Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/1996, 1 - STUDY ITEM-EMERALD HILLS AND PREFUMO CREEK PROPOSALS (GREENBELT PROTECTION)IN �����►►�HU��IIp�q��U city of San tw S OBI Spo MEET 0 - - 6 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FEM NUMBER: � o FROM: Arnold B. Jonat;'ICommunity Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Study item - Emerald Hills and Prefumo Creek proposals (greenbelt protection) CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. For the Prefumo Creek Homes project, continue to process the pending application. 2. For the Emerald Hills area, indicate if Council would consider an amendment (if requested) to the Land Use Element to designate as Low Density Residential, and to include within the urban reserve, an area somewhat smaller than what the element now shows as Suburban Residential. 3. For additional flexibility in dealing. with proposals at the City's edge involving development plus open space protection, initiate an amendment to the Water and Wastewater Management Element so water supply and sewage treatment capacity will be available for potential minor enlargements of the urban reserve. 4. Review the attached issue paper "Protecting San Luis Obispo's Greenbelt," and provide any additional desired direction to staff. DISCUSSION Several development proposals near the city or at its edge pose questions for our greenbelt protection efforts. The Emerald Hills and Prefumo Creek proposals have received considerable attention lately (attached vicinity map). The Prefumo Creek project is an application being processed for upcoming hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Emerald Hills area contains a project approved by the County, but the owners may still be interested in annexing to avoid difficulties in providing on -site services. While our General Plan does not provide for urban development on either site, the advantages of allowing some additional urban development controlled by the City appear to outweigh the disadvantages. Here is a summary of pros and cons: Prefumo Creek Homes Pros: Obtain 366 acres of permanent open space; Establish a clear urban edge; Preclude possible future proposals for on -site water supply and waste disposal. Cons: Lose to development 18 acres of attractive land with high habitat value; Introduce additional traffic at a somewhat hazardous location. ������ ►��i�nlllllllp °1�Ulll city of San. tins OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Emerald Hills area Pros: Avoid problems with on -site water supply and waste disposal; Reduce the area of development within the greenbelt; Obtain permanent open space protection for the part of the site outside the urban reserve; Have a more consistent expansion of the existing neighborhood. Cons: Place additional demands on City utilities. Besides the Emerald Hills and Prefumo Creek proposals, there are several other proposals that may affect our greenbelt protection. The attached report outlines the overall situation, current City policies and actions, recent proposals, and options for additional actions. This is an opportunity for Council to discuss the big picture, and to provide direction to staff on any additional actions which the Council determines to be desirable. No final actions can be taken at this study session. Specific direction would result in staff preparing any additional needed information and bringing action items back to future meetings, following any required environmental and advisory body review. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION /PREVIOUS REVIEW The last major opportunity for citizen and advisory body input was the Land Use Element update, for which hearings concluded in August 1994. Individual items related to greenbelt protection often come before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The attached paper has not been circulated before this meeting. ALTERNATIVES The attached paper outlines alternative efforts, and the study session may raise others, which staff could be directed to pursue. ATTACHMENTS Land Use Element map excerpt - Prefumo Creek and Emerald Hills sites Discussion paper "Protecting San Luis Obispo's Greenbelt" GRNBELT.CAR j VICINITY MAP EMERALD HILLS AREA LAGUN.& LAKE POTENTIAL PERMANENT OPEN SPAC POTENTIAL URBAN RESERVE EXPANSIONS CURRENT SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION / /� / / / \ \ � // / /iii/ � \i, , , , • /r /// oPQT CA IV PREFLIMO CREEK SITE AN SIO POTENTIAL PERMANENT OPEN SPAC � ♦\\\\\♦ iiiiii ' \' PROTECTING SAN LUIS OBISPO'S GREENBELT In our General Plan, we've said that we want to maintain our town's rural setting, with extensive open land separating San Luis Obispo from other urban development. We also want to maintain a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and the surrounding open land.' We have a list of actions to help achieve these goals, including establishment of a greenbelt.' Are we putting enough effort into the actions we've already identified? Should we pursue other actions that would be more effective? The City and the County make decisions that determine whether San Luis Obispo will have a compact form, a clear edge, and a surrounding greenbelt. City land use regulations do not apply to land outside the city limits; the unincorporated area is controlled by the County. Aside from persuasion, the City's influence is mainly through decisions on annexing