Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1996, 6 - CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO: 1) AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT TERM OF AFFORDABILITY; AND 2) AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS TO EXEMPT VERY-LOW AND LOW INCOME HOUSING. �I��� IWIIIfIIIAI=�Illulll � r P M ING Cl ATE: FTEM i O San LUIS OBISPO Zo COUNCIL AGEND REPORT NUMra FROM: Arnold Jonasommunity Development Director; By: Jeff Hoo s ciate Planner SUBJECT: Considerat/11ion of Planning Commission recommendations to: 1) amend the Housing Element term of affordability; and 2) amend the Residential Growth Management Regulations to exempt very-low and low income housing. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt resolution amending the Housing Element regarding minimum term of housing affordability; and 2) Introduce to print an amendment of the Residential Growth Management Regulations to exempt the construction of housing affordable to very-low and low income persons. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Action At its January 24th meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended (6-0, Commr. Whittlesey absent) that the City Council amend the Housing Element regarding minimum term of affordability, and amend the Residential Growth Management Regulations to exempt housing affordable to very-low and low income persons. Background The proposed amendments are, in essence, "housekeeping" items which implement previous Council direction. The implementation measures discussed in this report involve changing the minimum term that an affordable dwelling must remain affordable;and exempting low-and very low income housing from the Residential Growth Management Regulations, as explained below. Term of Affordability: Last October, the Council adopted several changes to the Affordable Housing Incentives as a Housing Element follow-up. To meet State law, the incentives specified a minimum term of housing affordability of 30 years, rather than 50 years as stated in the Housing Element. To maintain consistency, the Housing Element must now be amended. Growth Management: Housing Element Policy 1.26.1 and Program 1.26.7 call for exempting the production of new dwellings affordable to very-low and low-income households from the Residential Growth Management Regulations. The Council's intent was to expand affordable housing opportunities and to help the City meet its "fair share" regional housing needs. The regulations, part of the Municipal Code, must now be revised to incorporate this exemption. Evaluation Term of Affordability Recent amendments to San Luis Obispo's affordable housing incentives brought them into compliance G'1 Staff Report Page 2 with State law, and could help accomplish several Housing Element programs promoting affordable housing. Section 17.90.070 of the Municipal Code requires that to qualify as "affordable", dwellings must be covered by an agreement between the owner/developer and the City specifying mechanisms to ensure their continued affordability and availability. Consistent with State law, the affordability agreement must ensure affordability "for a period of not less than thirty years, or as otherwise provided by State law." By contrast, Policy 1.22.1 in the Housing Element says that for a project to qualify as affordable housing, it must remain affordable "for as long as possible, but in no case less than 50 years." For projects which receive some form financial benefit or special incentive from the City, the Element states that the project must be "permanently affordable at below market rental or purchase cost." Program 1.22.10 calls for new development projects to include affordable dwellings, with guarantees that they remain "permanently affordable" or pay an in-lieu housing fee. The Planning Commission and City Council discussed these inconsistencies when they discussed the updated Affordable Housing Incentives, and decided it would be appropriate to amend the Housing Element to maintain consistency with the code changes. Council directed staff to return with the necessary amendments, and that is the purpose of the proposed changes. Policy 1.22.1 wording is now inconsistent with the Municipal Code. Staff recommends that this policy be amended to read: "For a project to qualify as "affordable housing" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees must be presented that the housing units will remain affordable for-as-long as legally ::::::..,:>...:,::.::::., .................................:: ri►vrtled , but in no case fbi less than 56 Stafe law �gnststent with tie Affordable Housfrtg Standards5 . 1tfl Ch: Program 1.22.10 should be amended to read: "The City will amend its regulation to require that new development projects include affordable housin units with g th guarantees that they remain pemtancrrtlq affordable,3;as regiured :Cityordable I3oussu►g:Stanrlarifs(SL+DMC Ch 17 3Q) or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing Citywide, as described in Table 1, below." Residential Growth Management Residential Growth Management Regulations call for a steady growth rate of about 1 percent per year during the 1990s, or approximately 180 new dwellings per year. Due largely to national and statewide economic conditions, land and development costs, and limited water supplies, the actual number of dwellings built annually in San Luis Obispo has remained under 100 dwellings per year since 1990. Consequently, the growth limits have not been triggered in the 1990s. ����H�►�HiI�I11111111P° 9��111 MY Of San t�.._.S OBI SPO NOMINUM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 In its review of the City's Housing Element, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) cited the Residential Growth Management Regulations as a key constraint to the City's ability to meet its regional housing needs in the future. To address HCD's concern, and to encourage the construction of housing affordable to very-low and low-income persons, the City Council included a program in the updated Housing Element to exempt certain affordable housing from growth limits. The Council decided not to exempt moderate income housing from the growth limits. This was due, in part, to the Council's determination that development incentives were not needed to encourage moderate income housing; and that moderate income households could already afford to purchase a home in San Luis Obispo. Section 17.88.070 of the regulations list the types of projects which are exempt from residential growth management: independently built houses and duplexes; group quarters for five or fewer persons; repair/replacement projects; remodels and additions; motels and hotels; and projects which include their own growth management provisions. An excerpt of the regulations is attached, with a notation where the proposed exception could be included. Staff recommends that the following provision be added: 17.88.070 Exempt Projects (add the following subsection:) "H. Dwellings which are affordable to very-low and low-income persons, pursuant to Ch. 17.90 of the Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Incentives)." Attachments: -Draft Council Resolution -Draft Ordinance Amendment -Excerpts, Housing Element Policy 1.22.1 and Program 1.22.10 -Excerpts, Housing Element Policy 1.26.1 and Program 1.26.7 -Excerpt, Affordable Housing Incentives -Excerpt, Residential Growth Management Regulations, Section 17.88.070 -3 RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT PROVISIONS REGARDING THE MINIMUM TERM OF AFFORDABILITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the subject amendment in accordance with the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, these amendments come to the Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has determined that proposed amendments are not a "project".as defined in Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it involves general policy and procedure maldng and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that adoption of this amendment is not a "project" as defined by CEQA and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA. SECTION 2. Fundings. 1. The proposed amendments implement, and are consistent with, the Affordable Housing Incentives(SLOMC Ch. 17.90) and State law. 2. The proposed amendment will implement General Plan policies by encouraging the development of housing affordable to very-low and low-income persons. SECTION 3. Term of Affordability Amended. The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Housing Element Policy as follows (strikeout text to be deleted; redline text to be added): A. Policy 1.221 shall be amended to read: gFor a project to qualify as "affordable housing" under the provisions of this Element, uarantees must be presented that the housing units will remain affordableILI- forarlorrg-ar w...,:::.:..:..:...... at`1: t:::3U:; ' 5::..,.:::J :ears< ...... 3'........� Cissnse ..:....;�.:::.4. gip.....::..<.:.J: v:::::.::..:..:..:•:::nJ:::: n::..J'a:.::::::::.,.::.,.:...:.,.n...:..::..::.:n:.:.:::.n:. pro dell by Mate law,eanscsteht vtth the Affordable Housing Standart s($L{1 V1 : ►- w. ww r' LL Council Resolution No. (1996 Series) Page 2 B. Program 1.22.10 shall be amended to read: "The City will amend its regulations to require that new development projects include affordable housing units, with guarantees that the remain "" . , ,;..,x ,, .::: ;.;:<::.:>.:..<:<::::.:..: :.:« „:,.;:.<,:::,:::< they affordable,: s .b3� 1 Qrda6le Ho mg Mt darn ( LOVUM' or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing Citywide, as described in Table 1, below." 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 , 1996. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: A d -s' ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17.88 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan policies encourage the production of housing which meets the needs of very-low, low, and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 17.88 establishes standards regarding the rate of population growth as a result of new residential construction, and exempts from those standards certain types of residential projects which are consistent with the City's growth management objectives and which meet an overriding community need; and WHEREAS, The Housing Element, adopted September 20, 1994, includes programs which encourage the production of housing affordable to very-low and low income persons and seeks to remove obstacles to the production of affordable housing, in furtherance of local and state housing goals; and WHEREAS, Housing Element Program 1.26.7 states that the City will amend its Residential Growth Management regulations to exempt the production of housing which meets the City's affordability criteria for very-low and low income households; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has determined that proposed ordinance amendment is not a "project" as defined in Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it involves general policy and procedure making and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA; E=G Ordinance No. (1996 Series) Page 2 THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that adoption of this ordinance amendment is not a "project" as defined by CEQA and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA. SECTION 2. Endings. The City Council, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and after considering staff reports and public testimony, finds that: 1. The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed ordinance amendment will promote affordable housing opportunities for very-low and low-income persons. SECTION 3. Residential Growth Management Regulations amended. The City Council does hereby amend Ch. 17.88.