HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/1994, 1 - ADOPTING THE REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Q��I�I�pII�WI�f���lu!�III�I� city of San LUIS OBISPO MEETING VQ-Z ATE:
�-14-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Direct?111 ,,
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Adopting the revised Land Use Element of the General Plan
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached resolution to:
- Certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
- Make environmental findings;
- Adopt the revised Land Use Element; and
- Approve a guide to zoning consistency.
DISCUSSION
Background
Since 1988, the City has been gathering and analyzing information, assessing public preferences,
and redrafting statements about when, where, and how San Luis Obispo should deal with the
forces of change and stability over at least the next generation. The resulting Land Use Element
update-has been the first comprehensive reconsideration of this key General Plan section since
1977.
At the Council's July 27 meeting, Council concluded its review of the update. The Council has
considered correspondence, public testimony, and recommendations from staff, the Planning
Commission, the Economic Strategy Task Force, and the Environmental Quality Task Force.
The Council has reviewed a draft EIR, extensive comments, and responses. In a series of
hearings starting in April, Council has worked its way through the text policy-by-policy, and
through the map area by area, giving direction for desired changes. Staff has produced a draft
(enclosed) reflecting all of those actions.
This draft is presented for Council action, to confirm or correct, before the adopted element is
published. In a few places, for clarity and consistency, the draft does not literally follow the
Council motion. In those cases, explained in Attachment A to this report, the basic idea has
been kept intact, but the wording has been modified to minimize the potential for
misinterpretation.
Staff expects that, consistent with previous Council direction, substantial policy issues will not
be reconsidered until the next update of the element, or until separate amendment applications
are received.
State law requires the Council's action to include determinations on the matters detailed in the
attached draft resolution, including General Plan consistency and certification of the EIR.
���mn►��I�I�� N�u����� crty of San lU1S OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
County Coordination
A key issue in the update has been consistency between the City's General Plan and the County's
general plan, which is also being updated. Near the end of the hearings, Council received a
letter from County planning staff noting areas of potential inconsistency. The main concerns and
suggested options for resolving them are summarized in.Attachment B to this report.
Environmental Determination
The project for which the EIR was prepared consisted of the Land Use Element update and the
Circulation Element update. The Land Use Element update is being adopted before the
Circulation Element update. The EIR must be certified before either update is adopted.
The Council has reviewed and discussed the Circulation Element, in determining what would
be the project for purposes of preparing the EIR. Also, various circulation issues have been
discussed in the recent series of hearings, in relation to land use alternatives.
Much of the Circulation Element serves as mitigation for the traffic impacts resulting from
development capacity provided by the Land Use Element. In approving the attached resolution,
Council will be approving the mitigation measures essentially as described in the EIR, which
assumed adoption of the Circulation Element. Significant changes to the draft Circulation
Element may affect the mitigation value of existing draft policies and programs, or may result
in impacts not previously evaluated in the certified EIR. If such changes are made, further
environmental review would be needed.
The Circulation Element recommended by the Planning Commission is not identical to the draft
evaluated by the EIR; staff and the Planning Commission recommend that some mitigation
measures contained in the draft EIR be modified, as noted in the attached resolution. Any
difference in degree of circulation-related impacts remaining after mitigation is addressed by the
finding of an overriding consideration (item D.6 on page 11 of the resolution).
Next Stela
Following adoption, staff will begin work on implementation --and continue those tasks which
are based on previously adopted policies. Substantial new work items will be reviewed again
by Council as City budgets and departmental work programs are considered.
Related Actions
Two other General Plan sections closely tied to the Land Use Element have been under review.
The Circulation Element, which has been on track for revision parallel with the Land Use
Element, is scheduled for hearings and adoption in September through November. The Housing
Element is scheduled for adoption September 6.
city of San IUiS OBISPO
am,j COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may adopt an element different from the enclosed draft. New features not
previously considered by the Planning Commission must be referred to that body for
report before Council action, and new features may require additional environmental
review.
2. The Council may approve the current draft as an "adoption in concept", concluding
review of the Land Use Element update, but deferring actual adoption and certification
of the EIR until Council concurrently adopts the Circulation Element. This approach
would reduce the complexity of findings required to adopt both updates. However, it
would delay the effective date of the Land Use Element update. Several pending
development applications (such as Dalidio, Froom, and T-K Annexation) depend on
adoption of the update for consistency.
3. Council may continue action with direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Adopting the revised elements will commit the City in varying degrees to certain likely costs and
revenues. Previously distributed materials noted the fiscal considerations of overall land use
capacity and growth rates. Fiscal impacts will depend largely on the impact fees and other
mitigation measures which may be adopted, or revised, in the future.
Some Land Use Element programs have substantial costs. In most cases, including preparation
of specific plans, the amount and source of revenue will be resolved after adoption of the
element and before approval of specific projects.
ATTACHMENTS
A. "Minor Differences in Land Use Element Text"
B. "Response to County Planning Staff Letter"
C. Draft resolution to adopt revised Land Use Element
ENCLOSURE
Council Draft Land Use Element (text and fold-out map), August 1994
LUE-ADMCAR &11-94
Counol Agen*Report
Attachment A _ ••
MINOR DIFFERENCES IN'LAND USEELEMENT TEXT
1. Community goals concerning farmland (page 7)
Language from motion:
5. Recognize the importance of farming*to-the'econdmy of the planning area
and the county, and protect agricultural land from development and from
incompatible uses.
6a. Protect remaining dndeveloped prime atgriculture%ils.
Language in Council draft.
Combined into one goal, with redundant terms eliminated:' .
5. Recognize the importance of farming to the econcrMy of the planning area
and the county, protect agriculture from doblopment and from
incompatible uses, and protect remainitlg undeveloped prime agricultural
soils.
Fxplanation: Combine related ideas in one goal and reduce ambiguity resulting from .
two statements concerning land(soil).
. ••.
2. Growth management policy concerning farmland (page 13)
Language from motion:
1.8.2 Prime Agricultural-Land Development of prince agricultural land, with
the exception of small, infill parcels essentially surrounded by urbanization, may
be permitted provided development contributes to the pror6ttion of agricultural
land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by ane yr more of•the following methods,
or an equally effective method: acting as a receiver site for transfer of
development credit from prime agriculthr"arland of equal Quantity; securing for
the City or for a suitable land conservation organization open space easements or
fee ownership with deed restrictions; hel*g to directly-€Md the acquisition of
fee ownership or open space easements by the City or a suitable land conservation
organization.
Language in Council draft.
1.8.2 Prime Agricultural Land ' Prin4e agricultufal IaM -May be developed, if
the development contributes to the protection of agricutCulal land in the urban
reserve or greenbelt by one or more of the following methods, or an equally
effective method: acting as a receiver siteiPorstransfefi df development credit from
prime agricultural land of equal quantity;.s&UidgIbrAM City or for a suitable �/
/'7
land conservaj,�` Qr opeK.rokce easements or fee ownership with deed
i--� i'1 e
restrictioq§;ate ptr�o .. eclly. in d':the acquisition of fee ownership or open
space easements_6ye_4 Citt .,ora suitable land conservation organization.
Development of aic�Is essentially_surrounded by urbanization need not
contribute to agriculturan� protection.
Fxplanation: The motion version can be read to" mean infill parcels cannot be
dgvelped. "Inll" parcels are those essentially surrounded by
urbanization, so term is redundant.
3. Growth managenyar i6ytbm=ing nonresidential growth rate (page 16)
Language from motion:
1.11.4 Nogres.denti' Growth Rate The City shall monitor the rate of
nonresidential growths�yhich will be evaluated annually based upon existing square
footage oflco2nitljiercia`1 structures: At such .time it is demonstrated that the rate
of non-resld(VOal growth has exceeded an average rate of 1% annual rolling
average increase.ever a five year period, with an initial 300,000-square-foot bank,
the City-shall develop and implement a non-residential growth management
program. ,This. policy will implement Measure G which was approved by the
voters in 1989:_ j 'oyi is2n w 1 not apply to expansion of existing businesses,
to the downtown commercial colre, to changes in employment levels within
existing facilities, 'to existing businesses that relocate, transfer title or are sold,
to public agencies , or to manufacturing, light industrial, or research businesses.
Language in Council draft.-
1.11.4
raft.1.11.4 NonresidentraT Growth Rate Each year, the City Council will evaluate
the actual increase in nonresidential floor area over the preceding five years. If
the average annual increase in nonresidential floor area for the five-year period
exceeds -one percent plus 300,000 square-feet, the Council shall consider
establishing limits for the rate of nonresidential development. Any limits so
established shall not apply to:
A. Changed opera�iQns. or employment levels, or relocation or ownership
change, of any 6u§iness existing within the City at the time the limit is
B. Additional nonres� Ttiaf floor area within the downtown core (Figure 4);
C. Ppblic.agencies, �.
D. Manufacfunng, light industrial, or research businesses.
Explanation: In.the motion version, terms such as "rolling average" and "initial
300,000,square-foot bank" are not clear to all readers. The term "this
provis;on"-iS very encompassing, covering both the monitoring and the
potential-limits. Tbe.ref encompassing,
to Measure G is ambiguous, since some
have asserted.that the oo a does not implement Measure G; some may
read .it;_to: mean.that_the.'program, when developed, must implement
Meaqure G.(whrcfi.r plied'�at there would be no exceptions). While the
terms '"shall. deveW and,,i plement" are definite, "a program" could
mean anything from more monitoring only to a moratorium.
4. Growth management policy concerning Cal Poly enrollment (page 16)
Language from motion:
1.12.2 Cal Poly The City favors Cal Poly's approved enrollment master plan
targets and these should not exceed campus and community resources. The City
favors additional on-campus housing, enharic6d transit service, and other
measures to minimize impacts of campus commuting-and enrollment.
Language in Council draft.
1.12.2 Cal Poly The City-favors Cal Poly's approved master plan enrollment
targets. These targets should--M be changed in a way that would exceed campus
and community resources. The City favors additional on-campus housing,
enhanced transit service, and other measures *-Eninknize impacts of campus
commuting and enrollment. �_• _'
Explanation: The first sentence of the motion version contains two ideas, which can be
clarified by having two statements.
5. Residential policy concerning mixed uses and displace4wig of housing (page 23)
Language from motion:
2.2.1 Mixed Uses & Convenience Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses
to serve the daily needs of neaiby residents, including schools, parks, churches,
and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be
available within about one mile of all dwellingg' 77tere shall be, however, no net
loss of housing due to any conversion. ' It is our policy to preserve existing
housing stock.
Language in Council draft:
2.2.1 Mixed Uses & Convenience Neighbbttidods shall include a mix of uses
to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches,
and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be
available within about one mile bf all thveihitlgs- Existing housing shall be
preserved as nonresidential, neighborhood-serving cues doe developed. If existing
dwellings are removed for such uses, the-dAv@&prn6nt shall include replacement
dwellings.
Explanation: The motion wording is very encompassing.= The recommended
replacement wording focuses on the topic of the policy. Another policy
(2.6) applies to protection of areas designated for residential use. -
6. Residential policy concerning TDC density bonuses
V
Language from motion:
2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project
which will:
A. Bea receiving site, within expansion area only, for development
credit transferred to protect open space;
Language in Council draft. K
w
2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may_approve a density bonus for a project
which will:
A. • Be',w-Eeceiving site, within expansion areas or the downtown
coqunercial.evre only, for development credit transferred to protect:
open space;
Explanation: A reference to the downtown commercial core is added to avoid conflict
with policy 4.2.1 (page 44), which allows density bonuses in the core.
7. Residential policy concerning affordable housing bonuses (page 28)
Language from motion:
2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project
which will: ...
A
B. As providod by State law, include dwellings for elderly or
affordable to people with very-low, low-, or moderate incomes, as
defined in the Housing Element.
Language in Council draft.
2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project
which will: ...
B. -pr -ia State law, include the minimum percentage of
dwellings-for-elderly or affordable to the income groups specified
in State law.
Explanation: At the.July 27 meeting, a Council majority appeared to prefer deleting
"moderate income"_ from policy 2.4.2.B. .State law requires the City to grant certain
densities bonuses for qualifying projects- containing dwellings affordable to low-, very-
low, and moderate=income householdg. -: There are different requirements for new J
construction and for.eondominiumvonversion. Policy 2.4.2 is intended to acknowledge
the state requirements., -and-to-txnwer the question of potential inconsistency for
qualifying projects which:exceed'-tfie density that would otherwise be allowed. Rather
than trying to list the various requirementsiLwhich may change, staff recommends simply
referring to State law.
8. App=riate density for manufactured housing (page 29)
Draft policy 2.4.6 deletes reference to the Medium-Density Residential designation as
appropriate for manufactured-housing developments(modular and mobile homes). Under
State law (Government Code Section 65852.7), the City cannot exclude manufactured
housing from other density categories, so the reference in this policy may be misleading.
9. Group Care Homes (page 32)
Program 2.15 (previous numbering, shown below) has been deleted, because a recent
State law (AB 2244; California Government Code Section 12955) removes the City's
authority to regulate through zoning group care homes, regardless of the number of
occupants.
2.15 Group Care Homes
The City will consider allowing group-care homes by right within certain zones,
with requirements for minimum separation between such homes, and possibly
with different size thresholds for each residential density category.
10. Downtown floor area ratio (page 34)
Policy 3.1.6 has been modified by the addition of potential for a floor area ratio up to
4.0 (3.0 otherwise allowed) for consistency with Council direction on policy 4.2.1,
concerning downtown residential density bonuses for transfer of development credits.
11. Commercial Rrogram concerning Madonna Road centers
Language from motion:
3.7.10 Madonna Road Center The City will investigate planning scenarios for
more intense development and greater cohesion for the existing shopping centers
on Madonna Road.
Language in Council draft:
3.7.10 Madonna Road Center The City will investigate ways to encourage
more intense commercial development within, and more cohesion between, the
existing shopping centers on Madonna Road.
Explanation: Suggested wording states intent more directly.
12. Land areas within Irish Hills Special Design Area (pages 79 and 80)
References to the size of the areas have been corrected, from 56 to 38 acres for the
northern (Duval) property and from 55 to 72 acres for the southern (Madonna/Froom)
property.
LUE ATA.CAR
Council Agenda Report
Attachment B
COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS
SUMMARY & RESPONSES
L* Authority to implement policies
Concern: The City does not have jurisdiction over land outside its limits; some readers
may think implementation will be more certain than it actually will be.
Suggested.options:
A. Recommended: Include the following more explicit statement in the Introduction.
(A drawback is that not all users will read the element cover-to-cover, and may
miss this statement.)
Authority for Implementation
The City does not have jurisdiction over land outside its limits. Therefore, many
of the policies in this element can be implemented only through voluntary
cooperation by land owners, consistent actions by County government, or
annexation by the City. Policies state what the City intends to do in areas where
it has authority or influence, and what it would prefer others do in areas where
it does not have authority.
B. Reformat the element along the lines of the Open Space Element, which typically
says "The City will do this, or urge the County and other agencies to do this."
2. Annexation of the airport
Concern: If the City's plan calls for annexation of the airport, County residents may not
have sufficient influence over airport operations, through the Board of Supervisors.
Response: If annexed, the airport would continue to be owned and operated by the
County, so the level of influence would not change. Not annexing the airport would
make difficult annexation of property to the south, which is in the urban reserve line.
The airport is an urban facility receiving City water and sewer service.
If the concern is that the City would allow development around the airport which would
impair its existing operations, policy 7.2 (page 73) says development should be permitted
only if it is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers do not correspond to those in the County letter, since that letter did not number all
comments, and not all numbered comments covered inconsistencies or concerns.
a
3. Special districts for airport area services
Concern: The City's plan says development occurring before annexation should use on-
site water and sewer systems, and that there should not be community water supply or
sewage systems for the airport area. The County's plan would allow community systems
in parts of the airport area which are considered unlikely to be annexed soon.
Options:
A. Recommended: Keep the draft policy.
It is not in the City's interest to encourage (or be indifferent to) the formation of private
companies or special districts for utilities and services at its edges, regardless of the
annexation schedule.
B. Make the City's policy the same as the County's proposed policy, which would
allow community water supply or sewage systems other than the City's as an
interim measure in the airport area, with the stipulation that any company or
district would dissolve upon annexation.