land and providing water and sewer services. City services often enable more concentrated development than is feasible with the water and sewer systems available to development outside the city. However this is not always the case, as shown by several urban-type developments which have been approved and built outside the city. Nearly all the greenbelt is outside the city limits. All properties outside the city limits have some development potential under County land use designations. In most cases each existing parcel can be developed with one or two dwellings, even though the parcel is smaller than could be created today.' Several of the larger ownerships around the City consist of adjacent parcels that can be individually sold and developed. Further, the County can change its designations to allow more development or different kinds of development. Both the existing and potential designations can allow development that is not consistent with our goals. As the recent Emerald Hills subdivision shows, County- approved development near the City can have less desirable effects on the City's form, open space preservation, and neighborhood quality than development under City control." Despite City and County open space protection policies, development pressure will continue in many areas around the City. Some 20 proposals involving nearly 2,500 acres have been made (Attachment B). Even though the designated urban area can accommodate additional . development, the City and the County continue to respond to proposals for development outside the adopted urban reserve line. The need to respond presents a dilemma: Approval of changes foster' a climate of uncertainty, the expectation that the urban boundary can always be moved out some more or another non -open space use can be put in the greenbelt; Approval of some changes can assure permanent protection for the parts of a property that are not developed under the approved change. Our adopted policies address the issues raised by additional development and permanent open space protection in annexations (Attachment Q. But, should we have more explicit policies, aimed at annexing and thereby preempting development proposals under County jurisdiction for all areas at the City's edge? /— 7 Greenbelt Protection Page 2 CONSIDERATIONS, CURRENT ACTIONS, OPTIONAL ACTIONS... Following are some thoughts on greenbelt protection methods, what we're doing now, and additional actions we could take. The optional actions are also summarized in Attachment A. Consistent City and County Plans Considerations: One aspect of consistency is having each agency's general plan show the same types of allowed uses for the same area. This presents a "united front" that helps avoid one agency being played off against the other. Our General Plans and our Community Development Department work program call for an effort to have the two general plans coincide. Current actions: This effort has included communications between staffs and commissions, which is continuing as the County brings its "San Luis Obispo Area Plan Update" to hearings. Our staff recently commented on the County's EIR. The next milestone will be a letter from us to the County identifying inconsistencies between our adopted plan and their draft plan, including citizen proposals to change their draft plan. (County Planning Commission hearings are expected to begin about April 1996.) Considerations: A second aspect of consistency is having each agency's general plan be stable over time. Stability reduces the perception that rural, agricultural, and open space designations are simply holding zones until a suitable development proposal is made. This stability affects all other greenbelt protection methods (discussed below). Anticipation of changed land use designations: reduces the incentive for a landowner to couple a modest amount of development with permanent open space protection; makes land more expensive to protect through purchase; discourages investment in agricultural activities on neighboring land. Our General Plan' and our Community Development Department work program call for a City -County memorandum of understanding to give the consistent plans more permanence once they are adopted. While neither agency can "contract away" its legislative discretion, a spirit of common, long -term purpose can -be cultivated by citizens and elected officials. Current action: Preparing a City-County memorandum of understanding is part of our current work program. Considerations: An often voiced frustration with the current situation is that three of five elected representatives can allow land use to be changed irreversibly. Our General Plan supports a method that has been used in other places to give the land - protecting policies more permanence, and the community a stronger voice in potential changes: "The City will advocate a regional 1 Greenbelt Protection page 3 growth - management program, which should include ... voter approval for any significant change from open space, agriculture, or rural use to urban land uses. °' Current action: This activity is not specifically identified in any City departmental work program. Optional action: 1. Give high priority in the City work program to initiating and supporting a countywide requirement for voter approval of substantial changes to land use designations that protect greenbelts. ftdng Land and Easements Considerations: The