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as follows: 17.88.070 Exempt Projects (add the following subsection:) W. Dwellings which are affordable to very-low and low-income persons,pursuant to Ch. 17.90 of the Municipal Code (City Affordable Housing Incentives). " SECTION 4. Notice and Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on motion of r seconded by and on the following roll call vote: `-7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: *rg7esen i ttorney �-8 EXCERPT, CITY OF SLO HOUSING ELEMENT Policies 1.22.1 For a project to qualify as "affordable housing" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees must be presented that the housing units will remain affordable for as long a period as is legally permissible, but in no case for less than 50 years. For affordable housing projects that use any municipally-granted financial benefit or special privilege (i.e., subsidies, below market interest mortgage bonds, reduced-cost land, fee waivers, development standard waivers, density bonuses; or other measures with financial benefit to the project's developer not available to all other housing developers), the affordability guarantees must be structured to keep the units permanently affordable at below market rental or purchase cost. 1.22.2 The City will adopt measures to encourage creating housing that's affordable to all its citizens, and to prevent loss of existing affordable housing. 1.22.3 The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. 1.22.4 Housing production citywide should provide housing affordable to all financial strata of the City's population in approximately the same proportion as those strata are found in the City's population. For this element's planning period, the proportions shall be those of the 1990 U.S. Census: very low income, 31%; low-income, 18%; moderate income, 17%; above moderate income, 34%. 1.22.5 In major annexation areas, the right of first refusal shall be extended to the City or its Housing Authority to purchase, at fair market value, land adequate to construct at least five percent of the number of dwellings allowed within the major annexation area, prior to development. 1.22.6 The City should take steps that encourage households or living groups of modest means to create their own living environments in an affordable manner. 1.22.7 The City shall discourage the replacement of existing lower cost housing by new higher cost housing, unless, (1) the lower cost units at risk can either be conserved, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities to those being replaced are created as part of the new project. 1.22.8 The City shall discourage conversion of affordable rental housing to condominiums or to other forms of housing tenure and occupancy. 1.22.9 The City shall avoid governmental actions which remove affordable housing units. • •r 13 �'f EXCERPT, CITY OF SLO HOUSING;ELEMENT Programs 1.22.10 The City will amend its regulations to require that new development projects include affordable housing units, with guarantees that they remain permanently affordable, or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing Citywide, as described in Table 1, below: Table 1 Affordable Housing Requirements' Development Project InIZz{ll . Residential Commercial n: Build 3% low or 5% moderate Build 1 ADU per acre, but not cost Affordable Dwelling Units less than 1 ADU per project; (ADUs), but not less than 1 ADU per project; or In City or pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of building valuation. pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of Location building valuation.3 Build 10% low-and 20% Build 1 ADU per acre, but not moderate-cost ADUs,but not less less than 1 ADU per project; than 1 ADU per project; In Expansion or Area or pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of pay in-lieu fee equal to 15% of building valuation. building valuation. 'Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, or pay in-lieu fee based on the above formula. 'Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 1.22. 3"Building Value" shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued, as determined by the Chief Building Official using the Uniform Building Code. 14 —/1D EXCERPT, CITY OF SLQ HOUSING ELEMENT 1.25.5 In City expansion areas, specific plans shall incorporate opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the specific plan developer, to build homes or create personalized living environments suited to individuals, families, small groups or to accommodate those with special needs. Program 1.25.6 Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement mixed-variety and tenure policies. Goal 1.26: Housing Production. Construct new housing to fulfill the needs of, first, City residents, and second, those who work in the City and who would like to live there. Policies 1.26.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the ? availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 1,216 dwelling units between June 1994 and June 1999, and to amend the Residential Growth Management Regulations to exempt the production of new dwellings . affordable to very-low and low income households. 1.26.2 To add to the City's residential land base, the City will encourage the production of infill housing above compatible street-level commercial uses in various commercial zones. 1.26.3 New large Downtown commercial projects should include housing. 1.26.4 Encourage new and creative uses of existing structures for residential purposes. 1.26.5 If City services must be rationed to new development, residential projects will be given priority over nonresidential projects. 1.26.6 The costs to the City of housing development will be minimized and equitably distributed. The City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs to existing residents. Programs 1.26.7 The City will amend its Residential Growth Management regulations to exempt the production of housing which meets the City's affordability criteria for very-low and low income households. 19 EXCERPT, CITY OF SLO AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.090 Affordability standards. 17.90.070 Agreements for affordable A. The Community Development housing. Department shall publish and revise as needed a schedule of rental rates and sales Prior to the issuance of construction prices for dwellings which will be affordable permits for any project incorporating a to households with incomes as provided in density bonus or other incentive as provided this chapter. The schedule shall in this chapter, the City and the project substantially conform with the affordability owner(s) shall enter into an agreement in a standards as established by state or federal form acceptable to the City Attorney, to be law. recorded in the office of the county B. The maximum rental rates and recorder. The agreement shall specify sales prices as revised, generally on an mechanisms or procedures to assure the annual basis, shall remain in effect for continued affordability and availability of the projects receiving density bonuses or specified number of dwelling units to very- additional incentives under this chapter as low, lower, and moderate income provided in the affordable housing households and/or qualifying seniors. The agreement, but in no case less than the agreement shall also set forth those items minimum term required by State law. (Ord. required by Section 17.90.030 G. of this 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) chapter or any alternative incentives granted pursuant to Section 17.90.050 of this 17.90.100 Occupant screening. chapter. The agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all the heirs, A. The affordable dwellings successors or assigns of the project or developed pursuant to this chapter shall be property owner, and shall ensure available to qualified occupants without affordability for a period of not less than regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, thirty years, or as otherwise required by occupation or other affiliation. Occupants State law. (Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) may be screened on the basis of age only to qualify those occupants seeking housing 17.90.080 Fees. designed for the elderly. B. The City housing authority shall A. No fee in addition to normal screen prospective occupants so that project application fees shall be charged for dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter a request for a density bonus pursuant to the shall be occupied by households with the provisions of Sections 17.90.030 or appropriate qualifying incomes or ages. 17.90.040, except for reasonable, necessary Owners of projects shall enter into administrative costs incurred by the City agreements with the housing authority for pursuant to Section 17.90.040. such screening services. B. A fee not to exceed the amount C. Preference in occupant screening charge for "preapplication concept review" shall be given to those employed within or may be charged for proposals submitted residing within the City or the immediately pursuant to the provisions of Section surrounding area, to the extent that this 17.90.050. (Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) provision does 'not conflict with state or 5 - r EXCERPT, CITY OF SLO RESIDENTIAL GROWTH 17.88.040-17.88.070 MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS the highest score and proceeding sequentially in application, so the complete application(s) sub- order of descending scores. mitted first will be issued first.(Ord. 1068§2 Ex. C. This procedure shall be repeated quarterly A(part), 1986) until the appropriate cumulative total specified in column (b) is no longer exceeded. Any con- 17.88.060 Group quarters. struction permit application which may not Group quarters shall be regulated as provided receive an allocation according to these regula- for dwellings. Occupant capacity for each two tions during the quartershall be held and its score and one-half persons shall be counted as one shall be compared with the scores of subsequent dwelling in tallying cumulative totals and in projects,so that each quarter those projects with determining project size. (Ord. 1068 § 2 Ex. A the highest scores will be allocated construction (part), 1986) permits,regardless of the order in which the con- struction permit applications were submitted or 17.88.070 Exempt projects. otherwise readied for issuance.(Ord. 1068§2 Ex. The following types of projects shall be exempt A (part), 1986) from limitations on the issuance of construction permits and shall not be included in determining 17.88.040 Minor exceptions to quarterly the number specified in Section 17.88.030A,col- limitations. umn(c). However,dwellings and group quarters A.The council may authorize issuance of per- projects of all size shall be included in determin- mits for a project which, alone or cumulatively ing the comparison with Section 17.88.030 A, with other projects, would cause the number of column (b): dweliings authorized to exceed the monthly lim- A. Projects consisting of the independent itation provided in Section 17.88.030,upon find- construction of one or two dwellings, ing that: B. Group quarters for occupancy by five or 1. It is not feasible or desirable to construct the fewer persons; project in phases because it consists of a single C. Projects replacing damaged or destroyed building or integrated group of buildings; and buildings on a one-for-one basis (these projects 2. Completion of the project would not signif- shall not be included in the determination of icantiy conflict with the long term objectives of Section 17.88.030A,column(b)): these regulations. considering recent and antici- D. Remodeling or additions which result in pated construction levels. not more than two dwellings,or a group quarters B. The council may in the case of all applica- capacity of more than five persons,in addition to tions for the development of an affordable hous- those which existed before the remodeling or ing project consider an exemption under the addition; terms of this section.