4. Parcel sizes and density in the greenbelt
Concern: A reference to the County's plan on a certain date may be hard to implement
and may not best achieve the City's goals.
Recommendation:
Modify policy 1.7.4 as follows:
1.7.4 Parcel Sizes & Density The City will encourage the County to create no
1 €;<:;>:.:; _:;:,,;;;;::;< .:< :<<;<,;:,.::: ;:;>>;>..:;.::> within the reenbelt with the
newparce s, tc,to trnase:at�xw dec►ss, g ,
exception of those permitted under the following cluster incentive. Outside e€
number of dwel1ings allewed en a pafeei should be no fneFe, than designated b
5. Prime agricultural land protection
Concern: Does the City want the County to require developments in the Airport Area
to preserve land outside the urban reserve?
Response: While doing so would help implement the City plan, the plan does not call
for this implementation measure. Policy 1.8 and the annexation section have been
revised since the comment was made.
6. Residential clusteringfor or open space protection
Concern: This approach would be implemented by the County, which already has cluster
rules, including incentives that are lower than those proposed by the City.
Response: The proposed incentive has been criticized as being too low and too high.
It is true that it would have to be implemented by the County.
Options:
A. Keep policy 1.9 as drafted.
B. Modify policy 1.9 as follows, deleting the table, so that it would be more like the
County programs:
1.9 Residential Clustering for Open Space Protection
1.9.1 Basis for Variation Allowed parcel sizes and the number of dwellings
may vary from policy 1.7.4 when:
................................................... ....
A. All new dwellings will be clustered contiguously :reserve; ati'least;90
...................................... . . . . ,
a.. in aeeerdmee
Teble 1 .
B. The area outside the cluster is permanently protected as open space;
C. Agricultural easements are placed on prime agricultural lands outside the
cluster.
1.9.2 Means of Protection Open space is to be preserved either by dedication
of permanent easements or transfer of fee ownership to the City, the County, or
a responsible, nonprofit conservation organization.
T AT ABT==1
RESI7lENRR A T G USTEPTNG FGR
'G APEN SPA
PSL^ PROTEGTIGN
I�1M lien ZR'II7IRiiiIiTsite ZG'RrteMinimum rVvl RiGlS![iQfA
eltistef pereel be epeft spaee, etitside site area per- let area
20 89 iv y
30 on is i
A^ 83 20 1
go 90 26 i
60 95 40 2.3
320 ,._ mere 95 60 24
7. Reducingdevelopment capacity to protect air quality
Concern: Policy 1.10 should be more flexible.
Response: Policy 1.10 (page 14 of the Council draft) should be kept as drafted, since
it is clearly stated as a "last resort" measure to protect a resource, highly valued by
residents, if all the "flexible" measures prove to be ineffective.
8. Requiring svecific plans
Concern: A new policy requiring specific plans will probably prevent annexations.
Response: This has been adopted policy since 1977. The Council draft relaxes the
annexation-plan requirements for some areas.
9. Memorandum of understanding
Concern: The County cannot "contract away" it legislative authority.
Response: Neither can the City, so program 1.16.8 has been modified from the previous
draft, to clarify that the "agreement" would be to carefully consider any proposed
change, not to require concurrence.
10. Rural residential density
Concern: The County plan says "rural residential" land has a minimum parcel size of
10 acres, and each parcel can have a single family dwellings plus a secondary dwelling.
The City's draft refers to the same parcel size, but to only one dwelling.
Recommendation: The City's plan could insert the word "primary" before "dwelling"
(text and map).
11. Developing in business parks before annexation
Concern: The County plan provides for subdivision and development of business parks
after County approval of a master plan for the area. However, it does not set a
moratorium on these activities until annexation, as called for by the City's plan (policy
7.9.1).
Response: The City's policy is consistent with. the draft element's approach to
annexation and development in the Airport Area.. (The Council has already initiated
annexation of the Margarita Area, which coniains the largest single business park
designation.)
LUE-ATB.CAR
Council Agenda Report
Attachment C
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS,
ADOPTING A REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN,
AND APPROVING A GUIDE TO ZONING CONSISTENCY
The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves as follows:
1. Record of Proceedings
The City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission
recommendation, the staff recommendation, correspondence, and public testimony concerning
the revised Land Use Element. Council also has received the Planning Commission
recommendation, the staff recommendation,and background material for the Circulation Element
update. The Council has reviewed and considered the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
EIR Supplement, and comments and responses on them. These environmental documents
covered both the Land Use Element update and the Circulation Element update. These items
are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The City Council conducted eleven public hearings during April through July 1994
concerning the Land Use Element update. The minutes of those hearings indicate Council
members' votes on particular components of the revised element which may differ from the vote
on this Resolution.
2. Public and Agency Review
Drafts of the revised Land Use Element have been widely available for review and
comment by interested agencies and individuals. Copies have been provided to the San Luis
Obispo City-County Library and the Cal Poly Library. Copies have been provided to agencies
whose jurisdiction is related to planning within the area, including the County of San Luis
Obispo, the County Airport Land Use Commission, the Local Agency Formation Commission,
the Council of Governments, and California Polytechnic State University.
3. Certification of Environmental Impact Roort
A draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 92101006) and an EIR
Supplement have been prepared and circulated for public and agency comment, and responses
to substantial environmental issues have been prepared, all pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines.
Resolution No. Page 2
The final EIR consists of the following parts:
A. The draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), January 1993;
B. Comments and responses. for the draft EIR, as presented to the Planning
Commission May 5, 1993, including evaluation of an alternative corresponding
with build-out of the previously adopted Land Use Element;
C. The draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement ("Supplement"), September
1993, concerning certain land use alternatives;
D. Comments and responses for the draft EIR Supplement, as presented to the
Planning Commission December 1, 1993.
Council hereby finds that it was not necessary to recirculate the draft EIR with the
alternative of building out the adopted Land Use Element, because the impacts of that alternative
were of the same in kind, and within the range of severity, of impacts associated with other
alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR, as demonstrated in the response to comments.
Council has considered how changes to the Land Use Element proposed during the
hearings may affect the environment, and has determined that further environmental review is
not needed because the adopted element corresponds with the project and alternatives evaluated
in the draft EIR and Supplement. Council finds that the final EIR addresses all potential
environmental impacts in sufficient detail. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to
a level of insignificance will be implemented, or overriding considerations exist which justify
approval of the project despite potentially significant impacts, as fully set forth in Part 4 below.
Council hereby certifies the final EIR. A copy of this Resolution, indicating the
approved mitigation and monitoring program, shall be published as part of the final EIR.
4. Status of Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Monitoring. and Overriding Considerations
Council hereby determines that the status of impacts is as follows, for the Land Use
Element.
Council finds that certain standard mitigations, mainly in the form of adopted City
policies and standards, and the requirements of other agencies, will not be changed by adoption
of the revised Land Use Element, and will remain in effect to help reduce impacts resulting from
development consistent with the Land Use Element. These standard mitigations have been
summarized under the discussion of "regulatory environment" within the EIR.
Resolution No. Page 3
The draft EIR, Supplement, and comments and responses covered the Land Use Element
update and the Circulation Element update. The Circulation Element update is to be adopted
by separate Council action. When the revised Circulation Element is adopted, Council will
make additional determinations concerning that element. Any changes to the Circulation
Element, which would result in potentially significant impacts not adequately addressed in the
EIR hereby being certified, will require supplemental environmental review. Likewise, any
changes to the Circulation Element which would reduce the effectiveness of mitigation for
circulation-related impacts will require further determination by the City Council when that
element is adopted.
A. Not significant with project as proposed; no special monitoring of mitigation
measures required or proposed:
(1) Street character;
(2) Park land availability;
(3) Wildland fire hazard;
(4) Electrical power service;
(5) Natural gas service;
B. Not significant with mitigation as recommended by the draft EIR or EIR
Supplement:
Note: Monitoring of approved mitigation measures will be provided through the
annual report on implementation of the General Plan, in addition to any other
reports noted below.
(1) Pedestrian obstruction by sound walls
Mitigation summary: Policy 2.2.12.H modified.
Monitoring: City will avoid noise walls in major expansion
areas, and review plans for sound walls in other
developments.
(2) Land use at Vachell Lane extension: Circulation Element issue (extension
recommended to be eliminated).
(3) Land use at South Street extension: Circulation Element issue (Planning
Commission recommends extension be eliminated; Public Works
Department recommends that it be included; see item D.9 below).
"ls
Resolution No. Page 4
(4) Transit service not adequate for expansion areas
Mitigation summary: City will adopt, update, and
implement Long Range Transit Plan.
Monitoring: City will consider transit plan when preparing
specific plans for expansion areas.
(5) Fire protection service demands and response time
Mitigation summary: City will make more efficient use of existing
resources than assumed in EIR, hire additional
personnel as needed, collect.impact fees for new
facilities, add/relocate fire station if needed, obtain
County airport fire station (or reciprocal response
agreement).
Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before
adopting budgets and specific plans.
(6) Police protection service demands
Mitigation summary: City will hire additional personnel as
needed, collect impact fees for new facilities, add
substation if warranted.
Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before
adopting budgets and specific plans.
(7) General City governmental service demands (excluding utilities)
Mitigation summary: City will improve productivity, and hire
additional personnel as needed.
Monitoring: City will review service levels before adopting
budgets and specific plans.
(8) School facilities adequacy
Mitigation summary: School District will use "Measure A" bond
funds and impact fees, and•specific plans for expansion
areas will provide for dedication of school sites.
Monitoring: City and School District will consider progress on
mitigations before adopting specific plans and
budgets.
/-/6
Resolution No. Page 5
(9) Wastewater (sewage) collection and treatment demands
Mitigation summary: City will expand treatment capacity,
funded by impact fees; collection system will be
expanded, with developer installation, impact fees,
or special assessments.
Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before
adopting specific plans and development approvals.
(10) Construction noise
Mitigation summary: City will limit construction hours, require
equipment maintenance and operation limits, and
portable noise barriers.
Monitoring: City will establish or revise standard contract
provisions for its own projects and conditions of
approval for other projects.
(11) Traffic noise levels - existing and new streets
Mitigation summary: City will reduce traffic speeds through
limits or physical features, and require
developments to attenuate noise through setbacks,
berms, or walls.
Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
(12) Stationary (commercial, industrial) noise sources [See also C(3) below]
Mitigation summary: City will require developments to
attenuate noise through site arrangement and
setbacks, walls, limits on hours of operations or
loading/delivery.
Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
(13) Indoor noise levels from airport operations
Mitigation summary: City will require developments to
attenuate noise as provided in Noise Element design
standards.
Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
Resolution No. Page 6
(14) Construction air pollution
Mitigation summary: City and Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) will require developments to control dust
and combustion emissions.
Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental
assessments, check development plans, inspect work
in progress.
(15) Santa Rosa park carbon monoxide (CO) concentration
Mitigation summary: City will relocate existing play equipment
closer to parking area when it needs to be replaced.
Monitoring: City will request APCD to measure CO at proposed
play equipment location to verify acceptability
before relocating.
(16) Construction water quality impacts, and
(17) Oil/grease in urban runoff
Mitigation summary: Regional Water Quality Control Board
will administer permits for projects disturbing more
than five acres; City will require buffer along
waterways in expansion areas.
Monitoring: No separate monitoring required.
(18) Flooding in expansion areas
Mitigation summary: City will establish adequate creek
setbacks in expansion areas.
Monitoring: Adequate setbacks will be determined in specific
plans.
(19) Biological resources (excluding Sacramento Drive extension)
Mitigation summary: City will implement (1) "biological
resource protection program" for proposed
development sites, (2) riparian and wetland
mitigation, (3) sensitive flora taxa preservation, (4)
coastal sage scrub restoration and limited fire
hazard fuel modification, and (5) revised
landscaping guidelines to include native plants and
exclude invasive nonnative plants.
Monitoring: City will . conduct CEQA project review and
implement Open Space Element; include tally of
habitat types and amounts lost or restored in annual
report on General Plan.
Resolution No. Page 7
(20) Aesthetics: noise walls, street facades, street & parking landscaping
Mitigation summary: City will revise architectural review
guidelines for public and private projects,
concerning noise walls, landscaping, and entry
presentation; specific plans will establish setbacks in
expansion areas.
Monitoring: General plan annual reports and Community
Development Department two-year work programs.
(21) High voltage power lines field exposure
Mitigation summary: City will establish program for notification
of owners within 250 feet of power transmission
line, and assure that specific plans for Margarita
and Orcutt areas show school site separation in
accordance with State standards.
Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental
determinations for expansion area specific plans.
(22) Growth inducement of road extensions in open space areas
Mitigation summary: General: policy 1.7 and 1.8 modified;
Specific: some road extensions proposed to be
eliminated.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(23) Human health hazards - evacuation routes
Mitigation summary: County annual review and update of
emergency response plan will include evacuation
points and routes as development occurs in southern
part of City.
Monitoring: Environmental review and plan approval for specific
plans: Airport, Margarita, Orcutt.
(24) Seismic and other geological hazard exposure - warehouse store
merchandise in area of high ground shaking.
Mitigation summary: Assessment of shelf and merchandise
stability and restraint system recommendations at
time of building permit.
Monitoring: City plan check.
Resolution No. Page 8
C. Not significant with mitigation revised from that recommended by draft EIR
or Supplement; revised mitigation measures are found to address the same
concerns to the same level as recommended, but in a manner more consistent with
other City policies:
(1) Water usage in San Luis Obispo area
Mitigation summary: Development of additional water supplies;
no net increase in water use from new development
until adequate supplemental supply is available(safe
yield basis for planning); water conservation
programs.
Monitoring: Annual water operations plan, quarterly and annual
water allocation/offset report; project-level
environmental review.
(2) Land use - airport safety and outdoor noise exposure
Mitigation summary: Changes reflected in adopted Land Use
Element Map; City will include protection in
Airport Area, Margarita Area specific plans.
Monitoring: Specific plan environmental review; project-level
environmental review, in case Airport Area Land
Use Plan changes.
(3) Noise exposure - commercial & industrial development
Mitigation summary: City will revise Zoning Regulations and
Architectural Review Guidelines, with reference to
Noise Element design standards.
Monitoring: City will conduct project-level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
(4) Water quality & flooding - natural drainage
Mitigation summary: Policy modified to reflect Open Space
Element.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(5) Water quality & flooding - porous paving
Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.4.7) added to Land Use
Element.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
1-020
Resolution No. Page 9
(6) Cultural, archaeological resources
Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.6.4) added to Land Use
Element.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(7) Aesthetics - scenic corridor standards
Mitigation summary: Adequately addressed by modified Land Use
Element policies (1.7.5, 1,.9.4, 6.0.3, 6.2.5)
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(8) Aesthetics - downtown building heights
Mitigation summary: Policy of draft Land Use Element retained.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(9) Human health hazards - hazardous material routes
Mitigation summary: Modified policy (2.2.12.J) added to Land
Use Element.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(10) Utilities & resources - landfill capacity
Mitigation summary: Modified policy 1.15 added to Land Use
Element.
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
(11) Pedestrian safety
Mitigation summary: Draft Circulation Element policies revised
to address concern.
Monitoring: City will review development projects, design its
own facilities in conformance, and consider policies
during preparation of capital budget.
(12) Traffic - Highway 227 high occupancy vehicle lane
Mitigation summary: City will advocate that lanes added to
regional highways be for high occupancy vehicles.
Monitoring: City will participate in Regional Transportation Plan
updates.
(13) Land use conflicts
Mitigation summary: Changes to Land Use Element map to
minimize adjacency of residential and nonresidential
uses in the Airport Area.
Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental
determinations for expansion area specific plans.
i w /
Resolution No. Page 10
D. Significant,adverse impacts, despite proposed mitigation, for which findings
of overriding considerations are hereby made (numbered items below).
Throughout these findings, reference is made to "a reasonable share of anticipated
regional growth." The determination of a reasonable share is based on the
following facts. Determination of a reasonable share follows consideration of
sometimes conflicting State policies and mandates, including protection of air
quality and open space (including prime agricultural land), responding to the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and following the intent of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Additional population and economic activity can have adverse
environmental impacts wherever they occur. Generally, those impacts are
less severe if the growth is within or adjacent to an existing urban area,
compared to growth in rural areas.