most enduring open space protection is to have the land or development rights held by a long - lasting organization determined to protect open land. Purchases will help protect key areas, but it is not realistic to rely on purchases to protect the entire greenbelt. The Land Conservancy report identified few willing sellers. Nearby land under the greatest pressure to change to urban uses is not likely to be offered for sale. Even at a low assumed average cost of $3,000 per acre for fringe area rural land, it would cost $109 million to buy all the greenbelt land. Criteria for deciding what land to buy first are evolving. There are tensions between: - Taking advantage of transaction opportunities (good price, easy deal); - Protecting the most valuable resources (such as wetlands, which may have the least development threat, because of regulations); - Getting the parcels which are most vulnerable to development or which, by forming a band of permanent open space, would most strategically discourage requests for development and extension of City services to the area beyond. Current actions: We've started a budget account and are pursuing long -term funding to buy land and easements that would keep land open. We have received a report from the S.L.O. County Land Conservancy on key landscape areas to protect and willing sellers within the greenbelt. The newly created Natural Resources Manager position is expected to help carry out open space funding and purchases. Optional actions: 2. Give highest priority to buying parcels which are most vulnerable to development or which, by forming a band of permanent open space, would most strategically discourage requests for development and extension of City services to the area beyond. 3. Try to buy property that's not offered for sale. / -4 Greenbelt Protection Annexation Page 4 Considerations: Even when City and County plans agree on greenbelt protection goals, some existing County land use designations and the pre - existence of buildable parcels outside the city limits can subvert the integrity of the greenbelt. Development just outside the city limits is not subject to City standards. While the City experiences traffic and other impacts from such development, it does not get additional revenue directly from the development to help mitigate those impacts. Annexation makes development in the annexed area subject to City standards. Provision of City services, enabled by annexation, can avoid problems that often come with on -site water supply and sewage disposal. Annexation may result in more revenue for the City to help mitigate development impacts, depending on City and County impact fee programs, and on the tax- sharing agreement reached by the City and County during the annexation process. Urban boundary expansions, when tied to open space protection on the City edge, offer an opportunity to acquire some of the open space which is most visible to City residents and most subject to development pressure. However, these urban expansions may cause environmental impacts that are not acceptable to some of our citizens. Also, such expansions alone will not preclude further development in the greenbelt, just beyond the open space protected by the annexation. While an annexation cannot assure open space protection beyond the open space secured with the annexation, it can reduce the feasibility of extending City services to the area beyond. Part of the City's annexation strategy has been to secure a band of permanently protected open space around the City. The band of open space has been seen as reducing the feasibility of extending roads and utilities to the areas beyond, and therefore deterring further requests for urban services and development. Our Land Use Element identifies some specific areas to be annexed, and the open space protection that should be achieved with each of those annexations. However, those annexations don't cover all the parcels at the City's edge (Attachment B). There are general policies on open space dedication which apply to potential hillside annexations that are not individually mapped, which can be used in locations such as the Emerald Hills and Prefumo Canyon Homes proposals! There are no policies on the ratio of open space to development area for potential annexations that are not designated on the map and that do not involve hillsides. We have planned for additional water supply and sewage treatment capacity to enable buildout of the currently designated urban reserve, but no more. Our General Plan says adequate services should be provided concurrent with development, without reducing service levels or increasing 1-7 Greenbelt Protection Page 5 costs for area which have been inside the City. So, our current plans could allow a few small expansions beyond those currently planned — through water offset retrofitting, for example— but several substantial expansions beyond the currently designated urban reserve would require reconsideration of water supply and sewage treatment planning. Since annexation generally depends on landowner agreement, how much control we actually get through annexation is an issue. A landowner's agreement to annex may be obtainable only if we allow development that's not consistent with our policies. Thus, implementation of our policies through annexation is not simply a matter of deciding our preference for an area and annexing it. Attachment C outlines