(Ord. 1068§2 Ex.A(part), E. Transient lodging,including housekeeping 1986) units in hotels or motels: F. Prior to January 1. 1985, only, any single- 17.88.050 Projects with equal scores. family dwelling to be constructed on a lot which If two or more projects have the same score, existed upon the effective date of the regulations order of issuance of construction permits shall be codified in this chapter(January 7, 1983); determined by size of project, so the project(s) . G. Projects which include their own growth with the fewest dwellings will beauthorized first. management provisions pursuant to an If two or more projects having the same score are approved specific plan or planned development, also the same size, order Qf issuance of construc- as defined by the zoning regulations Chapters tion permits shall be determined by date of 17.50 and 17.52 of this code.(Ord. 1068§2 Ex.A (part). 1986) /� 5 (San Luis Obispo 7.86) -- c vw UIR r13READ ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF r 3 O PW DIR -� TH IS ITEM �,ATTORNEY a ❑ POUCE CHF LGP1T!NUEDTO � ❑ REC DIRFILE ❑ UTILDIR O PERS DIR CPD 1394S-) RECtIVED 2�s. and Au. Aack -b. cS&Jton. FEB S 1996 n 1423 c4dimoce St. San luta C fu#o, eaG.fowia 9340,j-"LUIS COUNCIL -SAN l7;-,u, Cc`! Cv wr c A ,it.e.Q,r19Qar�`a �r,,. c�c.oc�� cUr..cQ,'hv-�-o oma••--P�1 ��.�.r�c.. vtiYd.c.�N (o% /,I� �vYv�v.ZQ�c� Go ? is i THIS STEM CONTINUED T� WILSON F3 WILSON e�-&-?46 ATTORNEYS AT LAW C^it'. I scheduled 864 OSOS STREET. SUITE C ANN BELL WILSON SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 DENTON J. WILSON (805) 546-8098 February 6, 1996 COUNCIL CDD DIR ICAO ❑ FIN DIR San Luis Obispo City Council CACAO D FIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street a ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR RECE1 V G� t R +FJ1D FILE ❑ PSS DIR FEB " 1996 CITY COUNCIL Ladies and Gentlemen: CA We are currently living at 1352 Aralia Court, San Luis Obispo. We enjoy the family atmosphere of the development and appreciate the relative safety for our children to play in the neighborhood. We are very concerned about the proposed high density development. The increased traffic resulting from this development will jeopardize the safety of the neighborhood children. Regardless of the original intent for this development, it is now primarily a family neighborhood. The proposed development, although consisting of three and four bedroom homes, provides no place for children to play. It is my understanding that even the developer prefers larger lots. The proposed plan makes no one happy. It is apparently intended for families, but leaves no place for children to play. It will dramatically increase traffic through a neighborhood filled with children. The proposed homes should either be smaller, single-level homes designed for "empty nesters", or homes similar to those proposed, but on larger lots where children can play. This development also sets an unfortunate precedent for future developments. The higher density development should be located near the major traffic artery. Developments should not be designed so that traffic is directed City Council Page 2 through family neighborhoods of single family residences. We urge the Citi Council to either enlarge the proposed lots;.orreduce the size of the proposed homes, and address the.traffic-problems accordingly. Sincerely, Ann.Bell'Wilson Denton J. Wilson .r� .. ME-PNG AGENDA y # COUNCIL ❑'0D6DIR PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT ICAO ❑ FIN DIR LL'!%CAO 13 FIRE CHIEF O097'rORNEY ❑ PW DIR OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ TEAM ❑ REC DIR Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 cR FILE IJLMLDIR � ❑ PERS DIR The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council,the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect.of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffFtrr r EIVED Name LFEB Z b.ly" ' _ Address cl�v couNcl� /L .e � ,.o�Spn_d:l�/.5'1 _�fes�(�l I \ /a/OSa"rl kvi6 dbl-1s4o, GAF- 3�o/ WZL rin (1A.0 D is 4 S 340 `1385 \A0-L 4ffrie¢ J SID, cdqu L� �S 4JlAy6�t�'(ltca�. S f'o Cod- 4 3 Yo� A LAA I A/Si , PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address 60oJMU1/ 45g3 Wav -ej-glee- Seg Leis 0 ; s ,'> 1 y3uol D�4 -o� Trooa 9 40/ _� S �S'3S (.L�.rer��S'ee SLU CIS �i-34a i . J�fo y i'�..,x�r��•l t� l C5L_ lizc/0 / I `ib 7 O Yr zygon c7 R/ SG a 4-3 &f . 23 131 nv AT 73`Io I PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address aos7 W - 1gL Ova '_yX !93 V0 T - L� C Je- ��a i-to teP2o.'57 S C Sa PJ kurs na PC,C'A 25' 01 1670 /-;n co In 5�. -?ZU_eVCr o /9• SFU s s,A,b. L u., 50 15To a 4= 9X4 5 Z 7. T� lJ 3 PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHAND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development, a low density, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed development pose a serious threat to the children residin in the Arbors. We believe that there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, , and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address L13 74 d 1 eA- C4. SAO C'� 9 3Vo I y O u C Y1, '11,350 _©l-eyr 6-7 5n r-7F- g3y0l 3sv Com- d00 9 3�10 0 MD . C Luo 3(010 44536 l.�inyr-.�� L rs i 93'16/ s(C1 93 sza l 5w 23g01 415A 2- e<.4Vr5,C 7N,P d y w PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHAND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development, a low density, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed development pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe that there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, I and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address X72 • � / L F 5sh`ais cd ` 1111 y 3 g b LUa�lt�Nt,t d c I •�-?34 •- � \� 4 JLC' (nt cc l - f lip PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address /� .�/ �., �.u.�'s• bb.5doe C.�► 430/ Wva k�hm(�PrP . _z:),I r c.A 0-7-)401 12 1-lezIE-b z 11V)hm6ye r a,;54DI CA n \�1�1 Z Ashmote. Sim i t} hshn&g P�_ St S',4.v v15 Qi3iS aO �'/�-9 3YD� IW3 AS.Oiron�v 93 f 1433 A5kmorc 51- ���e.� �y/„x`X�e+. San L-lt;-5UbigpoI Ci-. 93461 Vel u21<'- 1433 . �St,U 3q0 •V 1 I P %� 'i/ • ©/ PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re.: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. ------IRame Address yy ow t"V ez, 7 PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address a�cu�c. Zf IeVa✓ p '" na yaxuv4 Y•imp ll`� �,` Sao Lars aL-iqo, CA- 7g � too j �r�a ct t��Q N • �w,�i AM, `f 3aX taa.� G-cow �L 0 '�1yo/ / �sz1 .t° CSY �'Q 93fta� l, .;�td% Cl1uaki_A' 4-01 ® f0 �ceju o T(7- (� m-" - - 34 01 5�v� CucS 6�2l5on 3 Orl e L PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OFMGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re. 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed . .. . development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development, a low density, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed development pose a serious threat to the children residin in the Arbors. We believe that there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, _ and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address se-0 Yb Y3 Vo L Gd .93 0 13i1 _�� .�,/�.�L Sl0 931foi /3.57 iRa/tJF7R�2K J�s� i �Nf�l4eK �ah 6AMs 13(., 9 PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street; and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,0003quare feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address 12(4! (:T� C c 5,, Lin— j397 a-" A �3vv� Y is-7 Z' a :�— PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address 1k�YQ .�'f'it lw9 '167 Lil;na 619,iqzo CR 93*o I r. 9 r _z:5C_1J-4, s 7Lai�= i Dl �Gc i v7 3 41 O t 74�LSr� �Cwc�d j ga C4 Lt) GA9PG /f MEE G AGENDA DATE ITEM # MAINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INCORPORATED CONSTRUCTION SINCE 1881 Mr.Mayor and Council People ' I regret I am unable to address you personnaly regarding the relocation of the homeless facilities. Having not heard previous presentations,I hope I am not being redundant As a leader of this worthwhile project,Chief Gardiner approached me about becoming involved in the construction process. Maino Construction Company is proud to have been asked to be involved in this project. We look forward to contributing to its successful completion. We recognize that this project has been a long drawn-out process that now appears to be reaching reality. The involvement of many volunteers and concerned citizens has been significant to achieving the present status. /Much work needs to be completed. Maino Construction Company is proud to have been able to step forward and accept a construction management leadership role. We are even more proud of those within our industry who have also answered the call. Many people and firms within the construction industry have offered to contribute. There have been offers of labor,material,or equipment for this project's successful completion. Voluntary contributions will assure success of the project. As with all good intentioned projects that utilize government funding,successful completion depends upon clearing several hurdles. These include use permits,plan check,building permits and many governmental controlling regulations. You are addressing and facilitating the majority of these hurdles. The highest of these hurdles is to clearly and concisely blend Federal Funding Grant Money,Davis Bacon Wage requirements and voluntary citizen input. Working closely with Chief Gardiner and Jeff Hook of the City Staff,we hope to be able to present a package to HUD that will clear this hurdle. This will allow us to obtain a better bang for the buck and assure San Luis Obispo and its less fortunate citizens of a successful project We have a challenge before us. It is incumbent upon you as community leaders to step up to this challenge and maximize all available city funds,personnel and resources for this project. The citizens of San Luis Obispo also have a challenge. The citizens must step forward to the volunteer door with any contribution large or small to insure completion of this project Let's make this is a community project The BIA and the Chamber are doing their part. We must not allow it to fail. /With your dynamic leadership,continued community support,and a"CAN DO"attitude,we will complete this very worthwhile project. Thank you for your time and pledge of continued support. MAI NO CO TRUCTION COMPANY, WCOUNCIL CDD DIR dAO ❑ FIN DIR V1 ❑ FIRE CHIEF �11�,(ATTORNEY �W DIR /ZZNL 0 CLERKCR G 0 POUCE CHFNO ❑ MW TEAM ❑ RECD IR President O/ D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR J ® ❑ PERS DIR Lic. No. 426403 Post Office B 1.347 Son Luis Obispo, CA 93406 • (805) 543-7411 • FAX (805) 543-0514 ME[ G AGENDA III+I . E iili�i�1111DATE IT M # � �� city of San burs OBISPo POLICE DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1328•San Luis obispoq CA 93408.1328 •(805)781.7317 February 15, 1996 UNCIL. ]DD R CAO Rev. Tom Norwood V"ACAO HIEF fB�ATTORNEY .The People's.Kitchen t+1cLrRwoRlo cHF232 Foothill Blvd. ❑ MGMI TEAM RSan Luis Obispo, A 93405 ❑ c FILE RIR ' Dear Rev. No'r400d; Your letter regarding the planned Homeless Services Center has been .forwarded to me for response. As you are aware,my role has been as a facilitator for this project. As you are also aware, this has been.a lengthy process which has evolved to meet the needs of the many clients and service providers who will be using the site. `When the May 1994 letter was written, the initial'concepts of an expanded use for the site were " just being envisioned. The use of the site by other service providers was an essential component. It,was'at this time that I-wrote the letter to`cover some of theconcerns raised by the project. 