State and County populations are projected to increase between one
percent and two percent annually for the next thirty years, based on recent
trends. The City alone cannot change those trends.
The City's planned residential and nonresidential growth rates --slightly
more than one percent— are at the low end of the range projected for the
State and the County.
The City's share of projected State and County growth is determined to
be reasonable because the increase is not significantly higher or lower than
the State or County increases. Growth rates which are higher or lower
than planned by the City could attract to San Luis Obispo, or deflect from
it, adverse environmental impacts associated with growth.
(1) Prime agricultural land conversion to urban use
Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of
anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line, contiguous to
existing development, while preserving land outside the urban reserve
line.
(2) Street widening land-use impact: Higuera Street, High to Marsh
Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at acceptable level of
service, and providing a bike lane connection.
l`eC�
Resolution No. Page 11
(3) Street widening land-use impact: Santa Rosa Street, Olive to Foothill
Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth) at acceptable levels of
service.
(4) Statewide (cumulative) water usage increase
Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of
anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line.
(5) Aesthetics - change from rural to urban character
Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of
anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line.
(6) 'Traffic - unacceptable levels of service at certain major intersections and
along most arterial streets
Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), while avoiding
significant land-use and aesthetic impacts that would follow from adding
or widening roadways and changing intersections, and the City's inability
to substantially change people's individual travel choices.
(7) Biological and aesthetic impacts in riparian area - Sacramento Drive
extension
Overriding consideration: Providing alternate traffic route (reduced
arterial roadway congestion) and emergency access in a location where
riparian impacts can largely be mitigated through on-site, in-kind
enhancement of degraded riparian area.
Note: Council previously approved road extension in concept
when acting on development plan for adjacent business park.
(8) Population, employment, and housing - number of workers likely to
increase more than number of residents, resulting in additional
commuting, with secondary impacts to energy consumption, air pollution,
and traffic levels of service.
Resolution No. Page 12
Overriding consideration: Maintaining San Luis Obispo's fiscal health
and hub role, and avoiding further expansion'of residential development
into open space areas.
(9) Land use impacts at South Street extension
Overriding consideration: Providing emergency access to the Johnson
Avenue area if the main fire station is located at Broad and South Streets
and the Laurel Lane station is closed.
5. Internal Consistency
Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element and the proposed revision
of the Circulation Element are consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
6. Conformance with State Law and Guidelines
Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element conforms with
requirements of the California Government Code and the advisory General Plan Guidelines of
the State Office of Planning and Research.
7. Regional HousingQgportunities
Council hereby finds that the revised Land Use Element does not contain a policy or
program limiting the number of dwellings which may be constructed on an annual basis.
However, by phasing the development of residential expansion area in conformity with growth
management goals, the revised Land Use Element may operate to limit the number of housing
units which may be constructed within a period of years. In fulfilling the intent of California
Government Code Section 65302.8, Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. Regional Housing Needs. The City has determined that approximately 5,300
additional dwellings can be accommodated by the land use designations and
allowed densities contained within the Land Use Element, and that the intended
growth rate will allow this capacity to be used within about twenty-five years.
The City has further determined that the "Regional Housing Needs Assessment"
assignment for San Luis Obispo of 5,128 dwellings by July 1, 1999, was based
on inaccurate data and is neither appropriate nor,achievable within the identified
time frame.
l'v2'�
Resolution No. Page 13
The rate of population growth on which regional housing need allocations were
based is not likely to be achieved, because 'of San Luis Obispo County's
recessionary economic conditions from 1991 through 1994, State population
projections, and resource constraints.
Through its General Plan, the City intends to manage residential and commercial
growth so that new development occurs in an orderly manner and can be
adequately served by utilities and public services like police, fire, schools, parks
and recreation, and general government for the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens. Modification of the Housing Element and Land Use Element policies
to accommodate State-mandated growth targets would represent a fundamental
policy shift, since both the previous and revised Land Use Elements encourage
gradual development outward from the City center. Accommodating the City's
assigned share of regional housing need by 1999 would exhaust the land and
water resources designated in the General Plan to meet the City's residential
needs over the next 25 years.
B. City Actions to Expand Housing Opportunities. .The City is undertaking
programs and activities to expand housing opportunities for all income groups and
for those working within the City, as specified in the draft Housing Element
scheduled for adoption September 6, 1994. Further, the revised Land Use
Element contains policies and programs which will expand housing opportunities
for all income groups and for those working within the City, through provision
of sites for additional multifamily housing within identified expansion areas and
through density bonuses linked to transfer of development credits.
C. Public Health Safety, and Welfare. Adoption of the revised Land Use Element
will promote_the public health, safety, and welfare by:
(1) Strengthening the City's long-term fiscal health so that the City can
provide adequate levels of service;
(2) Assuring that adequate resources and services needed for new
development will be made available concurrent with that development;
(3) Protecting the natural environment and air quality to the extent possible
within a region where population increase is expected;
(4) Maintaining or enhancing the relatively high level of services enjoyed by
City residents;
Resolution No. Page 14
(5) Assimilating new residents at a pace which preserves the community's
social fabric, safety, and established neighborhoods;
(6) Promoting residents' opportunities for direct participation in City
government and their sense of community.
D. Limited Local Resources. There are limited fiscal and environmental resources
available to the City which can be devoted to meeting demands of additional
residential development. Programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are
discussed in the Housing Element and the Water and Wastewater Management
Element. However, several constraints to housing production remain which
cannot feasibly be overcome within the time frame of the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment. These are:
(1) Availability of Water. The City's growth projections assume that
adequate resources and public services are available. Housing growth
beyond the relatively small number of dwellings which .can be built
through the water offset (retrofit) program depends on successful City
efforts to secure additional water supplies.
(2) Public Facilities and Services. Schools, police and fire services, parks,
and general City administration are currently considered marginally
adequate to meet current needs, according to the EIR. To meet the City's
assigned share of regional housing need would require 15 additional fire
fighting personnel, 19 sworn police officers, and approximately 88 other
full-time City staff; would generate demand for an additional 76 acres of
neighborhood and district parks; and require additional faculty and
classroom space to accommodate 2,364 students, assuming services are
maintained at current levels. The capital costs of meeting these public
services needs under the plan would exceed the City's and school district's
financial resources, and result in significant financial hardship and public
safety impacts.
(3) Environmental Impacts. According to the EIR, significant adverse impacts
to circulation, agricultural land, and aesthetics are likely to result from
accommodating the proposed residential growth. Although growth
impacts cannot be entirely mitigated, the 25-year planning time frame
allows development of additional mitigations.or adjustments to the planned
development capacity if proposed mitigations prove to be inadequate.
Accommodating an equivalent amount of residential growth within the
compressed time frame of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment would
Resolution No. Page 15
result in significant adverse impacts and threaten public health and safety
due to inadequate public facilities and services.
(4) Local Conditions Affecting Land Use. Unique physical characteristics,
including steep topography, the need to preserve prime agricultural lands
within and adjacent to the City, and the unique visual qualities of the
City's volcanic morros and open spaces have guided the City's land use
and planning policies.
S. Repeal of Previous Element
The 1977 General Plan Urban Land Use and Growth Management Element, as amended,
is hereby repealed, on the effective date of the revised Land Use Element.
9. Adoption of Revised Element
The revised Land Use Element, consisting of a text and maps dated August 1994, on file
in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby adopted.
10. Publication and Availability
The Community Development Director shall cause the newly adopted element to be
published and provided to City officials, concerned agencies, and public libraries, and to be
made available to the public at a cost not to exceed the cost of reproduction.
11. Effective Date
The newly adopted element shall be effective on the thirtieth day after passage of this
Resolution.
12. Zoning Consistent
The Council intends, within a reasonable time of adopting the revised Land Use Element,
to make the Zoning Regulations and the official zone map consistent with the revised element.
Because some names of land use districts are being added or changed, Council hereby approves
the following as a guide to zoning consistency, pending a comprehensive revision of the Zoning
Regulations and official zone map.
Resolution No. Page 16
Land Use District Consistent Zones
Open Space Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)
Interim Open Space Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)
Recreation Conservation/Open Space (C/OS), Public Facility (PF), or
either of the following zones limited by a Special
Considerations (S), Planned Development (PD),or Specific
Plan (SP) overlay zone: Service Commercial (C-S) or
Manufacturing (M)
Park Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) or Public Facility (PF)
Rural Residential No equivalent City zone (County "Residential - Rural")
Suburban Residential No equivalent City zone (County "Residential - Suburban")
Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (R-1)
Medium Density Res-
idential Medium Density Residential (R-2)]
Medium High Density Res-
idential Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
High Density
Residential High Density Residential (R-4)
Residential Neighborhood Conservation/Open Space (C/OS), or any of the following
zones combined with the Specific Plan (SP) zone: PF, R-1,
R-2, R-3, R-4, or Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
Tourist Commercial Tourist Commercial (C-T)
General Retail Retail Commercial (C-R) or Central Commercial (C-C)
Office Office (0)
Services and Manufacturing Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M)
Business Park Any of the following zones combined with Planned
Development (PD) or Specific Plan (SP): O, C-S, or M.
Public Public Facility (PF)
Resolution No. Page 17
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Att e
LU6ADPr.RFS
COUNCIL CDD DIR �
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA ACA° ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
:N u o u st 16, 1994 DATE .fel=ITEM #! ct ERIwRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
l-O: City Council _ { ❑ C READ FILE 0 UTIL DIR
Vit-F1 .— ❑ PERS DIA
FROM: Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF)
SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Update - annexation'open space policies _
RECOMMENDATION: Modify policy 1.13.5 (page 18 of the City Council draft) as shown
on the attached page.
BACKGROUND:
On August 12, 1994, the EQTF voted unanimously to recommend the attached change to the
draft Land Use Element. The changes are for consistency with the Open Space Element and
with the Land Use Element's Community Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (page 7 of the City Council
draft), and policies 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.4, and 6.1.1, particularly parts A and E (pages 53 and 54).
The changes are compatible with the Margarita Area concept plan previously endorsed by the
Council, and provide direction for refinements as that plan proceeds toward adoption.
The attached changes supplement a presentation made to you on July 27 by EQTF member Ken
Haggard. (In the attachment, shaded wording would be added to the draft now before the
Council; text in italics is in addition to Ken Haggard's presentation.) The EQTF was unable to
recommend this material sooner. because it is a response to the "simplified annexation policies"
recently presented by staff, and approved by your Council before the EQTF could convene a
quorum to evaluate all the implications and respond.
Until now, the City's open space protection efforts have focused on the more visually prominent
and easily identified hillsides and creeks. This focus is reflected in the draft Land Use Element
before you for adoption. Specifically, Policy 1.13.5 as presented in the Council draft could be
misinterpreted to reinforce this narrow focus. Though some mapping of natural habitat types
was done for the 1977 Land Use Element update, there has been no comprehensive natural
resource survey that could identify all remaining habitat types. Therefore, the Open Space
Element and the Land Use Element call for the completion of this mapping, and implementing
actions once the mapping is done. EQTF member's knowledge of local habitats has allowed us
to help further this process, and resulted in the current recommendation.
It is essential that the less visually prominent habitat types be pretected. The species which
depend on valley habitats are not all the same as those which depend on hills and wetlands. It
is critical that urban development not result in islands of habitat (such as the South Street Hills).
In habitat islands, populations of plants and animals can become isolated from others of their
species, resulting in a lack of the genetic diversity which enables long-term survival. Also, in
an isolated habitat, an event such as disease or fire can eliminate the species from that area;
without adequate connecting corridors, there would be no opportunity for some species to
repopulate the area. jqF C F
AUG 1 1994 .
-
CITY CLOW _
is also essential, given the momentum of development proposals for the annexation areas, that
ims direction on open space protection be given now. Project-level environmental review will
not assure the needed protection, because it occurs in response to development proposals, when
basic land use choices have already been made or development expectations have been set, based
on the General Plan. Avoidance of the impact is the best approach. boss of these important
local habitats cannot be mitigated; once they are gone, they're gone.
We in the city have an obligation to protect the habitat of valley species within our urban
reserve. If we do not have the will to do it there, we cannot expectothers to do it in our
greenbelt or county. The EQTF believes the recommended additions to the text will provide a
more complete, consistent statement of City intent for these important parts of our community.
08/23/94 16:24 $805 543 $609 RRM DESIGN GROUP 444 SLO CITY HALL Z002
t"- fret?IN
E AGENDA:
�� DATE ?3- ITEM #_
AUG2 3 1994-
i. =T� t-T'
20
CITY CLERK R R M D E S I G N G R O U P
„S OBIspp,C t 4 FFE!rATTORNEY
CDD DIR
r"+rde;'urc-Pltatt::t..;-Et;irc4ri; r''•ritrrs•LmrrpeArarC p FiNDIR
gtISt �� 1�4 ! 9 9 4 O FIRE CHIEF
O P4Y DIR1� POLICE CHFA RECDIRMayor Peg Pinard and CounclZ Members LE [ UTIUDfR
PERS DIR
City of San Luis Obispo
P:O. Boz 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Response to EQTF Annexation Open Space Policies Dated August 16, 1994
Dear Mayor'Pinard and Council Members:
i
In reference to the changes recommended by the EQTF for Policy 1.1.3-5 entitled "Open
Space°, we would like to express our strong opposition.
We are dismayed at the continuing practice of the EQTF to bring policy recommendations
to the Council at the eleventh hour. This is a pattem that has been establislied to avoid
public discautse and adequate public review-
The
eviewThe Margarita property owners have been in the process of planning their property for
severaFyeam In that time, I cannot think of one correspondence, one phone call;or one
conversation between any member of the EQTF and the property owners or their
representatives There are no secrets involving the Margarita plan_ It has been widely
reviewed and distributed to the planning Commission and the City Council. There have
been numerous changes made to the draft document which incorporate additional open
space and corridor areas. In addition, the Margarita property owners have hired' a
consultant to perform. a preliminary biological assessment, which data Vas used to
formulate the Margarita plan.
The new and revised EQTF language which was publishedlate last week is opposed by the
property owners for the following reasons:
L It sets forth specific Iocations and specific widths of open space corridors These
corridors have been located and laid out without aay site specific environmental
review:
2: Designating such specific language in a General Plan's policy circumvents the
process of'a Specific Plan and EIR for this plan area The concept that this
policy endorses is not anew one. It is reiterated m numerous places in the Land
Use IIement and the Open Space Element It is the process, not necessan'Ey the
policy, that we object to. How can it be known from the:level of environmental
review provided for in the General Plan that a wetland corridor must be 50 yards
wide? . What biological anent has been made? What site specific field
observations have been provided? By designating specific corridor locations and
widths, the City will' have removed the process of mvestigation, modification and
refinement of the plan, for better or for worse.
0:6 South Iii en Sum.San Luii Ood CaUfexm So- c ss x-
. . 7 b'u la• 9'+3� �'.•.' iSf I
:err_-xxt4 Sreec,yfode�.Glifomia c
a+1-/- x
SSi4 �9 79i i
08/23!94 16:25 $805 543 4609 RRM DESIGN GROUP SLO CITY HALL 4 003
=N
t ' �`Wy
Z0 1_ Y
i
Mayor Peg Pinard and. + 9 s s
Ci y Council Members
Page 2
Augast 23, 1994
i
i
3. We,too,are in favor of planning for the area's wildlife and human populations But
to best do so requires that we are provided the ability to methodically evaluate plans
for the area that consider all of the planning factors involved. This policy is.far too
specific, and of5ers no justification- Smce when has the EQTF circumvented the
specific project environmental review process .by coming to early (conclusions
concerning open space and corridor designs? The General Plan and its)policies are
intended to provide a fiamework and a 'road map" for other planning) procedures
to follow. It is the Specific Plan and subsequent EIR that will determine the!precise
locations of appropriate habitat preservation and reclamation areas
4. The wording in this policy language sets a worrisome precedent; having this;update .
process write specific lanae about items of a technical nature, without any
substantive, unbiased documentation, could have long-term Citywide impacts. This
is not the way to plan our City and does not offer our citizens due process:
i
5. Most importantly, this policy will require fature General Plan Amendments if the
project specific EIR reveals other more suitable locations for open spare areas ;or
habitat corridors. .