the recurring issues raised by potential annexations, and the most relevant adopted City policies. Current actions: We respond to annexation proposals whether or not our General Plan maps the site as a potential annexation. If a proposal doesn't fit the adopted plan, we identify project changes or plan amendments which would allow it to proceed. The merits of those changes are considered at public hearings, which ultimately lead to the City Council's approval or denial. Proposals which our General Plan designates as potential annexations are listed below: - Marigold, part of the Edna -Islay secondary planning area, conceptually approved by the Council; a residential subdivision with internal creekside open space. - Dalidio, next to Central Coast Plaza; a commercial development tied to a roughly equal area of open space on cultivated land. - Froom Ranch (Madonna) west of Los Osos Valley Road opposite Pacific Beach School; a commercial development possibly with an equal area of open space in the Irish Hills. Pending proposals which our General Plan does not designate as potential annexations are: - Emerald Hills Estates, a property-owner inquiry for the area covered by the recent County approval; the latest version is a residential subdivision with an open space dedication slightly smaller than the development area. - Prefumo Canyon Homes, southwest of Prefumo Creek, an application for a residential subdivision and open space dedication exceeding four times the development area. - La Lomita Ranch recreational development, a conceptual proposal by other than the owner, pending as a Council study item; plans show about three times as much open space as non -open space. Greenbelt Protection Page 6 Optional actions: 4 -A. Revise the City's General Plan to designate urban development and permanent open space area for all the properties along the urban edge that don't already have such designations. 4 -B. Revise the City's General Plan to set a minimum ratio of open space to development area for all the properties along the urban edge that are not covered by current policies. 5. Plan to obtain the service capacity needed for the additional development. 6. Initiate annexations to preempt development under County jurisdiction (as opposed to responding to annexation requests, or to applications for development under County jurisdiction). Cluster Development Considerations: Cluster development can provide more meaningful open space protection than development of existing parcels, or conventional subdivision under existing land use designations. The basic rationale for clustering is to locate a given amount of development where it will least intrude on open space. As an incentive for permanent protection of a site's most sensitive areas, cluster rules may permit more dwellings than are allowed with scattered development. The City and the County have included provisions for cluster development in their policies or regulations. They are not identical. As noted before, the County's rules apply to the unincorporated area. The effectiveness of a cluster approach depends on the case. For example, a large cluster of dwellings in the greenbelt can appear to be a piece of city in the country. The same cluster developed as an extension of an existing city neighborhood is more likely to be perceived as part of the city. Loose clusters at the city boundary can blur the city's edge and appear as city sprawl into the countryside. Large clusters around the City would not be consistent with the preferred approach of locating urban development in existing urban areas, to reduce commuter traffic and air quality impacts. Taken as a whole, adopted City policies provide guidance on acceptable and unacceptable clustering in the greenbelt: they should be subordinate to the natural landscape, and minimize interference with agriculture, scenic views, and wildlife. Current actions: Differences between City and County cluster provisions, as they relate to the greenbelt, are being addressed in the communications on the County's area plan update. Greenbelt Protection Page 7 Optional action: None identified at this time. Options may emerge as current actions are carried out. Transfer of Development Credit fTDQ Considerations: TDC, like cluster development, is meant to locate development where it will least intrude on open space. The key feature of TDC is that the property sending the development potential and the property receiving it do not need to be under the same ownership, or even adjacent. TDC creates a market for development potential which can move from parcel to parcel to the extent allowed by the enabling general plans and ordinance. Credits could be transferred from greenbelt properties to other locations outside the urban boundary, for example from existing parcels in an agricultural designation to an area designated Residential Rural, where the received credits would allow more dwellings. Many of the concerns about clusters would also apply to such TDC receiving areas. Credits also could be transferred to designated City expansion areas. One concern with this approach is how much density should be increased, or area designated for urban developed should be enlarged, to create potential for receiving credits. Another concern is how many more "city dwellings" would be needed to compensate for one fewer "country dwelling," and whether there would be sufficient demand