'In the many intervening months, and with the involvement of representatives from the People's Kitchen, the project has been designed to provide both feeding and service programs. Indeed, the feeding area was designed and positioned on the site on the basis of recommendations from the Kitchen's representatives. The design is significantly different from that which was earlier envisioned when I responded to the Kitchen's questions. Therefore, a point by point response to the 22 questions contained in the 1994 is not responsive to the current design. However, I believe I can respond to the two primary concerns of security _ and transportation issues: First, as stated inthe previous letter, the security of people on the site is a concern to all. Different from the original concept of using volunteers for supervision, the current plan calls for paid trained professional staff from the EOC Homeless Services program to be on site during all hours of operation. It is also understood that some additional form of "official" security may be needed. During the initial start up of the program, we will work with these professionals to determine the need for private security or a police officer. If it is determined to be necessary, we will evaluate the best way to provide this component for all clients at the site. The transportation issue has similarly expanded since the initial concept was envisioned. There may be a number of people in need of transportation to the site at varying times of the day. "Service, Pride, Integrity'' The City of San Luis O4Ispo is c .� "tied t i include the disapled In all of its services, programs and activities. . LJ Telecommunications D.V e.ior tb Deaf(805) 781.7410 }..._ . Rev. Tom.Norwood February 15, 1996 Page 2 Therefore, there is aline item of$8,000 in the operations budget of the Center for.transportation. The criteria for establishing who is.in need of this transportation assistance has been assigned to the "program" sub-committee of the Center Steering Committee for development. This is co- chaired by Gwen Guyre and Ann Travers. While they have indicated that they will not be able to give a full set of criteria by the time of the Feb. 20th Council. meeting, they have excellent backgrounds in dealing with the anticipated clientele for the Center. I have full confidence that they will establish appropriate guidelines which will ensure that clients in need.will not be without care because of transportation issues. As you note in the conclusion of your letter, the work on this project has taken many years. As one of those involved in every stage of the process, I am encouraged that.we are close to making this vision a reality. I also understand and share the real.concerns for ensuring that those in need receive.the appropriate services and sustenance. We,believe that the partnerships.which have formed during this.process,will ensure that the Center.will be built and provide the services for which it has-been designed...,, If you have other specific questions based on the current concept, please feel free to give me a call anytime. As always,.we invite. you, to, attend any; of. the coming,Steering. committee meetings. I hope.to see you at.the Council peeting on Feb..20th.. I look forward.to;working with you and the others involved in the Center,as we bring it to completion and:into operation. Sincerely, J M: GARDINER . OF. POLICE JMG:jsb cc: City Council John.Dunn Ken Hampian . Wendy George MEL G AGENDA - DATE -996 ITEM # February 15, 1996 Mayor Allen Settle Councilmembers San Luis Obispo i Dear sirs; With my son and daughter, I am the owner of the property at 808 Mission (corner of Chorro and Mission) . We would like to express our strong support for the "Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan" which will be reviewed before the City Council at a public hearing Tuesday, February 20. The group of citizens who prepared this proposal has done extensive and intelligent research into the problem. We consider their plan to be logical and fair, and would urge you to adopt it. Yours truly, Peggy M. Tibbs 5682 N. Bond Fresno, CA 93710. UNCIL ❑ CJOHIEF Or CAO ❑ F O t TORNEY ® Pm ��Md ❑ P❑ MGW TEAM ❑ RO UT (ZECEIVED } O PE FEB 2 u 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN ,,,- n01¢w+.CA MEETING AGENDA � DATE ITEM 53 Chorro St . tR COUNCIL ❑ CDDDIR San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 0 CAO ❑ FIN DIR February 19, 1996 6CHIEF �ATTORNEY IgpR WD C(CLERKORIQ O POLICE CHF Mayor Allen Settle ❑ MGW TEAM ❑ RECDIR ❑ C READ FILE 13UTIL DIR and City Council Members ` .�., 990 Palm St . f �J ❑ PERSDR San .Luis Obispo, CA. 93402 T' Nva Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members, We have lived at 53 Chorro St . for the past 43 years . In 1953 when we moved to our home, the area from Murray to Foothill Blvd . was called Mt . Pleasanton Dr. A beautiful residential area, with trees in the center of the street . From our living room, dining room and kitchen we have a panoramic view of the mountains . We are in close proximity to grocery, drug stores and restaurants, gas stations, fire station, banks, hospital , emergency care center, doctors and dentist . The location is ideal for those of us who are senior citizens . Unfortunately we are struggling with a problem that is eroding our quality of life. The traffic that passes in front of our home is in- tolerable. We cannot exit our drive way during peak hours . Fortunately, we are two doors from the four way stop signs at Meinecke and Chorro. We watch for cars to stop and then we quickly back out of our driveway onto Chorro St . Sometimes cars come around the corner from Meinecke without stopping at the stop sign. We have had some close calls . Very rarely are we able to back out to go north to Foothill Blvd. We must back out and go south to Murray, North Broad to Foothill . Safety is also an issue with us . It is extremely ,pnsafe to try to cross the street. Some times even trying to carry on a conversation with another person outside is impossible, because of the noise . The Chorro/Broad St. neighborhood group have met many times to dis- cuss the calming of Chorro traffic. My husband and I are in favor of the plan as it will be presented on Feb. 20th. , with the exception of the speed humps. The humps in our estimation will only encourage young people to "joy ride"over the humps , as they are now doing with the temporary one on Chorro and Mission. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. eanor Craveir RQ%.*0 GD ' FEB 2 U 1996 /goaq in Craveiro CITYCouHCIL SAN CA MEETING AGENDA Madelelne and Joseph Johnson DATE at- 4 9Z ITEM 200 Llncoln 5t. San Lull Obispo,CA 93405 February 3, 1996 Dear City Council Members, This note is to show our support for the Chorro Street Traffic Calming Plan which we understand is on the agenda for the February 20 Council Meeting. We are very much in favor of reducing traffic on Chorro and in the Anholm area in general. We do have some concern that the traffic on Lincoln could increase as northbound traffic is discouraged from using Chorro Street,but at this point we fully support the plan as it is. Our only wish would be that the intersection of Walnut and Chorro could be physically altered so that northbound through traffic would be diverted to Santa Rosa—similar to the way traffic coming from South and Broad Street is diverted and encouraged to continue on Osos Street past the railroad square. Yours truly, 21nd MA. Johnson RE,CEl1/�D Iff �FfB 'Z � lyyb COUNCIL ❑ CDJCHIEF DR ❑�FlRl�SN DIR aBISPQ.CA S"T�NE' W P' WCLERIGORIO 0 PO❑ MGW TEAM ❑ RE❑ C FILE ❑ UTI❑ PER TSS v 1002 MEETING AGENDA DATE JJd: S ITEM # �- CrIY COUNCIL OF SANLUIS OBISPO: This is in reference to the CHORRO AREA TRAFFIC C 41-NMG PLANtbat a group of people that live on(3=0 and suaounding areas would like to put into motion I am s and a c circles J .P g to do. I feel they are wanting to spend a great deal of money on bumps and traffic circles when what we should do which would be a lot more cost affective would be to right away pat the speed limit down to 25 miles an hour and put in stop signs on all the streets that go fiom Foothill to downtown. There already are stop signs at Lincoln,Murray and Memicki-add additional 4 way stops at Mission and Center Streets. Also put up a sign that tricks and heavy vehicles should go on Santa Rosa. The bump should be taken out that was put in and I walk Chorro Street nearly every day and I believe a bump would be very effective if put right as you tum the comer from Foothill onto Choao. It could be put where the Feaini Bldgs are and across the street is the Mobil station. Where people get up momcuturn is when they fly around that corner going down Chomp towards town. If a bump was right as they tum the comer)it would slow the traffic down considerably. Actually all the homes from Foothill on down to Murray are all almost on the street. There a very little front yards and if they put in a traffic circle where they plan at Rouguot we will have people UP in our front yards plus it.will hinder our getting out of our driveways and that is bad enough now. I myself and the neighbor next door already bad cars up on our lawnsl I I believe they are puffing the cart before the horse spending all this money on all these different things without spending a small amount of money and trying the stop signs and 25 mile speed limit I drive on the other side of ChOnO between downtown and Broad St. and that is how that area is set up and I don't see people speeding down the street I believe it should be tried on the area from downtown out to Foothill before spending money on allthose other things. Our city could use the extra money for so many things that need done around the city. We also need to keep in mind Broad Street and the end result should be that the traffic get diverted to Santa Rosa I would be at the meeting on Tuesday night to voice my opinion personally but I am going out of town on Sunday and wont be back until Wednesday not I reside at 32 Chorro Street three houses from Foothill Blvd. and believe me I know that we need something done but not traffic circles and oced humps,I I I Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. COUNCIL O CDD]DIR RECEIVED Dohs Bryan e'AO ❑ FIN FEB 1 x. 1996 G ACAO ❑ FIR ��T rmEY "W SALACITY COR CIIL rA �'CLtRIUORIa Q POL❑ MOW TEAM ❑ RECO C READ FILE O UTIE,3� ❑ P`�E '' DATEIN AGENDA Z . ITEM oma; is ^ t5+•} J .:�;...-^ :::�.> .\ Y.�;Y}.•�...-�'�r1P. { •'t`r'., 1 �.•Ty..,If . F/�•q ..�.. ...-. "r �..e '.. Q' v�.•:Ft.-r:} r✓ytU�:'fy'� j•:i Y:.'.}.Jl,. • r....�:`'l7�'•, ti�1 qr.Y" r. � � �'�• .. . r . r,. y. I Y,. .1 ytiN ..,�t���i{,���r.//rQ ,�; l, •'�a/..�.:• y _ tt 'ii>r�' +�r •w.' �L� ^�/ ^ 9��yg r... i ♦;r, rte,••: �.• ,; �. 3a,l7q� 5.J J. �i; .ti.� •� ..�e!•u�. :,i• .,,:9 �•ZQ< �,,�1, r�+fs7,.: :,w. •fir %Y.: J.h ri.` 1 1ii/� //may I��1••,� py.-: x-•1,:/ pp�� ��C•�. � �, ' -�✓ nal. . a. 10 ,^s,.. r9 ''� �•p Cq. �"'" •':a�'`i' ,j' s:"•_fir Tr•.dQ/��/e•�.'� :• ..� .1..•�,c�3a S. • y- yf:���iy,Y��� �� ,.+"C�.y..r�.G.'{'�6�1'•f+�1'C.�'* L•`-'1G" �� .}. 'Yi . .�.�. ':F•dp.�r 'GG �511Y. a, .' ' i 1. ',�:d1)7�+ •!`; .r. y�/;!C'y /; '7` '.�[.J r',A ',;: y`fYIL ,'gay.:N 'J. � ;M�.°")ii•� . �.M� �•'rn.. �` 1'�t'`' �� •'. .. ` �� moi,' � r Y �.J •.: I w t rtic• ' � ....JJ��hf �wa"/e' y'�:, . ,J4,�. :•. �y� y�S L''� y `•L'R. �v'i.•r`.gyp, f'`,.x� � r.:�/«Q,O� '.>'=wY :;G; !. :#i:�P• r .c:r ,.J ,r .4C �• •{ k7_1 ,� � iF `�'``f��,i4��,0•[ ^:'r •t� �{�l ` ... , :c'`'al"..�. t'•�i ( _VO _... .,yM • �• {lr.�/1+yr r P ��•[y` ' J . � • :CO`• T .'?�; .,:1(•:'n .yw\, w.