While in the spirit of environmental planning we support incorporating appropriate, wen
defined,;fid and'meauingrul open space corridors and habitat areas into the plan, we
feel that arbitrary designationsare completely unnecessary in the City's General Plan. We
urge you,please do not adopt any of the EQTF recommendations for policy number 1.135.
Sincerely,
DESIGN OxfP
ri Jlese
�
Yoe Pr dent
i
Planning Division
i
i
i
MEET IN Z3,-��AGENDA�
ATE REM #
WARREN A. SINSHEIMER III SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
ROBERT K. SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
K. ROBIN BAGCETT STREET ADDRESS
MARTIN J.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET
THOMAS M. DUGGAN
MARTIN P.MOROSKI POST OFFICE BOX 31 / FACSIMILE
DAVID A. )UHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
STEVEN). ADAMSKI CIL CDD]DRSOS-541-2802
THOMAS D.GREEN 805-541-2800 ❑ FIN M. SUZANNE FRYER
O ❑ FIRECYNTHIA CALDEIRA �N ❑ PSV0201018
W. ARTHUR GRAHAMSUSAN S.WMG CLERWORIG ❑ POLTHOMAS 1.E. DEN MADDEN III ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ RECMARIA L HUTKIN ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIAugust 23, 199fW ❑ PER
Peg Pinard, Mayor HAND-DELIVERED
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 RECEIVED
Re: General Plan Land Use Element/Alex Madonna AUG 2 3 1994
CITY COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Pinard: SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
We represent Alex and Phyllis Madonna with respect to their properties affected by the
Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo. Our purpose in writing
this letter is to object to the Environmental Quality Task Force's proposed modification of
paragraph 1.13.5 and 1.13.5A which relate to the Irish Hills Area. Our general objections to
the proposed changes are that they unnecessarily limit flexibility in project building locations.
Such limitation is inconsistent with other stated policies and goals of the Land Use element. We
are also concerned that proposed changes set a course of action which will obligate the City to
impose exactions without regard to the analysis required by the United States Supreme Court.
The proposed change in paragraph 1.13.5 would impose de facto Open Space on the Irish
Hills Area by requiring that certain portions of that area be treated as Open Space whether or
not those areas have been so designated by formal City action. This creates a nebulous concept
of floating "open space" and is inconsistent with paragraph 6.1.1.0 of the Draft Land Use
Element which, along with the Open Space Element of the General Plan, sets out City goals and
policies for Open Space. The proposed change purports to alter those stated goals and policies
as applied to the Irish Hills Area without any analysis, justification or support.
The proposed changes to 1.13.5A are two-fold. The first aspect of the change would
blindly require the preservation of the Froom Creek riparian corridor. This change would be
inconsistent with the policies and objectives of the Draft Land Use Element regarding "Creeks,
Wetlands, and Flooding" (Land Use Element 16.4) which requires an analysis and balancing
of several City objectives when considering matters relating to riparian areas. The City Land
Use Element requires that preservation of the riparian corridor be considered only after an
analysis of all stated policies and objectives of the General Plan.. This analysis and balancing
is properly performed either through the adoption of ordinances or regulations relating to
riparian areas or at the time of development review.
Peg Pinard, Mayor
August 23, 1994
Page 2
The second aspect of the proposed change to paragraph 1.13.5A would require that some
valley grassland be preserved at the base of the hills and is also inconsistent with the City's
Open Space policies as noted above. Further, the requirement is inconsistent with other policies
and objectives of the Land Use Element because it would limit the building area in such a
manner that other policies and objectives could not be accommodated. For example, the most
effective way for development to accommodate the Irish Hills viewshed might be to locate
buildings close to the base of the hills. Intuitively, it would seem that such location would allow
the buildings to blend into the hillside landscape thus preserving City objective to preserve
views. The requirement that grassland near the base of the hills be preserved means that the
optimum location of the building may be prohibited at the expense of City aesthetic policies.
Again, the analysis of these objectives should be undertaken during the development approval
process after a review of all relevant factors including consideration of all goals and policies of
the City General Plan.
Further, the proposed changes to paragraph 1.13.5.A would exact de facto easements
along Froom Creek and adjacent to the hillside areas without a finding of a nexus between the
proposed annexation and without an analysis or finding that the impacts of development are
proportionate to the required exaction. This would violate the United States Supreme court
holding in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of
Tigard 94 Daily Journal, D.A.R. 8003, 512 U.S. _ (1994).
We apologize that this letter was delivered so close to the time of the hearing, but we
only recently learned of the proposed changes.
We respectfully request that the Council reject the changes proposed by the
Environmental Quality Task Force which affect the Irish Hills Area as described in this letter.
Very truly yours,
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
THOMAS D. GREEN
MJT:tlg
g:lltr\Madonna\HilWde\7Pinard.823
cc: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Department Director
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
C E I V E F, AGENDA
dtfG
2 3 1994 DATE $ 3 ITEM 0
clrr c
.1)'San`San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 B FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, Executive Director
August 23, 1994
Honorable Mayor and City Council fl��c9IJNCIL JiTDD C 0 ❑ FIN DIR
R
City of San Luis Obispo �J40 0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
990 Palm Street �(1 NEY ❑ PW DIR
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 L4'CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM O REC DIR
❑ C EAD FILE ❑ LIM DIR
RE: Adoption of the Land Use Element ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce urges your final adoption of the revised
Land Use Element. Although the Chamber does not agree with all of the Council
decisions within the document, the Chamber believes that the extensive review process
has resulted in a well balanced Land Use Element. The Chamber of Commerce urges
your adoption now, along with a certification of the EIR, and to proceed on with the
Circulation Element update. Such a process seems appropriate since land uses are
general guiding policies,and the circulation element is there to enable land uses that
serve the needs and desires of the community.
With only one exception, the Chamber of Commerce believes that staffs' revised
language adds clarity and provides for a more user-friendly document without
sacrificing Council's intent. On policy 2.2.1 (page 6 of the staff report), the Chamber
finds the draft language confusing and recommends removing the comma after the
word "nonresidential" and adding the word "or."
The Chamber of Commerce also supports staffs' revised language for consistency
purposes on policy 3.1.6 concerning modifying floor area ratio from 3.0 to 4.0.
Overall, the revised land use document is now more consistent with the concept of
compact urban form.
Regarding recent correspondence from the Environmental Quality Task Force,
there appears to be an effort to change policies voted on during the public hearing
process. The--Chamber believes that this is inappropriate, and that it violates the
ACCREDITED
CH"BER OF C EFFCE
CIAMBC.O.COU..FFCF.
Di r.., u.'IFD 51.FF5
process of public participation. In closing the Chamber strongly urges the Council
to move forward and adopt the Land Use Element now.
Sincerely,
Bill Thoma,Vice President
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
MEQ-*NG AGENDA
DA) �' ` ITEM #
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
AUG. 22, 1994
The City Council Re: LUE7',
City of San Luis Obispo � '
990 Palm Street QLIG 2 t 1994
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CITY CLERK
Dear City Council: !S OBISPO.r_
In the interests of public safety, I implore you to make two land use designation changes in the draft
Land Use Element that awaits your action. To do otherwise is irresponsible, and shows that the council
places politics, greed and individual gain above public safety.
The recent Prado Road plane crash is yet another reminder that two farmland parcels propopsed to be
redesignated for intensive commercial development in the new LUE are in the high hazard plane crash
zone, as shown on the official airport land use hazard map (attached).
The Prado Road crash was on a site proposed for reclassification from open space to intensely-
developed commercial offices. Not long before that crash, a jet had crashed on the Dalido farm, either
on or very close to presently designated open space proposed for reclassification for a shopping center.
Neither a large office nor a shopping center belongs in a high crash hazard zone.
The City's Planning Commission had originally recommended that these parcels remain undeveloped
or lightly-developed because of hazard considerations and other considerations. (The airport hazard is
not the only hazard on these parcels: others include flood hazard and significant electro-magnetic
radiation hazard -- a cancer cause, among other things.) The Planning Commission, of which I was a
member, took considerable care to consider the pros and cons of various uses and non-uses for this
land before making its recommendation. The council has not done likewise.
Several years ago, a plane in trouble on takeoff from the old Sacramento airport crashed into an ice
cream parlor, with great loss of life to those on the ground. The question was asked: How could
something like this happen? How could a shopping center (where the ice cream place was located) be
allowed in direct alignment with the end of an airport runway?
Well, should the same happen here (and inevitably, sooner or later it will happen, for we've had two
warnings in scarcely a year that this is a real threat!), the answer will be the following: that council
members Rappa, Romero, Roalman, Settle and mayor Pinard thought it more important to cowtow to
development lobbyists and pay off loyal campaign contributors than to provide the for the public's
safety.
Don't go down in history that way! COUNCIL CDD DIR
AO ❑ FIN DIR
Sin erely, L'�ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
C'I/ITTORNEY
p� ❑ PW DIR
CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
1:1MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Richard Schmidt // �L y 13CREADFILE r] LITIL DIR
kj� 4L4Ad f/£L. "Ie" i ��� 0 PERS DIR
' :p•' , ;`` ';;;``, ,.a'. i ,"! ;. �'�� AIRPORT
1gJ/�S SAN LUIS I
': AIRK LA
DRAFT L
)09
Nc
..: .�fir: - _. •` ... -. .\- �...;-:=. -- .,' � �,,� ;.' �.l•�"� ,r
pp
.`�ez
^� \u \ y1\,i :•C �yv i 1. '� � t` :i' , .. • r N: 14 � , : �
'�, v�/ �/.�:'. .1��. _.I 1 \ i .1 .e• ' /.' `r - '�1..�. .�l - 1/ 'h. y r i. t r
4
.F
1 �- � ,,•- �-' ,%� � \" � .\� --�• '• . ham' f�/.' �•.:
BNit
`. �•
j• i pNp P,U
E'.X;:
VA
Ile
.tri-'i!` `�.: ;'4a,:���!'.{ �3,.L- •'... s"�:T' -•+,.!`_. ,'�' j. Lil Ne,
'I.�.!•,l t � �f=..M` . . ,J J,•I a w�t.a •./-'. a: �`' 1 Q t v' r
NIP
- =C ��.. ;�.s_ a rte '�- .., �` •�.__ A' r f,� ..
AV
;_;s � \. � ... -t .. � _ _ �- ; a a �� 3-U1 ,'• , fel `i
- :1 ^ V7 � .�,. I/. -IPS •� �1. LY' •r f%�ri �S,�,��
MEE. u AGENDA
DATE - -p REM #
August 19, 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF)
SUBJECT: Circulation Element and Land Use Element updates --goals consistency
RECOMMENDATION: Consider adjusting the draft Land Use Element so a goal of
avoiding traffic increases can be met.
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 1994, the EQTF voted to recommend that you reconsider the draft Land Use
Element's capacity for traffic-generating development. Soon you will receive our recommended
Circulation Element, which state's the goal of reducing traffic to 1988 levels (the benchmark
date of the citizen preference survey). Given the Land Use Element's capacity for traffic-
producing development, even a less ambitious goal of no traffic increases from today will not
be achieved, despite proposed shifts in travel mode away from single-occupant cars to other
modes such as carpools, walking, bicycles, and busses. At least until fossil fuels run out, .we
cannot expect a modal shift sufficient to offset the growth of traffic generators enabled by the
proposed Land Use Element.
The EQTF has taken seriously the results of the citizen preference survey, which showed a
strong desire to avoid increased traffic congestion and air pollution. To maintain the type of
habitat we humans want to live in, we must avoid substantial increases in traffic and the
resulting effects on our neighborhoods. The EQTF's recommended goal of reducing traffic to
1988 levels should help focus the discussion. As shown in the attached "Evaluation of Traffic
Growth and Modal Split," much of the projected traffic increase is caused by the City attracting
visitors, shoppers, and workers who would live in other areas. These drivers are the most
difficult to shift to other modes, given the county's dispersed residential development. This
traffic pattern follows from the Land Use Element's capacity for commercial, industrial, and
institutional growth (including downtown, the airport area, and parts of the Los Osos Valley
previously designated for housing). If we are successful in shifting travel habits close to the
pattern found in places with relatively high fuel costs and advanced public transportation
systems, the traffic increases would still be substantial.
It appears that the links between land use and circulation goals are being overlooked. Adopting
the elements at different times is more likely to lead to inconsistencies between them.
. � UNCL
. DD DI
ll
R
zA ❑ FIN DI
DE CHIEF
AECEAAVEG FW � _ 1DLirCLERIG
AUG 1 9 1994 ❑ GITE ❑ POLICE CH
F
C RRED�LE ❑ REC DIR
CITY CLERK Q UnL DIR
1Ie OBISPO.C! R
ocr 0 0 0t-ja
CD w a O C�11 y d V1
w00
3 O 04 e4 cD Ct7
CD On N CD y .C. ._. n O OCD
co
fA VJ = 1--. C � p`y O � F/A� � � T1 r"q O � ►�y
00
00 y
.,, o
En y cnD o �o
Cl) o y p = y y oy 00
cr CL
CD LA
cDCD
PO
CD CD o iA c 000 _ w CS w m
O v O W O O A C H O O C
O O a
3 CD CDCD
o c
�. n. A. C,
o CD ty C
H -1 �.
aCDCD go
m r.
CL A o - ,4 Y n o o °CD CD
v; a C
CD o 0 c p o4 0 z
o
CDCR
y C
C CD
Cl) CD
^ y �• .�.... r H
~ N as
y = C N U
coO r. J A (�
_, _CDD y 00
VI ? Z '7 00
rI. 1 C y 00
tA
LA yN 1 �..n C t C
.O. y l^9 O O tCD sw �
O C eDD
."' O S
y z
c o
°o CD
C O NO O to tA
t C
fD fD
y a s A y m o.
? <' x — Z — Z
�- P " = = 3
o w � eDro
c 4 c y
eD
Q O\ N 4, zN m -- Z
a p c .'. c w 00iA
o o o S m voi o to
cCL
W to
fl.
C) C .0
O m
(��D� '�Y
^,• �N C C 4•- ri L H V
_ y
i U '"� 'c c h v 3 � •o U
U N Cd G S
•� w � ... y � � 00 ca cyd w
° ° U cC 0cl to
•C m UCd
C y •� yu Cd
to o
o .o as ¢ F S Es a [�T a
0 cc
c — 4r Cd
= 8� Y 3 = °
O .° y 0 h y N E 0 V p O N O °
s O d > O d ?G EnCD
N a) �• C w iy
co
o o o
o � 0� o rn � � cy o � F,
>, C' Z � c3 Z to a� o Z in y c E
e c° -�
oo� o � 0 3 3 E Ln
-per u 0 0 0 aA ai .+ d U > C
a� tn y E
^ L 3 y °° o � 74a o y W
3 •`' 3 E en
rn °O
w O 3 C ►i
o ao $ F 3 � ,� o � •y � � o .° o
.+ E c7 0 N
•� C 'C N y 'U N O C 'U y
en 2 -- --
= ,
cc b4
cd .r N c0 w
cu
00pend cwt
cd - E o a,
o" *5
a> `' 0 Vim0 a N � a� 00 �
8
V] `d a0i y `do 04 v E p 0.' N 0 000 GG c°i = a)
Z E a� m ° C E t o r. .. o
AE nO c� y t Ln 3 , O 3 a�
U c y u a) 8. -� H
0 c�C a) y d > C cv •� 8o nj L ^y y c
U cd a) e>d .r t '� p C h p 3 > A E
F > .0 y y in 0 0� 'n ►� 0 n
(> s`d. E " w .a W 3 o a o C c to y tp
cmv o 3 > ° 0 0
O er. CY
0 > O N 3 C '— N o E i" h
•— L ~ .mfi
+ .r "' C .�+ E d a) +�+ cn a) O v �•
od0 ,,, W) o U t 0
v F -� > F oo
•c Etc, � � � `a; h v v F
a x � tnU w o .° > > W ❑ ❑ ❑
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM �.-
�i�ill►II II Iflll I I III�l��������Iilllll I II I IIS
I
Ciay o D I OBIs o
• J cao
❑ E CHIEF
955 Morro Street • San J�GrkA g jPW DIR - - -
IG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR AUG 1 199,1
❑ READ FILE O UTIL DIR
August 17, 1994 �« ❑ PERS DIR
To: City Council Members
FROM: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Offi�
SUBJECT: Council adoption of the Land Use Element and its impact on the draft
Circulation Element
How does the draft Circulation Element meet expected travel demand?