for the higher density city dwellings. Both the City and County have included provisions for TDC in their plan updates. However, the provisions are not identical. Current actions: Consistent City and County TDC provisions are being worked out as part of a joint effort involving the Land Conservancy in a "demonstration project." Optional action: None identified at this time. Options may emerge as current actions are carried out. / -!D Greenbelt Protection Page 8 NOTES ' City of S.L.O. General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994: Community Goals #28 and #30 (page 8). The programs described in the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element of the General Plan, the goals approved by the Council as part of budget preparation, and departmental work programs. Outlined in reports such as the "Settlement Pattern Strategy" and "Transfer of development Credits," prepared by the County Planning Division and the County Land Conservancy. ° Developments outside the City almost always use groundwater wells, either on individual parcels or through private water companies serving a group of subscribers. (A few areas near the City have requested Nacimiento water). Sewage disposal is provided by individual septic tanks or small "package" treatment plants, with effluent percolating into the ground or spread on the ground to evaporate. Law enforcement is provided by the County sheriff. Initial fire response is by County Fire (California Division of Forestry), with mutual aid response by the City. Typically, each residential parcel is one to five acres in size, though clustered lots may be smaller. Streets usually do not have curbs or sidewalks. Discretionary review of individual site layouts and building designs can be required through the "Sensitive Resource Area" overlay. Special standards can be established through the Area Plan. Within the City, City water supply and sewage disposal service are used. City police and fire protection are available. Residential lots typically range from 1/8' to 1/4 acre. Streets have curbs and sidewalks. Special standards such as contained in the Land Use Element's Hillside Planning section apply in some areas. Discretionary review of individual site layouts and building designs may or may not be required. 5 City of S.L.O. General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994: Growth Management program 1. 16.7 (page 22). 6 City of S.L.O. General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994: Growth Management program 1. 16.8 (page 22). City of S.L.O. General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994: Growth Management program 1.16.6.D (page 22). 8 City of S.L.O. General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994: Growth Management policy 1.13.5.F (page 21), which says the permanently protected open space should be four times the size of the development area. Attachment A SUMMARY OF OPTIONAL ACTIONS FOR GREENBELT PROTECTION This table outlines the optional actions identified in the body of the report. Anticipating discussion of this report, the three right -hand columns are to help readers record their thoughts on what additional actions, if any, they would support. 1-12 DO NOT NEED MORE ACTION SUPPORT SUPPORT INFORMATION ON 1. Actively support a countywide requirement for voter approval of changes to land use designations in greenbelts. 2. Give top priority to buying land which would discourage service extensions to, and development in, the area beyond. 3. Try to buy property that's not offered for sale. 4 -A. Designate urban development and open space areas for all properties along the urban edge that don't have such designations. 4 -B. Set open space ratios for all properties along the urban edge that don't now have them. 5. Plan to get service capacity for the added development resulting from 4 -A and 4 -13. 6. Initiate annexations to preempt development under County rules. Your suggestion Your suggestion 1-12 Attachment B SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS City a0mals for development plus open space Several proposals have combined annexation and urban development with permanent open space protection, for area which otherwise could have experienced more dispersed development or which would have been subject to future, more extensive development proposals. Of the following four examples, the first two were initiated as projects during a major Land Use Element revision, and the revision was shaped to accommodate them. The third and fourth examples generally followed Land Use Element policies and map designations that had been set before specific development proposals were received. - The Foothill Annexation (Los Cerros Drive area); The most recent Ferrini Annexation (Twin Ridge Drive & Montrose Drive area); The Madonna annexation at the end of San Luis Drive; - The Stoneridge annexation on the northern side of the South Street Hills. County =rovals In other cases, the County has approved low- density development near the City, with varying degrees of protection for open space. The following examples of County approvals span many years. - The Evans Road area south of the airport; - The Perozzi -Kuden tract on Orcutt Road; - The Bear Valley subdivision northwest of the Laguna Lake area; - Rancho Azure, on the west slope of Bishops Peak; - The Emerald Hills subdivision northwest of the Laguna Lake area. Proposals not approved The following proposals, which involved development and open space protection near the City, were not approved (not all had formal denials). - The original Madonna proposal for Froom Ranch, which would have extended commercial development into the lower hills; - A County proposal for a residential subdivision on the Sunny Acres area above General Hospital; Previous proposals for La Lomita Ranch (including "Obispo del Sur "); - The County government center site on the flank of Cerro San Luis, west of the Marsh Street interchange; A semipublic use opposite This Old House restaurant on Foothill Blvd. / -/3 �.Ca�.