• h�'['' I ZILQ' .1j.' '�,i f.. i7' >•"• p;:!r „ ..Y 'Vll01 } a'�5.1,.AY••• ,:.1 •�f'F L.'. 111`.'•='.� Agl:.-i•�:•�'� ��.y (1�.:4;1•�'�:�',r l� �"•`.'7' 'IL1 �l S�,.•� .r / �' :,i.•.'�,'' . -1'^' . ' '�:. LL � �4•`.,'� . 1+{� j;� r• i+ t7 ria • �' •u,Y•t'a• 'S: f?fp- :S'jr�J y,�•�.:n., �4.F'{�('K� h'.' .,' .o ._. .•mi1;$'�5.. x.1.1•. rr�ca �f �. y , • :> at �� DIFt-a, MS ��}}Vq/��yg�'fYy7 ���e,��dy�Y.�l.•yL ,•4,y:'�C-�1�'Aa.1:1S -'�6. 0 1 i, Y�,},'� 1•/1?, ., JH{�AN'�,I , a�'Y_.li Y�� �•`4, Npe Sr� 1 '1 ••� r(/�.��• +•:Vv:7��IF rLef';:.,.�'�r'+ ;rv�. /rS'��_,�}{ k •�•�,((/ '�4^=T.,r�., � Y'�l'f'l,�/y[�,T�r�. •� .r a�Y ti• '�y�'def'•w� .K ,U` •�; h r•. s:Y,' "t�ny,P,'�i�. •' ! rbi W't.,; t'i.,j, {'a.� e;r.S+�.::aa A UNG Tils" JO,6"� �'4 .�. : :. - •;, ••,I `+'1I.IMe:•,'1:�•'?W.i•J�!' :Y'rr�.`'r,J ..`:T`�Yi��'n�,47�'�:��J� �;.l�.p,• p � �.p'1r ':fa�Jti�,-..aL�•i::c:•:.�!:...�f?',��6'i.?l`a..Fc�! ��i;k'rP ,:-' Jp-�'1'':'L;•.:. YL ti•YI.n::.s• February 14, 1996 MEETING /� AGENDA DATE`� _ ITEM # 2 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, Thank you for your review and consideration regarding the Chorro Neighborhood Traffic Plan. I strongly urge a YES vote for this solid plan to relieve the speed and heavy traffic in this neighborhood. I live on the corner of Chorro and Murray Streets at 807 Murray. Many cars seem to use Chorro Street as a freeway without one thought that it is a neighborhood - where people live, walk to school or Anholm Park, try to sleep. I think 13,000 cars per day on a residential street is ridiculous. I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, February 20 and I also look forward to an affirmative vote for the plana Thank you. Sincerely, Jacquie Johnston F-POAQ0 CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR❑ POUCE CHFRECEIVED ❑ RECDIR ❑ UTIL DIR FEB_16 1996 1 ❑ PERS DIR CRY COUNCIU SAN «Ogl%PO.CA 101577-ING AGENDA �ITEM #= 965 West Street San Luis Obispo California 93405 February 8, 1996 Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council r, 1996 L P.O. Box 8100 �� TREC R San Luis Obispo �Ao IEF California, 93403-8100 r c ELERIwwGPOUCE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAMDear Council Members; ❑ C FILER You have received a copy'6 he Chorro Street Traffic Calming Plan for your consideration. I'm sure you remember the petition I presented to you from the residents of West and Lincoln Streets expressing our concern about the possible effects of traffic on Lincoln and West Streets should this traffic calming plan be implemented. I am also sure you will give our petition full consideration. There are two additional things which I would like to call to your attention about this matter. First, following the November "neighborhood meeting" on this subject the Chorro Street committee did have a person from Broad Street and myself meet with them for the final four meetings. Including us certainly broadened the base of the committee. Meetings did include concerns from the "neighborhood." The plan you see does not include any physical restrictions on Lincoln and West Streets. Should the Council approve this plan or something similar we would expect the money be allocated to "correct any undesirable redistribution of traffic' following the installations of restrictions of Chorro. Second, my concern with this plan is that it is treatment of a symptom of a more serious problem. All traffic from west of Foothill area is funneled through Chorro Street and Santa Rosa Street. With the successful efforts to keep the downtown section a vital business and entertainment area future traffic will only increase. In fact-it must increase. I hope the Council will include in its planning some long range treatment of the problem so the symptoms go away. Your considerations for the needs of Lincoln and West Street residents in this matter will be greatly appreciated. RECEIVED F. Michael Lacey FEB 1 6 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN I naican.!`,4 tainthisdocumentfor MG_ -NG AGENDA future Councumeeting DATE a�9d IT EM # °2 February 6, 1996 ,w Z0 -& Date, 9 agerd.zed Honorable Mayor Allen Settle lf^NCIL ❑ CDD DIR City Councilmembers (4) grI] FIN D . City of San Luis Obispo 13,fCHIEF 990 Palm Street �M� DIR o, CA 93401 6 a 13 POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, ❑ MGMr TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ LML DIR RE: Chorro Street Traffic Calming B' O PERS DIR Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: I am writing this letter regarding the Chorro Street traffic issues. I have lived on or near Chorro Street for the past 40 odd years. I am a resident of San Luis Obispo for the past 60 years, have lived on Foothill, Chorro and currently on Lincoln Avenue. I think it is very unrealistic for you and others not to accept the fact that Chorro Street is a main artery in San Luis Obispo. I remember when Broad Street was closed and the traffic routed over to Chorro Street. Aside from Chorro Street there are only two other roads that directly carry you into the downtown area from areas north-Foothill, Los Osos, Morro Bay, etc. - Santa Rosa and California. Thousands of cars travel these roads daily. Let us not make them more congested! The 'construction zone" appearance on Chorro is reason enough to not support your solutions. People who purchase homes on Chorro Street should take the time to survey the area just as they would for a flood zone, creek area, traffic area, etc. The stop sign at my intersection, Chorro and Lincoln, is neat in appearance, does not route traffic into our neighborhood, and has been very effective in stopping and slowing traffic. Please, do not put "speed bumps", "constiuction bulbouts" or other creative solutions on Chorro Street that would 1) divert traffic to Lincoln, Broad or the side streets, 2) be very unattractive in appearance, 3) move traffic to other areas which are already impacted. I would rather see the bus going down the street, in a slow mode to keep the traffic at a reduced speed. At least people would have access to the bus, it slows the traffic, and it would not move the traffic to other streets. Maybe a good use for another trolley... Please, do not move the problem. Chorro is a busy street and Chorro street will continue to be a busy street. Please do not make the side streets busy too! Thank you, Tillie Ries 895 Lincoln Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 RECEIVED C: Michael Lacey FEB 1 2 !V96 MY couNarl SAN' ''^94cPO.CA P c:vrv,I L ,❑ CDD DIR s CAO t7 L%l DIR m-ACAO C E CHIEF (��EE 1 AGENDA: A i,�y ORNEY P1Y DIR OE ITEM �+1•C . . . POLICE CHF L.fiRWOF� Fp , ❑ � EEC Ip� \ ` ❑ AD 111�16�R . QIR RECEIVE® TD FEB 7 5 1996. SAxJ l..�ji5 �Q SPo • -- � -< NCITY COUNCIL? Y: 7/ f r`-i c. nu G !,o /�, c, �4 >S �S.S ,/ k) 6 �c � �/ / 9g6 . z P-T-rt,-� w �r- Pe=g Sam �uY �/ vA�LY C G s cLJ vc 7�f�.S -F1 /L-/E 7-0 Sof L)A) / U 2N L L i 7. c� oT Ti IS �1/J�'-�U 099 P!(J a 6 v sff` S Fr /Do .,-s7' D I o , c.1P:1;;V 66S d A.) P? c t0e�C'�Oc 77-1 77�'o kC7 UG sf ai7ro r n A)vNlQc b r C SS -1,6zR-r/e��vG O ti 7fi'�Sc 5�i2��J THE CHORRO AREA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN INTRODUCTION Almost three years ago, Chorro Area residents organized an effort to save their neighborhood. For many years speeding motorists and high levels of non-neighborhood traffic had been degrading their quality of life, and the problem was getting worse. This plan is the first tangible step towards reclaiming their neighborhood. The plan's overall goal is to improve the quality of life for Chorro Area residents by slowing traffic and discouraging through traffic from using residential streets. This goal is consistent with San Luis Obispo's adopted General Plan Circulation Element. On September 6, 1995, the residents sponsored a neighborhood workshop to solicit public comments. A questionnaire was also distributed to area households. A design committee was formed to review all comments and prepare a draft plan. A draft plan was completed and mailed to area households along with a questionnaire. On November 1. 1995, a second workshop was held and about 50 people attended. Based on the comments and suggestions made at this workshop, the design committee revised the draft plan and submitted it to the Community Development Department for an evaluation of its environmental impacts. On February 20, 1996, the City Council held a public in to consider the plan submitted byte esign committee. After receiving public comment an iscussing various esieno tions t e ounce a opte t is ocument eso ution 996 series . APPLICATION Goals, objectives, standards and projects described in this plan apply to streets shown within the dark line drawn on the Chorro Area Map. GOAL Improve the quality of life in the Chorro Area by achieving and maintaining the General Plan Circulation Element's standards for traffic speed and volume for all streets. OBTECTIVES • Immediately reduce traffic speed on Chorro Street to 25 mph (40.2 kph) or less and maintain this standard. Maintain traffic speeds of 25 mph (40.2 kph) on Broad Street. • Over time, reduce traffic volumes on Chorro Street to 5,000 vehicles per day, and on Murray and Meinecke Streets to 1,500 vehicles per day for each street and maintain these levels • Do not allow traffic volumes to exceed standards set by the Circulation Element for any street within the Chorro Area. Cad��� � � Oma-- • Monitor the compliance of all streets within and adjoining the Chorro Area with Circulation Element's standards for traffic speed,volume and congestion levels. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (See map for approximate locations of facilities) The plan retains all existing stop signs and speed humps within the Chorro Area, except the speed hump at Chorro and Mission, which will be removed in 1996. The plan for new facilities is described below and on the accompanying map. The map also shows existing speed humps and stop signs on Broad and Chorro Streets to give a better overall picture of traffic control within the neighborhood. Cross street stop signs, although not shown, remain in place. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION START: City Council approval in February 1996. PHASE I: complete by June 1, 1996 A. Speed humps: Install without pylons on Chorro, Broad and Murray, approximately where shown on the neighborhood map (see * on map). B. Trac circles: install test facilities (see 40 on map) with temporary pylons at: ° Chorro at Mountain View ° Chorro at Rougeot ° Broad at Mt. View ° Meinecke at Benton C. At North Chorro and Foothill. ° Re-stripe North Chorro St. to eliminate the southbound left-turn-only lane (see diagram on map) and add bike lane striping. ° Increase the green light time for Foothill traffic vs. Chorro green light time. D. At Chorro and Lincoln: ° Re-stripe Chorro to shorten the northbound left-turn-only lane and install a test "entry" island with temporary pylons (see #1 on map). E. Advisory signs: Install signs on Foothill and on Chorro near Peach advising through traffic and trucks to use Santa Rosa Ave. F. Santa Rosa signal Liming from Walnut to Pismo: Synchronize City traffic signals to provide smooth flow for Santa Rosa traffic and draw drivers off of Chorro. G. Pylons: Remove temporary pylons from the speed table at Chorro and Mission. PHASE II: June through October, 1996 A. Monitor traffic speed and volume on neighborhood streets. B. Adjust facilities as appropriate and correct all undesirable traffic redistributions. PHASE III: complete by December 1, 1996 A. 25 mph speed limit: Install new speed limit signs on Chorro. B. . Curbs and interim landscaping. Install permanent curbs and interim landscaping at the Lincoln "entry" island and all traffic circles. Remove unnecessary pylons. C. Stop signs: Install new stop signs on Chorro at Mission, Center and Peach Streets. D. Existing speed hump: Remove the speed hump at Chorro and Mission. PHASE IV: February through May, 1997 A. Monitor traffic speed and volume on neighborhood streets. B. Adjust facilities as appropriate and correct all undesirable traffic redistributions. PHASE V: complete by July 1, 1997 A. Permanent landscaping: Install traffic circle landscaping. B. Entryfeature:. Install neighborhood entry feature and permanent landscaping within the Lincoln St. island and the Rougeot traffic circle see #2 on map).. C. Evaluate Chorro stop signs: If the traffic volume on Chorro has not been reduced by at least 25%, evaluate replacing the Chorro St. stop signs at Mission and Center with traffic circles. PHASE VI: By December 1, 1997 A. Future measures: Evaluate speed and volume of neighborhood traffic. Implement additional measures to correct undesirable traffic redistributions. STANDARDS • The 25 mph (40.2 kph) speed objective means that 85% of motorists will not exceed this speed. • New speed humps installed on Chorro and Broad Street will be 12 feet (3.66 m) long and 2-5/8 inches (6.67 cm) high. Speed humps installed on other streets shall be 12 feet (3.66 m) long and 3 to 4 inches (7.62 to 10.16 cm) high. Advance warning of speed humps should be provided by pavement markings only, not signs. • Traffic circles shall maintain a clear travel way of 20 feet (6.10 m) between the apex of a curb radius at an intersection and the edge of the circle. • Limit lines or "stop bars"will be installed at all stop-controlled intersections to provide a clear area for pedestrian crossing. • Ladder style crosswalks will be installed and maintained on cross streets at intersections with traffic circles and on Chorro Street at Murray Street to clearly define the pedestrian crossing area. • Interim landscaping in traffic circles and entry islands will be placed in portable planters that do not require cutting the street surface. Interim and permanent landscaping will be maintained by the City. • Amendments to this plan may be initiated by any person and shall be considered by the City Council at a public hearing no more than twice a year. All applications for amendment shall require notice of all property owners and tenants within the Chorro Area. An application fee shall be charged that covers the cost of notice and staff time. FOR MORE INFORMATION... about this plan or the process used to develop it, contact the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805)781-7210. Poon= nw ......... Office ° j// Commercial z z Aauor R • T�--r�G...... Study Boundary I a AExisting Stop MlDRCi1 A�•i: \ gto � _ • _ sroP New Stop / A Existing Bump '• l * New Speed Hump N.CHORRO LANE CHANGE MURRAY AVE * • New Traffic Circle 1{AA.4rG GA ' I n � LINCOLN tsos n Isior ,'•STOP 1 � e �PO� �� �� 0=0,p 1 .rLriArLL � � I •1 p0 1 O STOP * TRAFFIC CIRCLE ' I v V. 19 Z Ji +' .r STOP THE CHORRO AREA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY AREA FIECEIVED DATE �=` � ffElA "Traffic doesn't need calming—drivers need calming." --David En wic FFR t Q 1904 $ $ $ . 'COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR &t`CAO ❑ FIN DIR CITY112 Broad Street Mr ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF UIS OBISPO,CA P CLERK San Luis Obispo, 9: 5kTTORNEy PW DIR UIS February 13, 1996 �`cLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR Re: Chorro Area Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UnL DIR i Vq ❑ PERS DIR To the City Council: ' 7: JA,0aic[E I completely endorse the traffic calming measures proposed for Chorro Street provided the plan is expanded to include mitigations for traffic likely to beGpushed by these measures to other neighborhood streets: Broad, Lincoln (between Broad and Chorro), Meinecke and Murray. The plan needs some additions to assure that it works fairly for the entire neighborhood One weakness of the plan as it stands is that it focuses too much on a single street's problems rather than taking a holistic view of the neighborhood's traffic problems. I offer these lengthy comments and recommendations as a more holistic approach. A second problem with the plan is that without aggressive simultaneous efforts toimprove traffic flow on the arteries that border the neighborhood. traffic will continue to cut through the neighborhood. no matter how many bumps, stop signs and traffic circles are installed. The plan's limited recommendations for the arteries (Foothill and Santa Rosa) are anemic. Again, these holistic comments address this issue more effectively than the proposed plan. I must admit to being very weary of trying to do something about our neighborhood's traffic problems. The problems are nothing new. I first appeared before the Council about this in 1973. In my inch thick file on neighborhood traffic issues I find notes indicating that when I spoke to the Council in 1986, 1 mentioned that it was my tenth appearance before the Council on this subject. I've lost count since then. Over the years, the city has acknowledged the problem, yet moved at a snail's pace in doing anything substantive about it. The citizens are becoming weary and cynical after all these years. Our neighborhood -- all the streets, not just Chorro -- continues to decline, largely because of the traffic. The time has come to do something! Something dramatic! I urge you to act decisively. Tonight! But it is also important that you do the right thing, so I urge you to take my more holistic comments under serious consideration as you deliberate, and to incorporate my 10 recommendations into the plan. Introductory/Historical comment. The through traffic conditions in this neighborhood are outrageous, and are long overdue for serious attention by the city. It is increasingly impossible to maintain a decent quality of life in this otherwise desirable neighborhood when more than 18,000 vehicles per day cut through the neighborhood's narrow, house-lined streets (I believe this city-count to be a substantial under-count of actual traffic' ). Note that growth has not occurred in any substantial quantity in the Foothill area since 1970, yet our neighborhood traffic has climbed incredibly. Why? Because of what is now being called "economic development."This traffic monster should be Exhibit#1 in the compilation of consequences to common citizens of the excessive "economic development" currently being promoted by the city administration. We, the householders of the Broad-Chorro area, are being hurt For example,for years I kept notes of the oddball times the city chose to do traffic counts on Broad:during school vacations,when the freeway ramps were closed due to construction,when Broad itself was dug up and closed to through traffic, etc. Also the oddball placement of counters— like between two driveways of a student apartment complex,thereby missing hundreds of trips per day. Even the most recent count late last year seemed designed to undercount Broad:the counters on Chorro were up during the unusually high-traffic days preceding Thanksgiving,those on Broad in the traffic lull immediately following the holiday. This leads me to question the validity of the city's traffic count numbers; I think the truth is worse than the official numbers would indicate. Schmidt,Traffic Taming, Page 1 -- economically by the city's pursuit of this mirage. In 1970, houses in the neighborhood cost about the same as comparable houses elsewhere; several years ago, a neighbor who sought refuge in a less- trafficked place, had to pay a $40,000 premium for a comparable house. That$40,000 is the loss of property value we have suffered due to traffic; multiplying by the hundreds of houses affected gives the amount being unfairly pocketed by those who benefit at our expense from the city's "economic development'promotion policies. That being the case, the city must accept substantial responsibility to right the wrongs resulting from its policies. Solving our neighborhood's traffic problems would be a big step towards showing that the city does operate in good faith towards its common citizens as it pursues its various and often-conflicting agendas. The statement that the traffic which is killing our neighborhood is cut-through traffic is not a subjective one; it is backed up by an elaborate origin/destination study done on Murray (between Broad and Chorro) and on Broad in the mid-1980s. The study documented that up to 87% of cars on those streets were cut-through traffic. This conclusion is more or less reinforced by the drivers' own descriptions of their origin/destination, in which only 18 to 23% claimed an origin/destination within what they self- defined as"the neighborhood." Even more interesting were the drivers' explanations for why they were on these neighborhood streets. Up to 35% said to avoid traffic signals, up to 20% because even with stop signs and speed,humps this was the "fastest" route, and another 14% said there were fewer stops than on the main streets. In other words, about 70%were avoiding perceived problems on Foothill and Santa Rosa This response is because the city has systematically slowed traffic on Foothill and Santa Rosa with an array of engineered obstructions to the free flow of traffic -- in specific, an increasing number of increasingly complex multi-cycle traffic signals. Before moving to Broad Street, I lived in the outer Foothill area (off Jeffrey) and drove to work at the present Scolari's site.There was only one way that made sense to dothis: Foothill to Santa Rosa to Marsh. Taking Chorro would have been a much longer, slower trip. How,�te3�change after traffic flow gets goofed up with a lot of long-cycle traffic signals! Having been involved in this neighborhood's traffic taming efforts since 1973, 1 have a wealth of insight which I offer to the council in the form of discussion and proposed amendments to the "Chorro Area" plan. I know best the conditions on my own street, Broad. Our problems are quantity of traffic and speed. In 1973, when we first approached the council, we had freeway speed traffic on Broad. We still have freeway speed traffic, even with the speed humps and stop signs, though its prevalence is lower than before since most drivers care enough about their car suspensions to respond appropriately to the humps. The humps, however, are too far apart to control speed in between -- any traffic calming expert will tell you this? So, we have pockets of controlled speed leading up to the humps, while speed is largely unregulated along most of the street. The major progress we have made over the years lies in another area:the virtual elimination of the dangerous semis and gasoline tanker trucks that used to race up and down Broad Street at all hours. We still need the city's help with quantity reduction and speed control. Discussion points and Recommendations. 