The draft Circulation Element (May 1992) was designed to meet forecasted travel demand based
on growth and development enabled by the draft Land Use Element (February 1992) by:
❑ Supporting mandatory trip reduction activities.
❑ Emphasizing programs that foster transit use, bicycling, walking, and multi-modal
transportation.
❑ Constructing new roads or widening existing ones where extreme congestion is expected
or where access to new development is needed.
How does the draft Circulation Element need to change to be consistent with the draft Land
Use Element?
The Land Use Element being considered by the City Council on August 23rd enables the
commercial development of the Froom Ranch. The transportation impacts of Froom Ranch
development were evaluated in the LUE-Circulation Element EIR Supplement. To address
impacts, the EIR supplement recommends that the draft Circulation Element be amended to
include:
❑ The potential widening of Los Osos Valley Road (Madonna Road to Route 101) from two
to six lanes. (Note: the hearing draft Circulation Element recommends widening to four
lanes.)
❑ The widening of the Los Osos Valley Road/Route 101 bridge from two to four lanes.
/O The City of San'Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
How might recommended changes to the draft Circulation Element impact achieving all the
goals of the Land Use Element?
If the Circulation Element does not adequately provide for the means of transportation to
accommodate forecasted travel demand generated by the land uses enabled by the draft
LUE, it may not be possible to attain the level of buildout being planned for.
Both the Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) have made
recommendations for amending the draft Circulation Element. The Planning Commission has
recommended that the road projects contained in the May 1992 draft be retained and that a
"voluntary" trip reduction program be pursued.
In contrast, the EQTF is recommending that many of the road projects be scaled back or
eliminated, and that traffic reductions be achieved through aggressive trip reduction programs
that foster alternative transportation.
The essential challenge for the City Council will be to adopt a Circulation Element that can be
implemented and satisfies current and future community transportation needs while avoiding
harm to the environment.
More Information?
Staff will distribute an Agenda Report (it's big!!) for the first Circulation Element hearing
(targeted for September 13th) that evaluates the critical transportation issues. If, after reading
the Agenda Report, the City Council desires additional information or evaluation, Staff is
prepared to respond.
TS:ts
cc Michael McCluskey
Wayne Peterson
jUl A aR� Tee Cex &(ENI,Br_,ZS
15-s& �A Cl rA Gr
5tD? 6A C�3Af6 c
.75!,252P5_6"rlx>
P�c�ct , � io1u
/.-I 54f RTH 61f6ME,)
AGENDA
DUE ITEM I,
AT(RCff� (5 A MEMO / PRPAje4D. AS &V_b1 PlFb 56'
NJ IF4�T_F sCcgG MAAf`rEt-,- 6)F 5 o'rtfM MIEMOERS CDNC 4k6
-re Dmvr 5MRu Fia AvOn tT_10M P0k0t_-5 05AP), P(:nucV
5F-01W J� 13,5 01; 7 fE bRAR— `, 6tF, - Tg6u6t4uE Fr-F w
Tf�`e FIPMk-`r' P,F.UPAIE !lU cT5 -(2�fJ7-Evj_?Vjb 1/U1WJt. 4�D Ttp- g�l
VJbn sEl> TRF- MODI F(Eb UXP.,bM6 R)P THIE- DST 5&TQFIE.b
A.1W& i`0 60 66 LTH VF A&II) rtf Pry ifA5 1t-aZe t'i�Y-e PZE-A) 7PW5M11tf�l
fD 41bu- 5`r IF4TF ftNb STAFF) fl LW6 UJI`2( -rR " WNW t6
M250/JP 44L bEW E VE TffP- 5 HOA-L-R, OFFICIAL COVEg MEMO 15
V:Ep,` 6zb1 AAJb I i5 ORF-Vt`(e MJ5ttJaE.5 444, OF chat XNU, HAVE
-P ME--FO (z l l a k0U�EVF4q,7 I BEd.Jt EVE IT-.5n/,L toE5 lir tk tRr
FOfz ME PE ,'54&'A� ( Td Pru0VIDE �W WiTli T1fE<5P-tGrR A),)449/l6a
Ct-Ir-.b Mho IN C 5- litU ML64T BMQF-Fcr fPzAA THE N6QE OA48.E
J05-rl FICA7170ly OF - f[S IF `rOa APF_ 6a,4F02 -ABLJ
ict H fze4 i v, ju5T FQrFs Sff292Tt926VUEZMF00, FWE, 13UT11
`fM USAN �3ME M0P-E 81�CY���(JJ�, H Fop cr is AMA-u-EF_33.
. UNCIL DD DIR
g CAO ❑ FIN DIR
. �d CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
1TORNEY ❑ PW DIR p
AUG 1 g 1994 �LERKIIpR1Q ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ fiAGMT TEAM ❑ qEC DIR -
CITY CLERK ❑J C FILE L7 UTIL DIR
-S 0913P0 �' hJ ❑ PERS DIR
1"ltll-1 nkr-i
1786, ' AUIACC 431 1
August 4, 1994 ViFlg`f
TO: BIU-AN-A W
FROM:\ZZgFN- pw-- A-!5 1E.Y
SUBJECT: EQTF discussion and recommendation on the DRAFT
SIMPLIFIED ANNE<KATION POLICIES (DSAP), section 1.13.5, of the
Draft LUE
The following EQTF discussion and recommendation on the subject
document (DSAP, section 1.13.5) are based on the "FEBRUARY AND
MARCH 1994 DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT" edition, as that is the last
working draft we have.
The last 3 paragraphs of this memo on page 6, titled SUMMARY &
RECOMMENDATION, are the heart of what the EQTF is
recommending the Council do and why. So we suggest that you read
the SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION section first to get a quick
overview of what the EQTF is recommending that you do regarding
the DSAP. Then go back and read the BACKGROUND section for the
complete justification of our recommendation to you.
BACKGROUND:
The Council endorsed the DSAP on 6114194. The EQTF was so busy at
the time that we were not able to start reviewing the DSAP until
about a week after it was handed to us by staff. By that time you had
already endorsed it. We noted a major consistency problem at that
time, but due to summer EQTF member shortages and the lack of a
quorum, we have been unable to bring this issue to you before now.
We therefore ask that the Council consider this problem at your next
scheduled LUE hearing.
The EQTF understands that staff provided the Council with the DSAP
to simplify the overall annexation process and we support
simplification. However, this particular simplification creates
consistency problems in LUE sections the Council endorsed before
and after you endorsed the DSAP. Prior to your endorsement of the
DSAP you endorsed the section Background to this Land Use
Element update. On page 3 this section states:
Another issue that was less well understood in 1977 is the
preservation of important wildlife and native plant habitats: this
2
revision proposes methods to begin preservation of such habitats,
including planning based on the identification, mapping and
monitoring of the community's existing natural assets. This
element is a continuation of the 1977 element; it represents fine
tunning rather than a new beginning
You also previously endorsed under COMMUNITY GOALS, section
6c, which 'states on page 8:
Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets to
preserve and protect them.
After your endorsement• of the DSAP, under RESOURCE
PROTECTION, you endorsed section 6.0.4 Overlay Mapping,
which states on page 57:
The City shall develop overlay maps of the City, the urban
reserve....The overlay maps shall show at least the following
resources: native plant communities, wildlife habitats and
corridors, aquatic ecosystems, productive or potentially
productive soils (prime or other unique agricultural soil types),
viewsheds, hillsides, greenbelt areas.
The clear intent of this natural resource identification (which the City
has already started with its hills and creek/other wetlands surveys)
followed by overlay mapping (which will be done on computer using
modern "geographic information systems", GIS) is to identify and
protect important natural resources in the urban reserve and
greenbelt. This identification and protection of the City's important
natural resouces is for present and future citizens and common and
rare plant and animal species.
This protection of the City's natural resources is also already
endorsed in the Open Space Element (OSE) both in its text generally
and its maps specifically. The Greenbelt Map, SITE MAP-FIGURE 2.
and CREEK MAP show specific natural resource areas for protection
that were known and therefore documented in the OSE. However, up
to the time of the conclusion of the OSE process, only the hill and
creek/other wetlands identification surveys had been completed. No
other comprehensive natural resource survey hadbeen undertaken
to clearly identify our City's remaining grassland, chaparral, coastal -
sage .scrub, serpentine endemics, oak savannah, oak woodland, and
riparian woodland (etc.) ecosystems. Therefore, the OSE text
,ti,:
3
commented generally about the importance of protecting these
natural resources. The sections on GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES,
PLANTS AND ANIMALS, SCENIC RESOURCES, OUTDOOR RECREATION,
MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE AND GREENBELT AREAS BY THE CITY,
and APPENDIX A - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEFINITION OF OPEN
SPACE, all have general comments on the importance of protecting
our cities natural resources. As 2 examples, the PLANTS AND
ANIMALS section states:
1. Within the city limits the City should, and outside the city
limits the City will encourage the State and County to....B. To the
extent feasible, protect native wildlife and local habitat (such as
grasslands), because sensitive habitat, unique resources, and
native wildlife are dependent on such habitat.
And APPENDIX A states:
Open space is land or water area which remains in a
predominantly natural or undeveloped state. Such lands protect
and preserve the community's natural and historic resources,
define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief
from urban development. Open space may consist of small
portions of a parcel or large tracts of land. Such lands. may
include farming and grazing; creeks, marshes, watershed,
and floodplain; scenic resources, plant and animal habitat;
historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation
areas.
Recognizing that the OSE had only began this process of natural
resource identification surveying and overlay (GIS) mapping, the
current LUE process has picked up or. this where the OSE left off. As
previously discussed here, you have already endorsed this
identification and mapping in the LUE. Most importantly of all, you
have the support of your business, environmental, and citizen
communities on this endeavor. At the EQTFs last meeting, a Chamber
Of Commerce representative said the City has their support on
natural resource identification and mapping. And the Community
Values section of the LUE makes it clear such an endeaver has the
support of our City's citizen. This makes sense for everyone. By
finally identifying our natural resources in advance, important
resources can be designed around, instead of the unfortunate past
and present way under CEQA where a developer typically first
designs :a project, then does a resource survey as part of the EIR
y.
ris•
1
_i
I
4
process to determine what the project will destroy and how to, after
the fact, "mitigate" for that destruction.
This old reverse-order CEQA process has not worked for developers,
citizens, native plants and animals and other resources in general. It
has lead to high costs for developers (through post design resource
surveys, redesigns, and associated delays) - and more and more
endangered species (in large part due to costly but ineffective post
project mitigations), which are a very high moral and financial cost to
citizens. Species recovery plans required by State and federal
Endangered Species Acts are extremely expensive to carry out, as we
are well aware with certain local endangered species as the condor,
peregrine falcon, and sea otter. Society has been torn by its moral
obligation to help these needy species and by its financial limitations
to effectively do so to date.
With your resource identifying and mapping LUE endorsements,
important natural resources of endangered and common species will
be known in advance so projects can be designed around them from
the start. The best mitigation, though often ignored, has always been
avoidance of the impact to begin with. And, with your
endorsements, project avoidance mitigation will hopefully soon
become the norm, instead of the past and present exception under a
legal but historically ineffective CEQA process.
Given this background, it can now be seen that in staffs
understandable hurry to simplify the annexation process (after all,
you were having considerable difficulty with the annexation section
of the LUE before staff provided you with the DSAP), they
overlooked some ramifications of the Council's endorsed policies to
do this natural resource inventorying and mapping. A look will now
demonstrate this problem with the DSAP.
Section 1.13.5, A. through E., of the DSAP (attached), discusses the
open space requirements of the 5 large proposed future annexation
areas of the City. These 5 areas represent virtually all of the as yet
undeveloped rural area within the City's urban reserve line.
However, by reading A. through E., it can be seen that the only open
space proposed for these 5 annexation areas are the unbuildable (1)
geologically hazardous hills, A. through C., and (2) flood hazardous
wetlands, B. and D.. In D., the only specific "on-site resources
identified in the Open Space Element" for "D. Airport Area" .pertaining
to,-ha,tural .resources are the Unocal wetlands shown on the SITE MAP
5
(Figure 2) and creeks shown on the. CREEK MAP. Though areas were
not specifically identified, the importance of valley grassland
communities and the need to protect them was thoroughly discussed
in the OSE. Therefore, additionally, the LUE should indicate that
grassland communities in the Airport Area should be preserved.
Except for hills and creeks/other wetlands, no other specific natural
resources were known about at the time of the recent OSE process
because a comprehensive natural resource survey has not been done
by the City. That is why the many sections in the OSE previously
discussed referred in a general way to the importance of protecting
the City's natural resources, as valley grasslands.
Though the OSE did not specifically discuss the City finishing the
natural resource survey that it had already started with its hills and
creeks/other wetlands surveys, it did not preclude the necessity of
the City finishing this important task. And that is why you have
correctly endorsed the various sections of the LUE discussed here
that will bring this natural resource identification and mapping task
to, completion.
However, and here is the LUE consistency problem, what good is this
natural resource survey and mapping going to do the City, if,the City
has already determined in its DSAP that the only natural resources
worth preserving within the urban reserve are the unbuildable hills
and wetlands? Different species of plants and animals and their
habitats exist in the valleys than in the hills and wetlands, and we
must provide for the protection of the former as well as the latter.
Cities (as SLO, Paso Robles, Atascadero, Templeton, Arroyo Grande,
Santa Margarita, Santa Maria, Salinas, King City, San Jose, Santa Rosa,
Eureka, L. A., Bakersfield, Porterville, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton,
Sacramento, Lone Pine, Bishop, and on and on) have historically
selected the best valley and floodplain bottomland to build on,
severely impacting the native plant and animal species relying on
these types of ecosystems. For this important reason, cities cannot
expect other jurisdictions and agencies to do the cities' mitigation for
adverse impacts to these species and their habitats. Furthermore, if
past experience is our teacher, in our case, we cannot yet rely on the
County to protect the surrounding natural valley ecosystem, as they
continue to promote ranchetting, scatter clustering, intensification of
monoculture, and other adventures that perpetuate disruption and
destruction of our greenbelt area.
o�
i
6
So it is our obligation to protect the habitat of valley species within
our urban reserve, because if our City does not have the will to do it
there, then we do not have the right to expect it from others
elsewhere, as in our greenbelt and county. We must lead by example
on this. One thing clearly in our City's favor in this regard, though, is
that there is far more rural valley land in these 5 large annexation
areas than is needed for LUE population buildout of about 56,000
people and its associated developement, as commercial and
industrial. So there is a lot of potential open space land available for
protection of the City's important natural resources. And informed
decisions on what rural land within our urban reserve line to protect
as open space and what to develop can only be made after the
natural resource inventorying and mapping has been accomplised.
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION:
Upon our initial review, the EQTF recognized the LUE consistency
problem that was created by the tentative endorsement of section
1.13.5 of the DSAP, which seems to suggest that only hills and
wetlands are worth protecting. As already indicated, this is contrary
to your other LUE endorsements confirming that natural resource ..
inventorying and mapping is needed to help the City determine
exactly what resources, other than hills and wetlands, need
protection. Therefore, the EQTF asked staff to consider providing
modified wording to section 1.13.5 of the DSAP that would solve for
the City this LUE consistency problem. Except for the italicized
wording provided by EQTF, this modified wording is the grayed-in
parts of the attached DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE Rough
Draft by City Staff.
The EQTF concurred with this modified wording, but did not have a
quorum at our meeting Monday (7125194) to review it for
endorsement before your LUE hearing Tuesday night (7126194).
Also, by then time was too short for EQTF to make a coordinated
presentation to you. So EQTF member Ken Haggard read into the
record at the hearing this modified wording (except for the wording
in italics EQTF has since added) indicating that it should be adopted
even though it had not yet been endorsed by the EQTF due to time
constraints.