�•• The following sites have been the subject of proposals and inquiries over the last three years. Numbers key to the following map. This report provides brief descriptions, but does not attempt to evaluate the proposals. (The named land use designations are generally those used in the County's Land Use Element, since most of the items are proposals to the County. Despite having "rural" in its title, the Residential Rural designation allows development which is not consistent with the City's intent for the greenbelt.) 1. Bunnel property covering the northeast section of Bishop Peak: 200 acres from Agriculture to Residential Rural (citizen request site #39 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 2. Bridge Creek Road (Righetti Road) area, east of Islay Hill: 170 acres from Agriculture to Residential Rural (included in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update). 3. Mine Hill/Righetti Ranch, along Orcutt Road north of Tank Farm Road: inquiry of City staff and "potential future residential expansion area" in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update (page 5 -20). 4. La Lomita Ranch, south of Islay Hill: 690 acres of from Agriculture to Recreation (area #34 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR) and separate citizen proposal to City. 5. East airport area, between Highway 227 and La Lomita Ranch: 85 acres from Agriculture to Commercial Service, and 52 acres from Agriculture to Residential Suburban (area #19 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 6. Bryn, Forest & Martinelli property, between the airport and the Los Ranchos area: 63 acres from Agriculture to Residential Suburban (area #26 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 7. Maddelena property, south of the airport: 81 acres from Agriculture to Industrial (area # 28 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 8. Los Ranchos Associates property, southwest of Los Ranchos development: 214 acres of Agriculture and 80 acres of Rural Lands to Residential Rural (area #27 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 9. Area south of Evans Road: Over 100 acres from Agriculture to Residential Rural (County's S.L.O. Area Plan update). 10. Avila Ranch, south of "TK annexation" and airport area: 60 acres from Agriculture to Industrial (area #30 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). LAGUNA 15 20 - -o -e, 1 I i i i i w R�9 ;r:R:.a::ti`e:. >:�:y': #iss(2'.! n`:�:za::a +3?: ":�'x:;:.,::�"/��'::�:n::, �.,,. ; >A:. 1 1 � ,,. :: ��:£: �9:: �:' L'<': 3:.?, �:f;'���^:i:::�::3.:::.•,gc�y:. �:,,:aiF:Y i:G:}:.:i�� ?v:; ..'tk :k:;.•C1.4. .: � � V i:: a:/y;:E:..,:a.::�:.:ew <k.e\s::: `? ^ a,::;; :i`,::p`u.,.,a.�.i:SS.v:::.F:?: "xXE.oRY.�:r/pa�, `tiC%'° i & � S� ,,'�.ai, �Lt,,�'a� ,5 .� �, }pry::. 1 .� �l ;:F. %' a? r. fc:: aa' �e">` •r.'".:::,'�Y'l6:3::. <.'2s,': a.L:.> Ito;. OW A � I 72.8 11. Polin /Caltrans site, west of the Buckley Road - Vachel Lane bend: 10 acres from Agriculture to Commercial Service (area #29 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 12. Filiponi Ranch, west of Highway 101 and south of Calle Joaquin: 91 acres of Rural Lands and 100 acres of Agriculture to Residential Rural (area #31 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 13. Madonna/Froom property, west of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin: about 80 acres from Agriculture (Open Space) to Commercial Service (area #33 in County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR) - -this is in addition to area shown for development in City Land Use Element. 14. Prefumo Canyon Homes, a pending application to the City for 38 single - family lots on 18 acres and about 366 acres of open space (application #26 -95). 15. Emerald Hills - Though the County has approved a 32 -lot residential project, the owners have asked the City to identify its policies which are relevant to an annexation of a 44 -lot subdivision on about 27 acres with about 25 acre of open space. 16. Emerald Hills flatlands, west of Los Osos Valley Road and north of the city limits; this is also the site of a previous County application (area #32 in the County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 17. O'Connor Way area, which the County's S.L.O. Area Plan update identifies as a potential future residential expansion area (page 5 -20) 18. Stoyka property, between O'Connor Way and the northern flanks of Bishop Peak: 132 acres from Agriculture to Residential Rural (area #36 in the County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 19. Madonna/Foothill area, between Foothill Boulevard and San Luis Mountain: 30 acres from Agriculture to Residential Multiple Family (area #37 in the County's S.L.O. Area Plan update EIR). 