1. One of my concerns with the proposed plan is that it creates more friction on Chorro. in the belief this will somehow divert traffic to Santa Rosa, while not providing comparable additional friction on Broad. For example, Donald Appleyard (Livable Streets) was the founder of what's now called the traffic calming movement, as well as a principal of the DKS consulting firm which did traffic studies for the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements. Appleyard said for speed humps to be effective,there must be a pair 30 feet apart at the entry to a neighborhood, and humps must recur at 100 yard intervals. Otherwise they don't control speed effectively.The proposed hump arrangement on Chorro will also be ineffective by these standards. Schmidt,Traffic Taming, Page 2 -- Meinecke and Murray to prevent the traffic's simply moving to them. I believe the outcome of the plan as proposed will be that traffic moves to other neighborhood streets rather than to Santa Rosa. There are a number of policy considerations here: A. Circulation Element Program 6.5.6 (neighborhood traffic management plans) prohibits transferring traffic from one neighborhood street to another. It states: 'The plan will be prepared on an area-wide basis to ensure that traffic problems along specific street corridors are not shifted to adjacent corridors or areas." The plan without amendments appears likely to violate this prohibition. B. Under the Circulation Element's street classification.criteria, ALL the cut-through traffic streets in the neighborhood are alreadycoming far more than the maximum traffic load the element says they are ever supposed to carry. I emphasize this since from reading the plan's text, one might gather that only Chorro suffers a surfeit of traffic. For the record, the element (Policy 5.2) says Chorro should carry no more than 5,000 vehicles per day ("actual" 11,000), Broad no more than 3,000 ("actual"4,400), Lincoln no more than 3,000 ("actual"3,700), and Meinecke and Murray no more than 1,500. Transferring traffic from Chorro to any other neighborhood streets not only violates Program 6.5.B. It also violates Policy 5.2 which sets maximum traffic levels for the other neighborhood streets. C. Chorro has always carried more traffic than Broad. For example, in 1960, Chorro carried 5,000 cars per day, Broad 1,700; in 1964, Chorro 5,900, Broad 2,400; in 1968, Chorro 7,300, Broad 3,400. There is concern, however, that as traffic friction on Chorro exceeds that of Broad, through traffic formerly bound for Chorro diverts to Broad, speed humps notwithstanding. Already, if one follows northbound autos that turn left on Lincoln, one finds that many traverse (at a high rate of speed!) the entire length of Broad. My concern is that additional friction on Chorro created by elements of the plan, absent significant additional friction on Broad, will divert still more through traffic to Broad. Also, other features of the plan will direct traffic to Broad (see #3 below). The tone of the plan is alarming: Broad Street traffic Issues seem not even to be a concern of the plan. • For example, under"Objectives," the plan states "reduce traffic speed on Chorro to 25 mph"and "maintain traffic speeds" on Broad. Maintain? Present speeds on Broad far exceed 25 mph. If the plan is not intended to be punitive towards Broad, the 25 mph speed objective should also apply to it. •The second "Objectives" bullet speaks of reducing traffic volumes on Chorro, Murray and Meinecke. It doesn't even mention reducing traffic volume on Broad. It should. •Throughout the "Phasing"discussion, there are references to adjusting facilities and correcting "undesirable" traffic redistributions. The modifier"undesirable" is never explained. Is one to conclude that there are two categories of redistributions, desirable and undesirable? And, if so, what are they? Ought one to conclude, since Broad isn't mentioned as a street needing traffic reduction that traffic increases there are deemed"desirable" under the plan? Surely not. This needs clarification. Conclusion:The plan needs explicit and built-in mitigation for its obvious tendency to divert traffic elsewhere in the neighborhood. If the people of Broad, in specific, are to have confidence that this plan is concerned with solving rather than exacerbating their traffic problems, the text and implementation measures of the plan need some revision. The text problems noted above need correction. The plan also needs to include increased means of creating traffic friction on Broad, comparable to those being added on Chorro. so that Broad doesn't become the receiver site for traffic"calmed"from Chorro.3 Remember: the goal Is to get significant amounts of through traffic=of the neighborhood. While numerical party is not necessarily the only way to frame the issue, it's worth noting that the plan includes 21 traffic control measures on Chorro versus 13 on Broad. When originally issued last fall, it included 21 on Chorro and only 9 on Broad. So,we are moving in the right direction, but still have some distance to go. --Schmidt,Traffic Taming, Page 3 -- Request: Modify the plan by 1, Including Increased traffic friction measures on Broad (some proposals follow) and 2, by editing the text to Include Broad as a co-equal beneficiary of the plan. 2. Issue: Neighborhood identification/Driver awareness monuments. •The neighborhood identification monuments (illustrated item #1 on the plan map) proposed for Chorro at Foothill and Lincoln are a good idea.They should also be placed on Broad at the corresponding neighborhood entries: at Lincoln (for freeway traffic) and Ramona (for cut-throughs). Request: Add to the plan two neighborhood identification monuments on Broad, near Lincoln and Ramona. 3. Issue: Left turn lane on northbound Chorro at Lincoln. •This left turn lane encourages traffic to tum left on Lincoln. Increasing traffic friction along Chorro and leaving this left tum lane in place is like creating a chute to direct irritated drivers to Broad, where they can speed out to Foothill. For reasons discussed above, this violates the Circulation Element. Solution: I suggest the left turn lane be removed, and only a single northbound lane remain. This will have the desired constrictive effect without inviting drivers to tum. The greater constriction at this point will encourage drivers to bypass the neighborhood rather than simply bypass Chorro. Request: Add to the plan removal of the left turn lane on Chorro at Lincoln. 4. Issue: Broad/Murray intersection. Speed and safety. • Vehicles on Broad speed through this intersection. This is dangerous. Speed needs to be controlled. •The exit onto Broad from Murray has limited visibility. For intersection safety, speed on Broad needs to be controlled. • Cars town-bound on Broad zip into Murray, making a wide, fast turn. This is dangerous to neighboring property (there have been car sideswipes on Murray from excessive speed due to this turn) and to pedestrians, who frequently are not given the right of way and find themselves the target of an on-coming vehicle. Some means must therefore be found to control the high-speed, wide turns onto Murray. Solution: Reinstall the former stop signs on Broad at Murray. This will bring traffic to a halt, so speed through the intersection in all directions will be under control, and pedestrians have a fighting chance to cross safely. An alternative might be a traffic circle in Broad at the end of Murray, though, frankly, I don't understand how this will work. Stop signs are a proven way to solve the problem. Request: Add this solution for the Broad/Murray Intersection to the plan. 5. ladle• Broad/Meinecke/Ramona intersection. Safety. Volume control. • Pedestrian safety crossing Ramona.The corner radius where Ramona joins Broad is too large on the south side of Ramona. Pedestrians crossing Ramona northwards at Broad cannot clearly see cars, nor be seen by them, until they are off the curb. Meanwhile, the cars are coming down Ramona at an excessively high rate of speed, their drivers intent on.seeing whether other vehicles are coming from the left so they can whip right onto Broad without a full stop, and not thinking of pedestrians. This south corner needs rebuilding for pedestrian safety. Doing so will also slow cars. (Note, north corner radius is good.) • Cut-through traffic: Ramona to Broad/Meinecke/Murray. Ramona (4,500 vehicles per day) has become a cut-off alternate to Foothill, feeding through traffic directly into the Broad/Chorro neighborhood. The plan totally ignores this fact. Without controlling this illicit traffic chute into the neighborhood, it will be next-to-impossible to reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic. Schmidt,Traffic Taming, Page 4 -- • Previously approved Ramona/Broad/Meinecke traffic calming measures. Several years ago, the Council approved and funded major improvements at this intersection (and also Meinecke/Chorro), but the Community Development Director, under the pretext of performing a CEQA study, killed the project and thus negated the council's approval. What happened to the funds?They could be used now for the proposed modified project. • Meinecke/Broad intersection. With the narrowing of Chorro northbound at Foothill from two lanes to one, and the proposed alterations to Chorro/Foothill signal, constriction will be created there which will encourage Foothill-bound traffic to cut across Meinecke (or Murray or Lincoln) to Broad and then Ramona to Foothill. Meinecke (and probably Murray, Lincoln and Broad as well) deserves mitigation for this predictable increase in outbound cut-through traffic. Solution: An all-in-one solution would be reconstructing the Ramona/Broad intersection so as to prevent/prohibit right turns from Ramona onto Broad. This would improve pedestrian safety, shut off the illicit flow of through-neighborhood traffic from the Ramona cutoff, and help mitigate the out-bound traffic increase on Meinecke by ridding the street of all the in-bound cut-throughs from Ramona. (Remember, a basic assumption of the traffic calming plan is that through traffic remains on Foothill long enough to be affected by its discouragement of turning onto Chorro; if traffic is already in the neighborhood chute -- i.e., Ramona-- it will behave otherwise than according to the plan's assumptions.) A schematic of this idea is included as Exhibit 1. (in addition, the Council needs to give serious thought to extending the traffic calming district to Ramona to slow its excessive and dangerous speeds.) Request: Add to the plan this redesign of the Broad/Ramona Intersection. 6. Issue: Broad Street freeway ramps. As long as the neighborhood's streets serve as freeway on- ramps, it will be difficult to control cut-through traffic and speed. (Psychologically, people are "on the freeway" the minute they hit Broad.) These ramps are antiquated and dangerous. Rather than improve them, the council should take the considered advice of its Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Task Force, both of which recommended a long-range plan to improve the freeway on/off opportunities at Santa Rosa, and to close the little, antiquated ramps that dump traffic into neighborhoods. Note: this is a long-range plan. Given the glacial speed with which CalTrans moves, objections from anyone with gray hair should be dismissed on grounds they are unlikely to live to see the plan come to fruition! Request: That the Council immediately modify the Circulation Element to show eventual closure of the Broad Street freeway ramps, and Initiate discussions with CalTrans on this and on improving freeway access at Santa Rosa. (See also #9.) 