The EQTF has since met in quorum and endorsed the staffs. attached
modified wording for section 1.13.5 of the DSAP. And, for the LUE
consistency and environmental protection reasons discussed in this
,=memo, we recommend that you likewise endorse and adopt this
modified consensus wording at your next LUE hearing. Siincerely,
1.n .
j
MEETING��_ AGENDA
DATE ITEM # 1 _
City of S.L.O. Land Use Element Update OWNCIL CDD DIR DRAFTSIMPLIFIED kN-NEXATI0& POLICI D FIN DIR
O D FI
CHIEF
AZT(
RNEY
O PW DIR
Endorsed by Council June 14, 1994 CLERKCRO O POLICE CHF
O MGX TEAM O FEC DIR
❑ FILE D UTIL DIR
1 O PERS DIR
1.13 Annexation and Services
;.13.1 Water & Sgwer Senice The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City
.va.er or sewer services,to the following areas- However, the City will serve those
parties having valid previous connections or contracts with the City.
RECEIVED r Outside the City limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
JUN 2 d 1994 C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the Cary water
CITr couNCIL
system;
evations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City
SAN Huls oaIsPo,c� D. Below el
sewer system.
I.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth
M nagement tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect
apen space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with
a.ban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may
a;,nex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex
areas which are to remain permanently as open space.
A t area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan
or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will
reilect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and
e6sting and proposed land uses and roads. .(Sce also Section 7.0, Airport Area.)
1.133 Required Plans Land irl an annexed area may be developed only after the
C.ty has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, i:tilities, the overall pattern of
s-bdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area. For the Airport,
Margarita, Irish Hills, and Orcutt expansion areas, a specific plan shall be adopted
fi;r the whole of each area before any part of it is snnexed. For any other
annexations, the plan may be a specific plan, development plan under "PD" zoning,
o: similar development plan covering the entire area. The plan shall provide for
open space protection consistent with policy 1.13.5
1.0.4 Development and Services Actual development in an;annexed area may be
approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development,
without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing
cevelopment and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance
w:th the City's water management policies. Water for dev.:lorment in an annexed
a.-ea may be made available by any one or any combination of the following:
r
C. On-site well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability
of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is
demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's
municipal groundwater supply.
1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for
areas designated Open Space. The following standards shall apply to the indicated
areas.
A. Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an
area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed. (See also Hillside
Planning section 6.2.6.H.)
B. Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the
hills above the elevation designated in the hillside planning section and
riparian and wetlands areas as identified in the Open Space Element. (See
also Hillside Planning section 6.2.6.E.)
C. Orcutt .Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the
Santa Lucia foothills and Mine Hill, as identified in the Open Space Element.
D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources
as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain
the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous,.
commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible ,to
directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid
when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south
of the City's southerly urban reserve line.
[Add a program: 7he City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in-lieu
of open space.dedication." Also, repeat item D in the Airport Area section, by
combining with policies 7.4. and 7.5.]
>w Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna
Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for the
approximately one-half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open
space.
F. Other area properties, which are both along the urban reserve line and on
hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be
developed (developed area includes building lots, roads, parking and other
paved -areas, and setbacks required by zoning). (See also the Hillside
Planning policies, section 6.2).
DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE
EQ.TF RECOMMENDATION FOR ANNEXATION OPEN SPACE POLICIES
1.13 Annexation and Services
1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas
designated Open Space, and,far the:habitat:types tttu! wtldlrfe corrtdors'wtthin t00 annexatlon
area that' e= entified ih b 1,1,:whether.ar not.tiestgnated Open:Space Policies
concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall
apply to the indicated areas.
A. Irish Hills Special Design Ai ea properties shall dedicate land or easements covering
an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed. ;Also ''be;Froo 3Creek
.:.:..x:
rtpatt corridor and some valley g assland:tri a contintro>3s,band a' the base of the hills
tcl be presery
ed,, (See also Hillside Planning section 6.2.6.H.)
B. Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the hills above
the elevation designated in the hillside planning section, and j4siliiidj, riparian, and
wetlands area as identified in the Open Space Element text anf maps. e4o. ro be
rs veca<`,�rertdle cvrrunrs `1~J'l a weiiarid corridor at,leass 3D ynrrls +vine
..n: :.:..n.}y.n:/.;. .!'.. .i'xr:'..::..:...:..:..}.. ..:.}::}' }::}':q.!.Y'.: :..i:pi'.}:::::�. •. p::::!:::::::ni':y:.:::i1.}:'%::':>.::i::.i.::.}': :::!!.`.. ::}:::::.;';
G'�l9�Clt>tg'�cC,rrtxQn hr�brt(u year the $outls street H�1is;tvnrer tmrk�vlth �h�:TJnocc�
�vetTa �('2�,��.rassfonr�soul�estanti<corrrdt�r cit lerut 3�fl�ds ode r�ian�;�t�oczr�
x� k
.. ..... ... ww xxv
L ,ern�+SC 'ngo1�thtreed�Itll to rh�`,gteetbell (See also Hillside Planning section
6.2.6.E.)
C. Orcutt Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the Santa Lucia
foothills and MineHill, and apar�an and grassland cvmmurunes, as identified in the
Open Space Element t t4ha`haps.
D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified
or drsrussed in the Open Space Element text and maps, tndudrng,Tipant�n other
ivelland, and:gr-mstaiulconvituru . These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt,
shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside
the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees
in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the
greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line.
E. Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and
Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one-half
of each ownership that is to be preserved as open space.
F. Other area properties, which are both along the urban reserve line..and on hillsides,
shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be developed (developed
area includes building lots, roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required
by zoning). (See also the Hillside Planning policies, section 6.2).
Fv �
CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA ❑ FIRE CHIEF
August 16, 1994 DATE ITEM # ❑ PW DIR
IG ❑ POLICE CHF
TO: City Council
M U REC DIR
l E� 17 UTIL DIR
FROM: Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF)
❑ PERS DIR I
SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Update - annexation open space policies
RECOMMENDATION: Modify policy 1.13.5 (page 18 of the City Council draft) as shown
on the attached page.
BACKGROUND:
On August 12, 1994, the EQTF voted unanimously to recommend the attached change to the
draft Land Use Element. The changes are for consistency with the Open Space Element and
with the Land Use Element's Community Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (page 7 of the City Council
draft), and policies 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.4, and 6.1.1, particularly parts A and E (pages 53 and 54).
The changes are compatible with the Margarita Area concept plan previously endorsed by the
Council, and provide direction for refinements as that plan proceeds toward adoption.
The attached changes supplement a presentation made to you on July 27 by EQTF member Ken
Haggard. (In the attachment, shaded wording would be added to the draft now before the
Council; text in italics is in addition to Ken Haggard's presentation.) The EQTF was unable to
recommend this material sooner because it is a response to the "simplified annexation policies"
recently presented by staff, and approved by your Council before the EQTF could convene a
quorum to evaluate all the implications and respond.
Until now, the City's open space protection efforts have focused on the more visually prominent
and easily identified hillsides and creeks. This focus is reflected in the draft Land Use Element
before you for adoption. Specifically, Policy 1.13.5 as presented in the Council draft could be
misinterpreted to reinforce this narrow focus. Though some mapping of natural habitat types
was done for the 1977 Land Use Element update, there has been no comprehensive natural
resource survey that could identify all remaining habitat types. Therefore, the Open Space
Element and the Land Use Element call for the completion of this mapping, and implementing
actions once the mapping is done. EQTF member's knowledge of local habitats has allowed us
to help further this process, and resulted in the current recommendation.
It is essential that the less visually prominent habitat types be protected. The species which
depend on valley habitats are not all the same as those which depend on hills and wetlands. It
is critical that urban development not result in islands of habitat (such as the South Street Hills).
In habitat islands, populations of plants and animals can become isolated from others of their
species, resulting in a lack of the genetic diversity which enables long-term survival. Also, in
an isolated habitat, an event such as disease or fire can eliminate the species from that area;
without adequate connecting corridors, there would be no opportunity for some species to
repopulate the area.
'RF_Ci: � '
,AUG 1 b 1994
CITY CLfilih
It is also essential, given the momentum of development proposals for the annexation areas, that
this direction on open space protection be given now. Project-level environmental review will
not assure the needed protection, because it occurs in response to development proposals, when
basic land use choices have already been made or development expectations have been set, based
on the General Plan. Avoidance of the impact is the best approach. Loss of these important
local habitats cannot be mitigated; once they are gone, they're gone.
We in the city have an obligation to protect the habitat of valley species within our urban
reserve. If we do not have the will to do it there, we cannot expect others to do it in our
greenbelt or county. The EQTF believes the recommended additions to the text will provide a
more complete, consistent statement of City intent for these important parts of our community.
DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE
EQTF RECOMMENDATION FOR ANNEXATION OPEN SPACE POLICIES
1.13 Annexation and Services
1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas
designated Open Space,,arid far the H6., t types and wrtdl�fe orrulors w�thri the an exaaon
area that are tdenttfed.to policy 6 1, whether pr 'hpt designated Open Space. Policies
concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall
apply to the indicated areas.
A. Irish Hills Special Design Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering
............................................................
an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed. A]so, the Froom Creek
riparian corndorand sa1;Mvalley grassland ztt a;eont�nuous baba atthebase of;the hx1ls
are tQ bepreserued (See also Hillside Planning section 6.2.6.H.)
...:...............................................
B. Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the hills above
.........................
the elevation designated in the hillside planning section, and rasslarid'x riparian, and
wetlands areas as identified in the Open Space Element text;and maps AFsa to lie
preserved ark two wttdXrfe ccsrtdars 1 a wtlatuk crrtdor at leasE so:: ards wale
C saner r>lg the riparian h�rBrtat aCaY ahs South Street Hills water tank oath the u
wetland and (2) a grurs7ttnrl arui.wetland cvrrrdpr at least 150'Yards sande along Aeacir
Creck, crnnecri SouthStreet Halls to the greetabclt' (See also Hillside Planning section
6.2.6.E.)
C. Orcutt Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering the Santa Lucia
foothills and Mine Hill, and xtpartan and. grassland commuru�es, as identified in the
Open Space Element fet':ard<1np;s.
D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified
or dtscusse,l in the Open Space Element Cert and% maps, ancludtng; rtparra x, 1Jt..r
wetland, <andrpssland communities. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt,
shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside
the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees
in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the
greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line.
E. Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and
Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one-half
of each ownership that is to be preserved as open space.
F. Other area properties, which are both along the urban reserve line and on hillsides,
shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be developed (developed
area includes building lots, roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required
by zoning). (See also the Hillside Planning policies, section 6.2).
a
J
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 8'-23- ITEM # COUNCIL 8'CDD DIR
(AO ❑ FIN DIR
August 16, 1994 eACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
City Council P,K aRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo ❑BREAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
990 Palm Street _ ❑ FERS DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA -
Subject: General Plan Land Use Element Comments
Dear Members of the City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's Land Use Element.
The City's Land Use Element does not designate sufficient sites for housing for low,
very low and moderate income families. Specifically, it is not evident that sufficient
sites will be available for development in the expansion areas to accommodate the
City's housing needs within the City's Housing Element planning period.
We do not have enough multifamily units for the overcrowded and overpaying families
to live in San Luis Obispo. One example is the Brizzolara Apartments. These are
terrible living conditions. What happens if the City or Court condemns these
apartments? Where can lower income families find another place to live in San Luis
Obispo?
The policies and programs of the Land Use Element and the Housing Element are in
conflict. The Housing Element indicates that a certain number of homes will be built
within a five year planning period. However, the Land Use Element does not specify
how this will occur. The City's Land Use Element needs specific timelines to annex
and zone a sufficient number of sites at appropriate densities to accommodate the
City's housing need for all income groups.
Our recommendation is to approve the Margarita Annexation project under the
following strict conditions. Out of the total project, require:
1)At least 48 self-help homes affordable to families below 80%of.area median income,
Z) 56 apaTtments for lower income families,
3) 164 homes for moderate income families.
I'�tJa'1 Uri& EI1 r4amria t %Nkm Y Abogada
S cerely,
Migu 1 Donoso
Community Worker for
Project Fuerza(Federacion Unida En Reforma de Servicios y Abogacia)
P.O. Box 14629 San Luis Obispo, CA
cc: RRM Design Group
Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
State Department of Housing and Community Development
California Rural Legal Assistance
Economic Opportunity Commission
"EETING 23_9q AGENDA
JE ITEM #
August 21 , 1994
Peg PinardEjAGA0
CIA CDD DIR
FeCrWA, ❑ FIN DIA
Mayor ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo NEY ❑ PW DIR
990 Palm St-eet GORIG 0 POLICE CHFSan Luis Obispo, CA 93406 TEAM 0 RECDIR
D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Dear Mayor Pinard: 0 PERS DIR
w'FiLE
On Tuesday evening you will be asked to vote on the adoption of the Comprehensive
General Plan Land use Changes.
One of the changes will be for the Change for the Hidden Hills Mobilehome Park
located at 650 Tank Farm Road from multiple residential to service industrial. This
proposed change was justdiscovered by the residents of the park on Friday, August
19, with your Senior Planner, John Mandeville.
The residents of the park are in escrow now to purchase the park. We have been
working on the park purchase since 1990. We received no notice atall of the
impending change. Anoarently because we are tenants, rather than owners, our
interests were notconsidered.
The pail: residents have worked with the County to secure a residential zoning on the
property to protect ourselves from being forced off the property by virtue of being a
"non-conforming" use on the land. This was accomplished in 1992 under their rules.
The property needs to annex to the City for sewer service. (See letter attached.) We
have hoped to develop additional affordable housing on the property after annexation.
Our hopes will be thwarted if you adopt the plan proposal for the property Tuesday
night.
We ask you instead to refer our sub area back to Staff for additional inoutfrom the
people effeected, and study of the residential option. We understand that this proposal
came from the property owner at the North-west corner of Tank Farm and Broad, and
we have no problem with a commercial type designation on his property.
Please give us the opportunity to make our case for our resident ownership and
affordable housing option for the property in a public forum, with fair notice to all
involved.
Sincerely
7
Terry Middough RECEIVEDPresident 52144331 AUG 2 2 1994
cc - Covncil Hembers
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OSISPO.
Jerry Stirnkorb 2306 Wales Dr Cardiff, CA 92007 (619) 436-3415
August 21 , 1994
John Moss
Director
Utilities Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Dear John:
I am a representative for the Hidden Hills Residents Association, As we discussed
Friday the group is in the process of purchasing the mobilehome park from its current
owners.
Friday the group learned for the first time the impact of Order 994-60 issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the private sewer treatment plant on
the property. The practical effectof the order is thatthe residentgroup mustsecure at
least sewer service from the City.
We have been informed by Sorrel Marks atRQWCB thatwe can in factconnectto
City sewer. And we have secured copies of correspondence from her files which
bears this out.
This is an emergency for us. We are in escrow to purchase the park at this time and
the owners have agreed to make some type of accommodations to us to secure the
sewer. However, our escrow mustclose by October 15-November 1 or we stand to
lose $754,000 in State of California Mobilehome Park Assistance funding which we
need to close escrow.
Can you then provide us with the following information which we can use to establish
the total cost to us of securing sewer service for the parcel:
1 . The costs and time frame for securing the legal right to connectto your
sewer system.
2. What physical reguirements you have, such as location of line ill or out of
travelled way, use of pump system, etc.
3. Any other relevant information.
This information is essential to our ability to complete this transaction which has been
in process for four years. Please contact me as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
CC - Council Members
tr,.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL COAST REGION
July 8, 1994
ITEM: 10
SUBJECT: REISSUANCE OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT/WASTE DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS FOR HIDDEN HILLS MOBILODGE, SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY--ORDER NO. 94-60, NPDES NO.
CA0047759.
KEY INFORMATION: Location--650 Tank Farm Road, immediately south of San Luis Obispo.
Type of Waste--Domestic.
Design Capacity--8500 gpd.
Present Volume--3000 gpd.
Treatment--Secondary(extended aeration, sedimentation and disinfection).
Disposal--Unnamed tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek.
Existing Order--Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 89-44.