20. Maino antiquated subdivision, west of the Marsh Street - Highway 101 interchange, on the flanks of San Luis Mountain: inquiries concerning development requiring General Plan amendments for an area subdivided prior to planning laws and subdivision standards. Attachment C RECURRING ISSUES & ADOPTED POLICIES The following issues arise in almost every proposal for development outside current City boundaries. The listed General Plan policies reflect previous Council direction to address these issues. For some topics, more detailed policies and standards have been adopted in documents other than the General Plan; these are not noted. Environmental review and public hearing processes try to answer these questions as they are posed by each new application. 1. QMn space/development tradeoff What area will be protected as open space, and for how long, in exchange for allowing more development? How much open space and rural land should be converted to urban uses to permanently protect open space? Adopted policies: Land Use Element (LUE) 1.1 Urban separation maintained and final urban edge established. Open Space Element (OSE) L.1.13 and L.1.0 No major enlargements of urban reserve; minor enlargements to be coupled with permanent open space on meaningful buffer. LUE 1.7.4 No additions to development potential in the greenbelt, except & 1.9 bonuses for cluster projects where 80% to 95% of the site is permanently protected. LUE 1.8.2 Some prime agricultural land can be developed if other land gets permanent protection. LUE 1.13.5.F Open space ratio for other than named annexation areas. LUE 6.2.1 Hillside planning standards. 2. Expanded urban opportunities What expanded opportunities for housing, jobs, trade, or services would the development provide? Adopted policies: LUE 1.6.2 Adequate expansion areas to be mapped. LUE 1.4 Jobs - housing gap to not increase. Housing Element (HE) 1.26.1 Residential growth to be consistent with LUE. LUE 3.1.1, 3.2.19 3.3.1, 3.5.1 Adequate space for nonresidential uses. OSE L. LB Adopted urban reserve provides enough capacity. 3. Development visibility Will the development be visible from existing neighborhoods, main roads, and publicly accessible open space, and what will it look like? Adopted policies: LUE 1.3 Clear urban edge. LUE 1.7.2 Greenbelt uses consistent with rural character. LUE 1.7.5 Buildings subordinate to and in harmony with landscape. LUE 1.9.4.B & D Design standards for greenbelt clusters. LUE 6.2.2 Hillside planning standards. OSE J.1 Policies to protect scenic resources. Circulation Element (CE) 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, and 14.5 Protecting views from scenic roadways. 4. Agricultural land Will the development occupy prime or other productive farm land? Adopted policies: OSE I.2 Agricultural buffers. OSE I.1.A. B, C, and I Agricultural land protection. LUE 1.8.2 Some prime agricultural land can be developed if other land gets permanent protection. 5. Wildlife What affect will the development have on plants and wildlife, including movement of wildlife between remaining largely undeveloped areas? Adopted policies: LUE 1.7.6 Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors. LUE 6.1. LA and E Sufficient area for integrity of habitat type within urban reserve and greenbelt. OSE B.1.A & B.3.A, B Creek corridors as open space. OSE C.1.A; C.2.A, F, and G; CA Wetlands open space and buffers. OSE Community Goal D.2 Grassland communities at current level of use. OSE D.1.A and C; D.2.A and B Grassland open space and buffers. OSE E. LA, B, C; E.2.A and B(1), (2), and (3); E.3; EA Protection of plants and animals. /Sl Will the development expose occupants of the newly developed area or neighbors to unacceptable hazards (due to ground movement, flooding, fire, or aircraft overflight)? Adopted policies: Seismic Safety Element map Public Safety Element map LUE 2.2.3 Avoiding aircraft hazards. LUE 6.1.1.0 Suitability for nonurban uses due to named hazards. LUE 6.2.0.0 Hillside planning purpose to avoid hazards. LUE 6.2.5.B, C, D, and E Rural homesites criteria to avoid hazards. OSE F.1 (city and urban reserve) and F.1 (greenbelt and beyond) Hazard avoidance and mitigation. 7. Utilities Will the City have the water and sewer capacity to serve the development, without diminishing service levels or increasing costs for those currently served? Adopted policies: LUE 1.0.2 Not designating more land for development than resources are expected to support. LUE 1.13.1 Eligibility for service within the city and urban reserve. LUE 1. 13.4 Adequacy of services for development. Water & Wastewater Management Element (WWME) 8.3 Limited water offset potential for annexations. If city water and sewer are not used, will on -site water and sewer systems be adequate in the long term, and what affect will they have on neighbors? Adopted policy: WWME 9.1.B and 11.1 Limited use of wells to support development. Can the City's water distribution and sewer collection systems accommodate the development, and can the project upgrade service to any areas that are now deficient? Adopted policy: LUE 1. 13.4 Adequacy of services for development. / -/9 8. Traffic How will traffic generated by the project affect `ect traffiic on connecting streets, and the livability of neighborhoods served by those streets? Adopted policies: LUE 2.1.3 Protecting neighborhoods from intrusive traffic. LUE 2.1.4 Providing connections within and between neighborhoods. CE 5.2 Maximum traffic levels for various street types. 