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open
space,within the area covered by the plan.
2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land
uses described in the plan.
3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed,.and standards for
the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where
applicable. '31
• r
CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW
4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs,
public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out
paragraphs(1), (2)and (3)above.
The specific plan must include a statement of the relationship of the specific
plan to the general plan. Gov't Code § 65451.
The specific plan may address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the
planning agency, are necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan.
Gov't Code § 65452.
C. Adoption
The procedure for adoption of a specific plan is basically the same as for a
general plan except that it may be amended as often as necessary. Also a specific
plan may be adopted by ordinance or resolution. The adoption of a specific plan,
like a general plan, is a legislative act. Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal. 3d 561 (1984).
Pursuant to Gov't Code § 65456, cities can impose a specific plan fee upon persons
seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the
specific plan.These fees can defray the cost of preparation of the specific plan.
Specific plans like general plans must be consistent with a county Airport
Land Use Plan adopted pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 21676. See Section 3.33 for
further discussion.
D. Interplay with CEQA
To assist and encourage cities and developers to use specific plans, Gov't Code
§ 65457 exempts, with certain exceptions, residential development projects from
further CEQA requirements if they are undertaken to implement and are consistent
with a specific plan. Also see use of Master Environmental Report Process
contained in the Dills, Allen, Sher California Environmental Quality Act Revision
Act of 1993, Pub. Res. Code § 21156 et seq.—applicable to specific plan adoptions.
See discussion in Chapter 7, CEQA, infra.
Fora discussion of the use of the specific plans, see Specific Plans in the Golden
State,March 1989, State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
E. Judicial Review
Since adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act,judicial review is limited to
an examination of the proceedings before the city to determine whether its action
was arbitrary or capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or whether it
has failed to follow the procedures and give the notices required by law. Mitchell v.
County of Orange, 165 Cal. App. 3d 1185 (1985); CCP 1085. This "arbitrary and
capricious" test also applies to challenges to a specific plan's conformance to a
general plan.Mitchell,supra.
32a
Mac ETING AGENDA
. ,,rF -12 `i- ITEM #�
,0
R RM DESIGN GROUP
Architechne Planning•6t,�ineering• hveriots•Lantimpe Architecture
f 9 9 4
July 12, 1994
CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
Councilman Bill Roalman frf:A7ORNEY
❑ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ PW DIR
990 Palm Street ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Re: Margarita Area ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Bill:
In the last two weeks I have been contacted by a number of people in the affordable
housing community including George Moyland of the Housing Authority, Scott Smith of
People's Self Help, and Miguel Donoso of the California Rural Legal Assistance. All three
have been curious about the status of affordable housing in the Margarita Area.
The Margarita affordable housing program contains standards that would provide for both
renter and owner-occupied units, in single family detached, apartments, townhomes, and
housing authority sites. The total number of affordable units in the planning area would
be about 200, with 510 low income units provided by the Housing Authority and
approximately 13% low to moderate income owner-occupied units administered by the
Housing Authority, People's Self Help, or other. With this number of affordable housing
units, the Margarita Area represents the largest housing resource in the City.
My response to their questions about the status of the Margarita Area has been "as long
as the policies and the General PlanUpdate remain as they are, development of any
housing in the Margarita Area will be prohibited, specifically concerning policies on
development and services and required plans".
Bill, I know these people to be genuinely interested in providing additional work force
housing in our community. My explanation to them as to why no progress was being made
in the Margarita Area due to the wording of these policies has left them somewhat
bewildered. Because they are interested in the greater goal of facilitating more affordable
housing and are not project specific representatives, they are reserved in their comments
promoting this particular project. However, they are keenly interested in moving ahead
with their programs in the Margarita Area as soon as possible.
RECEIVED
3026 South Higuera Street.Son Luis Obispo,California 93403 805/541-179;
J U L 1 2 1994
1032- nth Street,Modesto.California 9515; mg/5;;-170; /���CITY COUNCIL e
A CAJr w Carry,,,,la, 17,r...I,I.1nr,Xnr,irrv.A,,Iurrcl-Luru r Nunib,r 011110% SAN
A LUIS OBISPO■CA
Z�
Councilman Bill Roalman
Page 2
July 12, 1994
I invite you to call each of them to discuss their perspective on this issue. My feeling is
that with the change of wording as suggested by Richard DeBlauw in his last letter to you
the area property owners will have the confidence and direction they need from your
Council to finish the plans for this area and begin to provide our community with needed
affordable housing.
Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
RRV DES/nt
UP
Erik P uL
Vice resi
Planning Division
Vej-margr.roa