SUMMARY:
The NPDES Permit for Hidden Hills Mobilodge for connecting to the City system were completed
expired May 1, 1994, and was administratively in 1985. George Hoffman, co-o%vner of Hidden
extended to July 8, 1994. Proposed Order No. 94- Hills Mobilodge,indicated at that time that the cost
60 is the reissued permit. Previously,the discharge of connecting to the City sewer system was
has been allowed as an interim measure until prohibitive.
connection is made to the City of San Luis Obispo
sewer system. However, no progress has been In order to adequately protect water quality in the
made in this direction, therefore long-term tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek and San Luis
discharge conditions must be considered. Obispo Creek itself, Hidden Hills Mobilodge must
either connect to the City system or upgrade its
DISCUSSION: treatment system. The proposed Order includes
requirements to upgrade the treatment system by
The existing NPDES Permit for Hidden Hills January 8, 1995, if connection to the City system
Mobilodge authorizes a discharge of up to 8500 has not been completed.
gallons per day (gpd) of treated domestic
wastewater to an unnamed tributary of San Luis Order No. 94-60 is proposed as the reissued
Obispo Creek. Presently approximately 3000 gpd NPDES Permit for Hidden Hills Mobilodge. The
are discharged at a point approximately three miles proposed Order is based on Basin Plan requirements
upstream from San Luis Obispo Creek. The to protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters
treatment facility consists of extended aeration. which may be impacted by the discharge. The
sedimentation and a make-shift chlorination system. proposed Ordercontinues existing permit conditions
with the exception of. 1) additional and revised
For many years efforts have been directed at constituent limitations from the revised Basin Plan;
eliminating this discharge by connecting to the City 2) revisions to ,the .Monitoring and Reporting
sewer system. The City has allowed connection to Program to demonstrate consistent compliance;and
its sewer sr-stem, however the closest point of 3) limitation of the number of units served by the
connecting is almost 900 feet away. Design plans
Item No. 10 -2- July 8, 1994
treatment facility to those which current]%-exist plus a maximum increase in turbidity of 20';,, abo.e
a clubhouse. background levels, when background turbidity is
less than 50 NTU (turbidity• units of measurement).
New and revised effluent and receiving water Background turbidity in interminent streams.
limitations in the proposed Order include: chlorine especially those which have subsurfacing floes,are
residual, revised pH and ground water nitrate frequently less than I NTU. Therefore, the
limitations, and 60 organic, inorganic and physical resulting Basin Plan limitation of 20% increase
constituents limited by the Basin Plan. Each of the translates into a turbidity concentration limit of 1.2
additions and revisions is a direct result of Basin NTU. These restrictive turbidity• limits do not
Plan water quality objectives implemented to appear warranted to protect . water quality.
protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Therefore,the proposed Order specifies a minimum
turbidity limit of 5 NTU. At this level turbidity
The proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program is would not impact.beneficial uses of the receiving
expanded considerably from existing monitoring water.
requirements in order to demonstrate consistent
compliance with proposed requirements and to Requirements specified in the proposed Order are
more accurately monitor discharge quality. The based on staffs professional judgement:and the
proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program is following documents:
consistent with comparable surface water
dischargers in our region, where similar receiving - Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40
water beneficial uses exist. It includes monitoring - Basin Plan
for the additional constituents resulting from the - Uniform Guidelines for Sewage Disinfection
Basin Plan revision. (DHS)
- Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers
In order to comply with the monitoring (EPA)
requirements, chlorination and dechlorination - Administrative Procedures Manual (SWRCB)
monitoring equipment needs to be installed.
Provisions are included in the proposed Order to Throughout the proposed Order and Monitoring and
require such equipment be installed by January 8, Reporting Program footnotes are included to
1995, if connection to the City sewer system has indicate the source of specified requirements.
not been completed by that time. Requirements not referenced are based on
professional judgement.
Staff recognizes the expense of installing
sophisticated monitoring equipment. However, COMPLIANCE:
expenses are necessary to verify protection of
public health and beneficial uses of the receiving Self-monitoring.reports submitted by Hidden Hills
waters. Also, a resident buy-out program is Mobilodge indicate consistent compliance with
currently being considered at Hidden Hills requirements specified in the existing Order.
Mobilodge. It is vital that the potential expenses of However, during inspections by Regional Board
either upgrading the treatment system or connecting staff, the chlorination system appeared to be
to the City sewer be considered by all those inoperative. The make-shift chlorination system
involved in such negotiations. consists of a five gallon plastic bucket with a
dispensing spout. The spout is adjusted to drip
It has come to the attention of staff that turbidity liquid chlorine into a contact chamber. According
limitations specified in the first draft of the to the facility operator (park manager) the bucket
proposed Order(sent out for comment),may not be needs to be refilled every five to six days.
appropriate or necessary for the protection of water
quality. Turbidity limits in the Basin Plan call for
Item No. 10 -3- July 8, 1994
However, self-monitoring reports indicate the discharge)ceases a few hundred %ards do%%nstream
system would need to be refilled even• three days. of the discharge and returns a few hundred yards
Samples collected by staff also indicate inconsistent farther downstream. The creek is joined b.• several
compliance with BOD limitations. other small creeks on its path to San Luis Obispo
Creek which increases its surface flow.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY:
The existing chlorination system does not appear to
Waste discharge requirements for this discharge are be adequate to consistently comply with
exempt from the provisions of the California disinfection requirements necessarYto protect public
Environmental Quality Act(Public Resources Code. health. During several recent inspections by staff.
Section 21100, et. seq.) in accordancevvith Section the chlorination system was not operating properly
13389 of the California Water Code. and no chlorine was dripping into the discharge. It
is impossible to verify how long such periods of
The proposed action is not expected to reduce water non-disinfection may have lasted.
quality, since more stringent limitations are being
proposed. Therefore complete antidegradation Chlorine discharged to the creek when surface flow'
analysis is not required for the issuance of this ceases near the discharge point only impacts the
Order. area with surface flow present. However,without
adequate means of dechlorinating the discharge,
COMMENTS: such discharges are very likely to impact the
receiving water environment during the rainy
Georgie Hoffman (Dischareer): season when surface flow is continuous. The same
is true for other toxic constituents in the discharge.
1. Receiving water toxicity limitations and
chlorine residual requirements are not Therefore,no modification to the proposed Order is
essential to protection of the environment Proposed.
and should be eliminated from the
proposed Permit. The discharge area is 2. Mr. Hoffman requests that the proposed
more like a drainage ditch (than a creek) Order be modified to allow for adding a
which is dry approximately 90% of the clubhouse to the existing 35 unit mobile
time. Habitat provided in the creek is home park.
insignificant and would not be impacted by
the chlorine discharge,because the chlorine Staff Response: Since a clubhouse would be used
would volatilize rapidly. Therefore, by residents and their guests, it would not
Provision D.4. (requiring installation of significantly add flow to the wastewater facilities.
chlorination/dechlorination monitoring Therefore, Effluent Limitation B.2. is modified to
equipment or connection to the City sewer limit discharge to that which is generated from 35
system) should also be eliminated. mobile homes and a clubhouse or the design
capacity,whichever is less.
Staff Response: The discharge area (whether California Dent. of Fish & Game;
termed creek or drainageway )is fairly typical
of small seasonal creeks on the Central Coast.
Continuous surface flow is only present during the 1. The discharge should be eliminated by
rainy season. However, intermittent surface flow connecting to the City sewer system, in
exists for most of the year, from the discharge to order to adequately protect water quality in
the confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. the tributary and San Luis Obispo Creek.
During the summer, surface flow (created by the
Item No. 10 -4- July 8, 1994
Staff Response: Based on the existing treatment compliance. Also. reporting units for
system. staff agrees that connecting to the Cite metals should be specified as ug/1 instead
sewer would be most protective of water quality. of mg/l. for increased sensitivity of
However.if the Discharger upgrades the system to analysis.
comply with requirements specified in the proposed
Order. this should be adequate to protect water Staff Response: The relative infrequency of
quality. However, staff believes the cost of proposed metals monitoring is due to the
upgrading the system may exceed the cost of unlikelihood of the discharge exceeding the
connecting to the City sewer system and therefore proposed limits. There are many sources of metals
would not be practical. in residential wastewater, however monitoring of
residential discharges (at other' sites) indicates
2. The dissolved oxygen effluent limitation concentrations of metals are likely to be below
(minimum of 2.0 mg/1) should be revised discharge limits with the possible exception of
to be consistent with the receiving water copper and mercury. The proposed Order requires
limitation (not to be depressed below 7.0 metals monitoring to be performed in January 199-5.
mg/1 or 85% of saturation). Therefore, if any of the metals appear to be a
potential problem in this discharge. monitoring
Staff Response: These limitations are not frequency may then be increased to verify
inconsistent as specified. The effluent limitation compliance. The unit of measurement for metals is
applies to discharge quality. The receiving water specified as mg/1 to facilitate comparing data to
limitation applies to the impact of the discharge limits (also specified in mg/1). Analytical methods
upon the receiving water. will require the most sensitive detection levels.
3. Receiving water limitations should be 6. Acutetoxicitytest species(fathead minnow
revised for beryllium,cadmium,chromium, or golden shiner) should be revised to
copper, iron, lead, mercury,nickel, silver, specify fathead minnow or water flea
zinc, PCB, endrin, methoxychlor, and (Ceriodaphnia dubia) to be consistent with
toxaphene to reflect more stringent limits chronic testing. Also, the proposed
needed to protect aquatic life. monitoring program requires toxicity
testing once per year but contains a
Staff Response: Limitations specified in the footnote requiring testing twice per year.
proposed Order are Basin Plan water quality
objectives to protect beneficial uses of the receiving Staff Response: Staff is not aware of any approved
waters. No information was submitted by the Dept. protocal for using Ceriodaphnia dubia for acute
of Fish & Game to justify more stringent limits. If toxicity testing. This species is used for chronic
the Dept. of Fish & Game submits documentation toxicity testing. The footnote referencing toxicity
for water quality objectives different from those testing twice per year is revised to specify"not less
specified in the Basin Plan,such information could than once per year", consistent with the required
be considered in review of Basin Plan criteria and monitoring frequency.
incorporated into waste discharge requirements
accordingly. Standard provisions (included as part 7. Several endangered plant species are
of the proposed Order) provide for revising the known to occur in the vicinity of San Luis
Order if new information is received which Obispo Creek. However,the Dept.of Fish
indicates the requirements are not appropriate. & Game does not know of any
documented presence of such species in the
4. Monitoring for metals should be increased area influenced by the discharge. If
from once in the life of the Permit to information reveals endangered species are
annually, to adequately evaluate
Item No. 10 -5- July 8, 1994
in the immediate area,the proposed Order RECOMMENDATION:
should be revised to reflect such.
Adopt Order No. 94-60 as proposed. '
Staff Response: Staff agrees that if information is
received in the future that indicates endangered ATTACHMENT:
species are present in the area influenced by the
discharge,the Order should reflect this information. 2nd Draft proposed Order No. 94-60 with
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
SJMB/sm7:hidden.itm
•- Gt vC� rv,Vvvun:ar
ATE OF CALIFORNIA '-
rAT WATER=RESOURCES CONTP- BOARD.
AUL R.BONDERSON BUILDING = •�.�� '-�
1 F STREET
0.Box 100
kCRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95801
805) 549=3147 '
MAY 2 91985
Mr. Russell Korsmeyer
Rt. 1, Box 30
Elfrida, Arizona 85610.
Dear Mr. Korsmeyer:
Jur staff has reviewed your letter dated- Apr l 26, 19R5, including the attach
ments. In addition, pertinent correspondence from our City-of San Luis Obisco
file regarding connection of your Park to
the City sewage system has also been rev7ewe _ .. .
:;Our grant to the City was for .expansion. .and modification to the City' s h'aste-
:-`
water treatment plant. This work.,i.nclude's; a. treatment capacity allocation of
230.,000 gallons per. day for unincorpora�,;�;d,areas such
Hidden Hills. Hew-.
ever, the grant di d:not include, fupds ;f_(�r extension of the City s collection
system.
Y ,
=z. �, K_
..can appreciate your concern ower h 1054
- C�s41E'ta install. nearly a quarter of a
mile of temporary sewer'to��connect .Hidd�'eh. Hi.l,ls. to the City's collection system.
However, extensions to publ.i,cfcoll-ecti.o systems are generally funded by those
that use the facility. Sind Hil-1.:5 will be the sole user of "the .tem-
porary sewer line, it does not seem unreasonable that the City is asking you to
fund this facility. .
The-.City is not required by grant condition to build a 15-inch line on Tank
Road -you The , ,ty Des have to allow you to tie-in. From the correspondence
64 have sent to usslt 3oes seem that the City is making provisions to serve
t;
We cannot expectthesGi�tp"to.pay the cost of service to you from fees
; ql tected from City residents.
Pie6;? contact Mr. Roger Briggs of the Regional Board staff if you have any
questions concerning this_1e.tter.
r
Sincerely, 9 p�IAW JAffp�
-�
T.
Y Kenneth W. Wi
Vice Chai rmaI C$Qi _ E YAM. -
4 ...
l oaj 5D11 Mr. Dave Romero
r�; Lir. YennIs 07% ami Hu
`'4'• Executive`.kff er�1m11w+i� City of. San Luis Obispo
{ ..Regional Water. ont^ol Board P.O. Box 321 r..
Central-Coas ion.. _ San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
1102A Laurel Lane
San Luis Obi spp.,-,.CA 93401
- .- . ..
.�.1 i!Illllf lll1111i►illilll
IIIIIIIIIIIt{I� IIIII city ® san Luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
``�py�i W.A!fq
December 13, 1985
mJ
1702 a
IAURF( LANg o�
SAN LV:S
OGi_PO
Mr. Kenneth R. Jones cAL,,.cRN;A
Executive Officer
California Regional Water �•
Quality Control Board
Central Coast Region
1102-A Laurel Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Jones:
In 1975, the City hired a consultant to prepare a master plan for sewer _
service to the airport and Tank Farm Road area. This plan in actuality
updated an earlier plan prepared in the 1960's. One of the principal
alternatives within this plan calls for a trunk line which will provide
a gravity system from the intersection of Broad and Tank Farm Road,
westerly along Tank Farm Road to lift stations located in the vicinity
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This master plan was never adopted
by the Council , although it has been used by staff as guidance for
sizing of sewer facilities being constructed in the Broad/Tank Farm
Road area.
With the City's recent policy regarding annexation, it now appears that
annexation of properties along Tank Farm Road will not take place for
many years. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a time schedule
when the area of the Hidden Hills Mobilehome Lodge can be served by a
gravity system.
In my conversation with Mr. Hoffman, I had agreed to recommend to the
City Council some City participation when he installs his sewer
facilities in order to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements. The City participation would be limited to those
facilities which we might use at some future time when a gravity system
would be installed. This was not necessarily cost-saving for Mr.
Hoffman, however it could expedite future construction of the trunk
line some years in the future.
I have no problem whatsoever in providing a written commitment , and do
so with this letter, that Hidden Hills Mobilehome Lodge can connect to
the gravity sewer system once it is available, subject of course to
normal City requirements.
4 Y+
Mr. Kenneth Jones
December 13, 1985
Page 2
Since the trunk line appears to be so many years in the future, and
since even partial construction of the line in anticipation of a future
project will require budget approval , it is my opinion that Mr. Hoffman
can best be served by installing his own facilities at this time
independent of the unofficial City master plan.
Very truly yours, _
David F. Romero, Director
Public Works Department
c: William T. Hetland, Utilities Manager
Mr. George Hoffman
it of sAn Luis oBispo
7:�^�y'r36--_YLn•��'.!nea se .� �i:7_� �:. __. --,�FA[rJ? —p _.wlti=EC.:N�,-. C'•':'�51'1'J
'. F ✓,' f. ��•:� T�)1' :� ..''��I ~.J 0,••��f J?G� �/ J'C 'n'
ETi•.{h . 4_..L�9�.Fz,44 1 • e i • G . ^C. CA
26. 1924 �' �`'` ` .�' •
J A
+
M. Ge_rse' _. Ric' mar,
Fidder. -ills M'ociioege
650 Tank Fars Road, Space 31D
San Luis Obispo, C_1 93401
ST_TBJECT: Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Service for the Hidden Hills
MI
obilodge (650 Tank Farm Road)
Dear 1•'.r. Hoffman: :
I am'transritting a craft of a proposed agreement between the City and ycu
lcr sanitary se::er ser,-ice to your mobile home park:. Please note that the
fee for the connection has been r=_aLced to $1 ,351. 23. The mod='ication of
the amount I indicated to you
my previous letter. (April 25, 1934) of
$4,175.26 reflects a reduction in the area to only that portion developed
as' a mobile home Dark.