9. Fiscal impacts Aside from speck costs and fees related to the development, what will be the relationship between costs imposed by the development and revenues it generates (including division of revenues between the City and the County)? Adopted policies: LUE 1.14 New development to bear costs of serving it. 10. Precedent Wiest kind of precedent will the development set for future proposals? Adopted policy: No policies directly address this question, which is more in the nature of how policies are established and changed. GRNBLT.RPT gm 10-25 -95 RICHARD SCHMIDT MEETINL AGENDA DAi E L 9' 9 6 ITEM # 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544 -4247 e -mail: rrschmld@oboo:aix.calpoiy.edu January 9, 1996 RECEIVED. JAN I. .19`/6, Re: "Prefumo Creek Homes" Project CITY CUNCt To the City Council: of w C UOUR CA 1 urge you to shelve this matter without even hearing it, for proceeding at this point could entangle the Council in possible illegalities and improprieties perhaps being committed by administrativg.and planning staff in connection with this project. San Luis Obispo once had a deserved reputation for being a city with a progressive management/elected official team, and a deserved reputation as a "good government" town. That began to change the minute the current City Manipulative Officer arrived. It was evident to me as a close observer that a new tune was being played in city hall, and good government was suff ering in consequence. It is absolutely clear today that the city's once excellent planning program has now gone down the sewer. At this juncture, there is no semblance of progressivism nor of good government remaining in our city's structure. Indeed, 20 years of good planning and good government policy have been corrupted to the point that no number of "feel good" ostrich - posture articles written in the ersatz press by council members can conceal the dirty facts. I wrote you last week about improprieties in the city's planning program related to Stoneridge II. At that time I had no idea that the matter coming before you tonight was yet another chapter in the same unsavory story. I believe that the handling of the Prefumo Homes project by the city presents many possible problems, including the possibility of inappropriate and questionable actions, possible conflicts of interest, possible self- dealing, possible questionable professional ethics, and further, that if this matter were thoroughly investigated, additional problems of propriety might well be revealed. I urge you therefore to do two things: First, to protect yourselves, do not even hear this matter, lest the council become contaminated by handling it; and Two, immediately fire the CAO whose deliberate policy initiatives and manipulations have caused our city to slide from laudable model to retrograde laughing stock among central coast cities. Thank you. Richard Schmidt RECEIVED JAN 9 1996 cm CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Iff-COUNCIL G-CDD DIR U-CAO C3 FIN DIR C�"11'CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF -ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR 13 CLERKIORIG ❑ POUCE CHI • MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR • C ILE ❑ UTIL DIR ff �_ ❑ PERS DIR DATE MEETING 9 9 AGENDA � ITEM # Mayor Al San Luis 990 Palm San Luis Re: The January 7, 1996 in Settle Obispo City Council Street Obispo, CA 93401 Prefumo Creek Homes Development Dear Mr. Settle and Council Members: We would like to voice our support, for the Prefumo Creek Homes development. San Luis Obispo is a growing community and, with growth in population, there is need for more housing of this caliber. Prefumo Creek Homes' developers have offered the City of San Luis Obispo a large area of land near the development to use as a greenbelt and /or open space. Unfortunately, there are residents in the area who are fighting this "tooth and nail" because they want to take away from a landowner his right to develop his land in a way we see to be fair and also keep the natural setting intact. Our families have been lifelong residents of the area but we have never taken the position that people who have arrived here after us should not have an opportunity to make a life in an area as wonderful as San Luis Obispo. We feel that the developers are providing not only an area for needed housing but they are also giving our city some beautiful land that will be enjoyed by generations to come. Sincerely,��.� -y, Charles J. Mur h P Rebecca A. Murphy RECEIVED JAN 9 , 1779 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISP0, C8 W'GOUNCIL 11"'CAO V'CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR IKACAO JATTORNEY CL Fi�l ERF4ORIG ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR L� F�Lf ❑ PERS DIR 4- jkt 'ETINd AGENDA n,,Tg 1 f--?Zo ITEM #.=mnlwM*==md RECEIVED JAN 8 _1996 C11Y NCIL` 8AN LUIS OBCOUISPO. CA �NCIL CDD DIR :,AM ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF AnWINEY ❑ PW DIR ❑ CLERKKRIQ ❑ POUCE CHF O MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR {d v-1A / -) ❑ PIERS DIR (ft aym av)d ar,,- T. wlo�- -�tro�� 2 vt� rho l�� � a Value d �v ono Can �ru . �oVW 6 'O?ro j .ec+ C an h pt"(4- - ha V) -�afz- anc heo,,�-i -wdy i h DUB �n�.�Z( -u( 6 D y . RE tIVE JAN 8 - 4.1996 - - : CITY councIe -- SAN-LUI oeisPO, CA on�ibGG arc I h1u�� g�o�, ail � r� -I-c� counei f b A-'14 TC*I�yfi 50