I will need a copy of your deed in order to insert the legal description
under. item 2 on page 2 of the draft agreement. The final agreement will
then be sent to you for execution.
If you 'ha;+e any. questions regarding this matter plea=e contact me at
549-7194.
Yours truly,
^e, r
' ;.a+`.. is.tt+ ;, .i r,�i}w �} �+�y,sof_ •�W+ ry,_� , �.. � r
W4,YNE A:' PETERSON' z
: ),r
CITY -NGINUR „:
� �. ^-:r.•+:' ',)4yJ � � 9 5i y1.4.1�4" r ri r � t ,+. �• .{�r,:;.
. . .�,� �• .:�,'o.`s'�'�`'4 �• [1r '� S �y,��.,���` � y. +} it Y+ `" '^ �. _� r v +L .�,, �r
\>. ,,v P1"n:" �J r.. L� J.i y-,•1:: � .� t+ ter _ z o � )•.. � ���..
Gerald. 1.1. Kennys:; T
Supervising* Civil Envinear •.a
.
'. rte,
c_.[[i3o4�.n'_Goni;' Sta__e Wa_eT I�,ia-ity Control Boar@
%.Rubes lforales; State Dept.`'of. Housing fi Communit: Deveiogmeat.. r
..•ilVi
: y:'�+ C:4c is+ may;h. - ,_,,o .. < �yf:� ,�=•f ,.: fix'. _ ,s._ r ',� , .c:] ?•R'i^r•.
A.
•- fr�, A�. `],r T�'tJ at'�rf - 4• T )r`41ti•F i ! + ,
�attacrment.�`�,f- 4"ti's .%.7 _ � .`Y .rz ya..: •:�>rf'T' , j.� `1 fa. F .r T•e ,��'^•�.b r
F , a. :xr�, � �i.S- .r .y. t .�V.. �j,ry,r!• � ,i1 �`•1'• '' tQt"f �S •• .. ' 5 t ' < `4 •.
W" r: r
_ Zn-
tity Of SAII WIS OB1t O
- fir FI'" �J� i!-i� 1eA"��• ...._ �:,��� ��-��-
-- P=<' .'t:, :x 3: Spin _:is
May 30, 1964 ' < ,
Ge:r ,a E. Hoffman
6Cr5 E7,an Street
Provo Gra-Ca, C9 93420
Subject : Le=ter c_' April 6, 196 --Yielder. Hills Mo*_i_od-_e
Dear ?ir. iioffman.
I appreciate your letter reg2:ding.. water and sewer service to the F_J..,u E_]
'Kills Mobilodte at 650 =ank Farm Road. I askx_d City staff to r_vie,-
yc_r y':EStiO^S, and they have provieed IDE v-_tn t-,E ioll'0wing ini C.u.,:.tl•:::.
SewE- ?-Sues:
i^C C� =-- }.du p-EVi0USIv l.'=tL: vi:u an': sent 1'Ou 3 1E=LEr Oti=:
the zerms 0v which the City would provide. sewer service to Hicdan 'r__�._5.
-. As you are aware, under normal circumstan:es the City policy JOrC inan—ZE
f95-, 138.3 Series) is not to provide utility service (water c_ sewir) tC
areas outside cze City limits. The Hidden Frills situa*ion re-ar-ding sewer
ser-.ice was Sade a condition o7 the City's Waste Disc=arge Permit ry tr:e
Regional hater Quality Control Hoard.
Tae determination of fees being charged to you by th_ Ci:y is c.nsiste-,:
with what has been developed for si:-;Iar projects in that area.
The sewerline you are required to connect into is located at the C`:ty
limit line. 'ine City generally does not pay for extension of utilit;
service; that is considered the responsibility of the parties requzsLim_
service. -
The sewer master plan for the City does recommend a gravity sEwe=li- to
L,--' instal l e d i; Y_,}_ Farm ?toad. it such time as d=yElopment a:d bu.':___-
allow,' may be installed subject. to Council aper^val. The City d:es not
see, that project proceeding within the neat five c= m_re years.
Water Issues:
Your ass: ,ption that -the increase in nitra_es in your water ;suppTd -s
the resu.
_t of the growth of San Luis Obispo is wit`,out sutszantiation.
is
Mr. George E. Hoffman
May 30, 1984
Paae
The city is primarily severed witn seograp;.ic barriers be;::•_en t=e city
and the trailer mark. The source of nitrates may ee the resa-t of
agricu=tura.l fertilization of local septic tanks.
r. =in, Cit: pa'_icy is nct to provide utility service cuts-ie the City
lit:_ts; and t.-.erefore we deny your request far water service.
1 ho:� x :L15 letter answers No-jr concerns.
Best te=e=,
t J...
1 --
Meian'i_ Bi.lig
. nil i "ij ! I,.d:4• �:C.�!: 1
^''_mac :F. G � :,c. •� 'd:�� OBISPO
V: ..-'q�.7!!.E�+T ,f i `L -
:=�"�,_�'�.'.= 3,. ^i San :S tSDo.CA9LD6-D: ; ."g� i�c, .:.
aa`x-=a' :,_'.r __fir: ::='[: :�. Ga 1:.:•:'- f reply r _f.
rl �, er moo .
PJ
• • �r a t.l. � • r1 J• L _.•
6J5 Eman Street
r:rrc o Grande , CA 93-20
S"1 J S-2nary Sewer Cc'nne=tion to City M2= n f„r `iid.i=_n r.: ' i5
V,,o`_ '_lodge , 650 T an'r• r arm Road
-his is in resoor.se of your letter , and cur subs-;uent Conversations
regarClnS the sanitary sealer c nneCticn from Your mobile hole park to th
city ' s sewerage system.
City staff =_d cons_ der ad the ieasibi'_'_ty of a "partial” Extension of a
' S-inch dian!:_ter Iic_n in Ta^k Farm Road -om 7rc''ad Street to the er,trar.c
t0 your D l.r , �' master r r ni to a •ger i ^ aL es a-
,D perty . The cit $ �.-a_ „e_ va.._ "y s�:. Dian nCl _c ..
extension bet:.'_en Broad Street and South H ? gu_ ra Street at c== future
date to eli:r:nate two lift stations . This partial ext=nsinn w:uld have
a:i.J:•:e�', Foil to pla•ce your force (main within our ripe, with Dart iD at iOn
by you in ' ieu of a se-_-=tE tren-,h Paralleling our main. now'ever , sinc
we f:3ve not tudgete^_ funds to acComD'lish this , and with your Lime
ConsLra'_.^.tom , this is not feasible at this time . Since the main ext is
is. poss:ble in tr.e future- , yo-jr oeslsn should consider a gravity
connection if that occurs .
T_ discussed your connection witn County Engineer _--^.g staff, Co'uaty Health
Department, staff (derry Eri=ksor. , 54+ _ 54'+ ) , State Water Cuality Control
staff (J-.hn uor.i , 549-3147 ) ; and t1:e State Pepar:meat of �ouT-ir.g a
COIIlID:]r�:Ly ��Velo�,:r.ent.: insDec-cr ( Ruben Mor _: =_s , 549-3373) . Mr. :!orales
indicated that he would have primary res ons t•ility for : apl�rpva] of t'-e
.eCO11eCtiCn and plluDing• : facilities. County and State enc7oac'':ment perml
a[ 2z;n ECE.SSary• for. excavation within the respective" rights-C -w By (TanK
Farb Road: is:. County,.; and Broad Street is state i'ighw2y 227 • )
. T9e=c2innection hill ' utilize:•a six-inch diameter tee=saddle , ust upstrea
of.'. our mar:'-.-ole on the westerly side of Broad Street . City personnel mu!
in tall tr,e S2�Cle at VOLT* C;SC• , -Sti-.,=ted at jJ . O' sne re -m fee
$ 15, C0: -. .Your contractor must: do all Di' the excavzti:.n shoring, back
aad;'paveme iepair, . with the city to . supply the:. saddle:.
We- require. a`;!`gravity.'!. connection to , our main) , and suggest that yo:: 5`•'.
' mnmiz= .your . pusring by utilizing as much gravity ser:vice .:as feasible ,
:s. (without too �ucti=.szcessiv.eydepth)..'utailizir.•g .. _,: six-incn;;(min`mum) diarret
gravity' '1aterel_w' it.-h clean-outs. to grade per -the Uniform Plumbing Code:
(UPC) •or 25 required by the resDonsib.le age ncy. The system must pr ecluc
any storm ..rainage runoff and must be flood proofed if it lies within ar
area ri''J i ` �- _ %o i nunfaticn in a ti'tl- ' ani0'J ° OUIv CC'.L6C� ail.
I-ounty =nz _neer. 2'tme.7.t fo- _ n:cJ-: _ _c.n regard_nS tr.: c .
The fee to con.r:e to¢the city ' s s; -t`m is calculated as f_ il -ts :
5 55
;his is the computetiJn used for all properties connecting to t.-1e Tank
ars, ( oa^-F.^Cr:'Jie'J iIt Station .
T ,`ere will to a "�im.,ntlily" billing
rJr sewage treatment . The Current
rate is 53. 00 o_r space per month in a'-coroan:e with Resollit13n 4663 ,
TCe rates are sub :ect Lo Modification by the C1tV Council
at anytiQ:e . You C'JrrerL_y have 35 sJaces acaording to Mr . 1'.0°r 21eS .
An agreement will be prepared , which must be executed by you ani Nr .
Russell V. rsrr.eyer ( as owner) and the City. it wi' 1 specify the LnondiLion
an:d 1' mitatl_,* s Cf senVi Ce . T, is a-ree'.^..ert s' Du' � b? a'Jcii `_ 12 wit[ i'1 a
week.
We will reed a cc y of your plans for our review prior to permit issuance
after pavrnent of t-e required connection charge and a.:.proval of the
_= reemen: . The plans should contain, approval blccks signed t•.J the State ,
C C'_'r,tV , and p'Jblic L't' I i t i e s (Sou:..^.ern '.a1 ifornia ".,as Com par:' , PaCia'_ :
Telephone and Tel e-graPh , Pacific G;:. and Electric Company , Sonic Cable) .
You are Iresponsib'_e to obtain all pe-r:ts that -may be requi-'=d ty the
state and. cour.ty for this work.
If you have any questions regard in& tri s matter , please CD":ta=t Me at
549-7194 .
Yours truly ,
WAYNE A . YETEASCN
:.3TY: ENGINEER .
Gerald W. Kenny
Supervising Civil =-3ineer
GWK: ria'.
cc:. D. Romero
3.' Hetlar,d
Ruben: Morales , State Dept. of Housing and Co.--,.m. GEL'S '_ .
County Er,gineerirg
Co::nty Planning Lepartment
City attcrney
John. Gori . State Water Quality Control Board
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 23, 1994- 7:00 PM Page 2
f
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Settle/Romero to approve the Consent Agenda as recommended by the City Administrative
Officer; motion carried (5-0).
C-1 COUNCIL MINUTES
Council considered the minutes of Monday, June 20, 1994 at 3:50 P.M.
Moved by Settle/Romero to waive oral reading and adopt minutes; motion carried (5-0).
C-2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT HEARING SCHEDULE (File No. 463)
Council considered establishing a City Council hearing schedule for consideration of the Draft General
Plan Circulation Element.
Moved by Settle/Romero to approve the schedule as recommended; motion carried (5-0).
Mayor Pinard asked Council to complete decisions as scheduled; If not accomplished then Council
should schedule additional meetings during that week to complete discussions (consensus.) t'
C-3 TERMINATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
!.
Council considered terminating the state of local emergency proclaimed on August 16, 1994 due to
fire conditions near the City.
Moved by Settle/Romero to adopt Resolution No. 8333 proclaiming the termination of local
emergency.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
C.LRA. Vice Mayor Settle reminded Council of the Channel Counties Division Meeting on
Friday, August 26, 1994 at 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LAND USE ELEMENT (File No. 462)
Council held a public hearing to consider adoption of the Land Use Element of the General Plan in
conformance with previous Council direction (continued from 3/28/94, 4/5/94, 5/3/94, 5/10/941
5/17/94, 6/6/94, 6/14/941 6/28/94, 7/12/94, and 7/26/94).
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager, and Glen Matteson. Associate Planner, proposed
revised wording for 51.11.4, Nonresidential Growth Rate.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open. r
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 23, 1994- 7:00 PM Page 3
Erik Justesen, representing the Margarita Area Property Owners, objected to the designation in the
General Plan of wildlife corridors In 51.13.5 as too specific for the General Plan.
Ty Green. San Luis Obispo, stated he was present to answer any questions.
Andrew Merriam, representing the Dalidio family, stated that airport safety had been taken into
account when planning the area.
DennisSchmidt,Central Coast Engineering,representing the Froom Ranch,disagreed with the EOTFs
additions to annexation policies 1.13.5(a), Irish Hills Special Design Area.
Miguel Donoso. San Luis Obispo, urged Council to balance land use with jobs and housing.
Richard DeBlauw. 744 Alta Vista, Arroyo Grande, asked Council not to consider EOTFs
recommendation for section 1.13.5, as it would be a stumbling block for Margarita Area Property
Owners.
Phil Ashley. 1586 La Cita Court, encouraged a clustering policy to protect natural resources.
Bili Thoma, Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the Chamber of Commerce, urged Council to
adopt the Land Use Element and move forward.
Ned Roaoway, 1012 Pacific, urged the passage of the LUE,and expressed disappointment in the lack
of unanimity with the County.
II Dodie Williams 438 Woodbridge (speaking as an Individual), stated that although she did not agree
with the total document, she urged adoption.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed clustering.
Dana Lilly. County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department, explained agricultural clustering.
Moved by Romero/Settle to amend Table 1 (51.9.1),Residential Clustering for Open Space Protection,
to reflect 40/80/160 for the last three figures in the third column (Minimum overall site area per
dwelling); motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Romero to amend 52.2.1 to read,"When neighborhood services uses are developed,
existing housing shall be preserved"; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roaiman to amend 61.13.5 to read, "Each annexation shall help secure permanent
protection for areas designated Open Space,and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the
annexation area that are identified in policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall
apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas."; motion carried
(3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no.)
1 Moved by Settle/oalman to amend 51.11.4 as proposed by staff, to read as follows:
j .I °Nonresidential Growth Rate - Each year, the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in
f I nonresidential floor area over the preceding five years. The Council shall consider establishing limits
for the rate of nonresidential development if the increase in nonresidential floor area for any five-year
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 23, 1994-.7:00 PM Page 4
t:
period exceeds five percent, except that the first 300,000 square-feet of nonresidential floor area w .
constructed after 1994 shall be excluded from calculating the increase. Any limits so established shall
not apply to: A) Changed operations or employment levels, or relocation or ownership change, of
any business existing within the City at the time the limit is set;B) Additional nonresidential floor area
within the downtown core (Figure 4); C) Public agencies; D) Manufacturing, light industrial, or
research businesses." Motion carried (5-0).
Council discussed the Hidden Hills Mobile Home Park (Tank Farm Road near Broad).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to show the Hidden Hills Mobile Home Parkas Medium Density Residential;
motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Romero/Randa to adopt the staff recommendation for 52.4.2,Density Bonuses to read,'The
City may approve a density bonus for a project which will: A. Be a receiver site, within expansion
areas or the downtown commercial core only, for development credit transferred to protect open
space; B. Provide for the minimum percentage of dwellings for elderly or affordable to the income
groups specified in State Lave; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt Resolution No. 8332 to
1) Certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
2) Make environmental findings;
3) Adopt the revised Land Use Element as modified; and
4) Approve the guide to zoning consistency.
Y
Motion carried; (4-1, Council Member Romero voting no).
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMA. Council Member Romero requested the Housing Element be delayed until September
20th; motion carried (4-1, Vice Mayor Settle voting no).
COMM.2 'Mayor-Pinard expressed concern regarding the seeding of non-native plants in the
aftermath of the fire.
8:45 P.M. there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned
the meeting to Tuesday, August 30, 1994 at 6:00 P.M.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 9/20/94
DRG:cm O)fAne R. lades , City Clerk