7. Issue, Broad/Foothill signal. Encourages right turns onto Broad, thereby getting cars into the "chute." Builds driver frustration, so that even if they don't turn on Broad, they're thinking about turning on Chorro "to get out of this damned slow traffic." • From the moment this traffic signal went in, it increased cut-through traffic by its inordinately long red lights for Foothill traffic. Frequently one can sit at the signal for what seems like minutes at a time and observe traffic move in no direction. This is a truly wacko signal. The signal is also totally unnecessary. It is not needed to control traffic on Foothill. It is not needed to permit right turns from Broad onto Foothill. Nobody needs a signal here to turn left on Foothill — at the few times of the day when traffic on Foothill is heavy enough that assistance with a left tum is really needed, a motorist can proceed to the next intersection in either direction, Chorro (a mere one building lot distant!) or Tassajara, both of which have signals. (Note that cars turn left unaided from the shopping center driveway just a few hundred feet from this signal with little difficulty!) Removal of this signal would help alleviate motorist frustration with Foothill traffic, which causes them to turn into the neighborhood, and would make it more likely that cars remain on Foothill rather than cutting through the neighborhood. The city should admit that it made an expensive error installing this signal, and Schmidt,Traffic Taming, Page 5 — remove it. Solution:Take the signal out of service -- red blinker on Broad, yellow on Foothill, for six months, and see if this causes any serious problems. When you thus establish that the signal is unneeded, remove it. Request: That this traffic signal solution (blinker trial followed by potential removal) be Incorporated Into the neighborhood traffic calming plan. g, Issue: Congestion at Foothill/Santa Rosa. Relieve it for right turns onto Santa Rosa. - If there is to be any hope of getting though traffic out of our neighborhood, serious attention needs to be paid to alleviating real and perceived bottlenecks on alternate arterial routes. Foothill/Broad is addressed above. Foothill/Chorro is addressed in the plan. The next congestion point is Foothill/Santa Rosa. At present, straight-ahead and right-turn traffic mix in the right lane. The signals are long. Right-turners get stuck behind straight-aheaders. This frustrates drivers headed for town, and is one of the major causes of neighborhood cut-through traffic. For town-bound traffic, there needs to be a more-or-less continuous right turn lane. Past thinking has focused on street widening as a necessary prerequisite for this to happen. This has assumed that a costly and messy condemnation against the Texaco station would be required. Thus, the lane is not likely to happen under that scenario. believe some less costly and less disruptive combination of restriping, resigning traffic lanes (why not have a right-lane-must-turn-right designation?, for example), perhaps minor widening -- these could produce a right turn lane in the short term at little monetary cost. (This turn lane is included in the Circulation Element, Appendix D.) Request: That the council direct staff to return in the Immediate future with one or more low- cost, short-timeframe mechanisms to accommodate a right turn lane from Foothill onto Santa Rosa, and incorporate the creation of such a lane Into the traffic calming plan. g. Issues Congestion on Santa Rosa Traffic signals on stateop rtion. • The traffic signal at Murray is inevitable. It is short, and causes minimal problems on Santa Rosa. • Signals at Walnut and Olive.These slow up traffic on Santa Rosa. In-bound they are typically red. Outbound, they are not coordinated with city signals, and are typically red. These could be rendered unnecessary, and could be removed. Here is how. 1. Working with CalTrans, resign the freeway exits. The signs would be explicitly directional- " 1 Northbound, Morro Bay/Hearst Castle, Cal Poly, Santa Rosa Street North ONLY this exit" "Downtown, Amtrak, Santa Rosa Street South ONLY this exit" 2. This would make it possible for each of the exits onto Santa Rosa to work as "right turn only" intersections. Nobody would need to turn left. Nobody would need to go straight ahead. 3. If this were done, the signals could be eliminated. They would no longer be needed. Best of all, this would be a cheap solution. No new interchange would be needed! Request: Add to the plan a commitment to undertake this modified freeway signage/traffic signal removal as a near-term action to be taken In conjunction with CalTrans. 10. Issue. Public awareness. In dealing effectively with the public action of driving through someone else's neighborhood in a thoughtless and neighborhood-damaging way, we need to make some assumptions: •That people are basically decent to one another. •When they aren't, they're probably just not thinking. The neighborhood cut-through/speed problems will be solved ultimately only when people outside the neighborhood decide to cooperate with correcting the problems. Engwicht's quote is appropriate. Public education is an essential adjunct to physical traffic taming mechanisms. Schmidt,Traffic Taming, Page 6 -- To raise public awareness, we need collectively to make an effort to do so. The city has undertaken numerous public education campaigns to alter public awareness of one thing or another: San Luis Obispo is a nice place to visit (for tourists), water is too precious to waste (for water conservation), etc. It is time the city began trying to educate its citizens to be more considerate of one another's neighborhoods. I recommend a multi-pronged effort that could include education about the effects of cut-through traffic on other peoples' quality of life as well as promoting modal shift alternatives to reduce city-wide traffic. This could be a public/private effort, using the.joint possibilities open through direct education as well as the voluntary cooperation of merchant/employer/industrialist groups whose activities do so much to increase traffic. Request: That the council add to the plan a comprehensive educational program aimed at educating the public why they should drive on arteries rather than residential streets, and encouraging transportation modal shifts. I've offered a lot of suggestions. It is absolutely clear that solving our neighborhood's traffic problems requires more than just bumps. stop_signs and circles on Chorro Street. I hope this holistic view of solving the problem has been helpful. Please expand the plan to provide equal protection for all neighborhood streets. I urge you to Incorporate these 10 solutions Into the neighborhood traffic calming plan. Thank you. Sincerely, R Richard Schmidt Attachment: Exhibit 1: Schematic redesign Ramona/Broad intersection. —Schmidt,Traffic Taming,Page 7— J I I d �'Ai 3 IEWvlUNA n ® lees 2 � I ffw �- l V1Tb T5l of <r T�aINLUVIG MBNECKE ( �i�vwam No r q4+ -f V_Y-A ; al( �aVKO tOL 4 a-� G vvLo5f b I�-aT !a v w i�{ L v►.e i C'GN GEi�ty L FEDIE 5 I G ty D� ��110{V� 1���D v1�tw�.uv►�evtf, Dbs�w�s 2 SF TION NA 4-o sale '°FniXsAGENDAncrx . RE- IIFMr CHORRO - 85 % SPEEDS - AVG . 1964 - 74 33 . 7 mph 1981 - 85 34 . 0 mph 1993 34 . 8 mph 1995 32 . 8 mph NO. CHORRO TRAFFIC SPEED STUDIES Posted Date Location 85% Speed 1-26-93 Foothill/Murray 32 mph 30 mph 1-26-93 Murray-Mission 36 mph 30 mph 1-26-93 Mission-Center 36 mph 30 mph 1 -28-93 Center-Lincoln 36 mph 30 mph 1-28-93 Lincoln-Peach 34 mph 25 mph Avg. Speed 34.8 mph 10-26-95 N/Rougeot 29.9 mph 11-2-95 S/Meinecke 28.9 mph 11-13-95 S/West 34.6 mph 11-13-95 S/Mission 35.1 mph 11-13-95 S/Center 35.4 mph Avg. Speed 32.8 mph �RMATION CHORRO ;T. TRAFFIC INF February 1996 Location Date Count Remarks N/0 Meinecke 10-20-89 91536 if 10-17-91 81228 Traffic decreased if 1 -15-92 81564 2149 cars (22.5%) it 3-23-95 79919 in six years. N/O Rougeot 10-23-95 7,387 N/O Murray 9-14-88 10,204 S/Meinecke 10-20-89 91946 N/Murray 1-14-91 91231 Traffic decreased S/Meinecke 2-7-91 91975 940 cars (9.2%) N/Murray 5-16-91 102442 in 7.1 years. " 10-17-91 81877 " 1 -30-92 91034 " 3-23-93 81099 S/Meinecke 10-30-95 91264 S/Murray 1-14-91 10,718 if 5-23-91 10,966 Traffic decreased " 10-17-91 127409 703 cars (6.6%) " 11 -15-91 11 ,611 in 4.9 years. 3-4-92 11 ,504 S/West 11-13-95 109015 N/Lincoln 3-21 -85 127657 " 3-25-88 11 ,629 Traffic decreased 9-26-91 139821 2,457 cars (19.4%) " 1-15-92 10,955 in 10.7 years. S/Center 11-13-95 10,200 i r .. ... ci CL LL0 Vas O � M Q W N o o Chorro Area Traffic Plan Presentation Outline 1. Our Plan a. Design specifics b. All things considered 2. Background: Why save a neighborhood? 3. Our consensus building process a. Time lines b. Opportunities to participate 4. Wrap up Chau Area Ti PIm 1. Our Plan a Design specifics b. All things considered 2. Backgrouad Why save a aXP 3. Our consensus buff ft process a. Tm c Ames b. w1i t w pwtico to 4. Wrap up V4£ipCFNW MITE CHORRO - 85 % SPEEDS - AVG . 1 96 4 - 74 - 33 . 7 mph 19 $ 1 - 85 34 . 0 mph 19,93 3.4 . 8 imph 1995 32 . 8 mph NO. CHORRO TRAFFIC SPEED STUDIES Posted Date Location 85% Speed 1-26-93 Foothill/Murray 32 mph 30 mph 1-26-93 Murray-Mission 36 mph 30 mph 1-26-93 Mission-Center 36 mph . 30 mph 1-28-93 Center-Lincoln 36 mph 30 mph 1-28-93 Lincoln-Peach 34 mph 25 mph Avg. Speed 34.8 mph 10-26-95 N/Rougeot 29.9 mph 11-2-95 S/Meinecke 28.9 mph 11-13-95 S/West 34.6 mph 11-13-95 S/Mission 35.1 mph 11-13-95 S/Center 35.4 mph Avg. Speed 32.8 mph CHORRO ^T. TRAFFIC INF''RMATION February 1996 Location Date Count Remarks N/O Meinecke 10-20-89 91536 if 10-17-91 81228 Traffic decreased " 1 -15-92 81564 2149 cars (22.5%) 3-23-95 71919 in six years. N/O Rougeot 10-23-95 71387 N/O Murray 9-14-88 10,204 S/Meinecke 10-20-89 91946 N/Murray 1 -14-91 91231 Traffic decreased S/Meinecke 2-7-91 91975 940 cars (9.2%) N/Murray 5-16-91 10,442 in 7.1 years. if 10-17-91 81877 it 1-30-92 91034 If 3-23-93 81099 S/Meinecke 10-30-95 91264 S/Murray 1 -14-91 10,718 If 5-23-91 10,966 Traffic decreased 10-17-91 12,409 703 cars (6.6%) 11-15-91 11 ,611 in 4.9 years. 3-4-92 11 ,504 S/West 11 -13-95 101015 N/Lincoln 3-21-85 12,657 3-25-88 113629 Traffic decreased If 9-26-91 13,821 2,457 cars (19.4%) 1-15-92 10,955 in 10.7 years. S/Center 11 -13-95 103200 r ... .. CC • _ a L « ao W « J CD .- m w is to to cs Q eo w cc N • � rte,• R p C2 MEETING AGENDA DATE . r .� ITEM # Retain this docufmM for future CounciPmeeting ;2 _2D _Qlo - 3 — Dat§,it agendszed �drea/4 iv Aims 9 3 VA �QLis�L�u_ cif�B-e. v_o� /w� � u 01 0001� o f}C�9-C7 RECEIVED --FEB--'1199C— CITY FEB y1990-CITY COUNCIL ML MG AGENDA � DATE ao ITEM # RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail:rrschnUd®oboe.alx.calpoly.edu February 17, 1996 ReAslay Hill Subdivision Rezoning To the City Council: You will remember that I was one of the leaders of the Islay Hill Referendum in 1991, and that we won big on election day. The people of San Luis Obispo repudiated the plan for the subdivision (though legally we could only do that by rescinding the zoning that permitted it). The part of the subdivision before you tonight for rezoning was one of the major reasons I and others pursued the referendum. You are being asked to subvert the referendum's outcome. I request that you abide by the will of the people, who rejected precisely the zoning now being requested, by directing the developer to process a revised subdivision map that makes use of the preexisting (i.e., pre-referendum) R-2 zoning which the people of this city said was what they wanted. This will also make the subdivision compliant with the Edna Islay Specific Plan, which was adopted after a prolonged public review and was supposed to govern the development of this area. This is, In my mind, a major issue, and for the council to repudiate the referendum In an election year, could have interesting consequences. The issue here is affordable housing opportunities. The Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP), while not a perfect document, did provide for a mix of housing types and costs . throughout the planned area. Towards that end, it included two substantial areas of R-2 zoning within the Islay portion of the planned area.-- one along Tank Farm Road (already developed).and the other towards the interior, near the adobe, which is the subject of the present rezoning request. This R-2 zoning is the zoning restored to the property by the referendum of 1991. R-2 allows for apartments or condominiums, and both of these forms of housing are inherently more affordable than single family homes. In the Edna section of the planned area, the French brothers did a good job with their R-2, developing the lovely little "condolet"duplexes that sold initially for"affordable" prices and have become a housing asset to the city. They also fit harmoniously into the single family neighborhoods around Q-COUNCIL 7LMLDIR IR" '-}CAO}ACAO HIEF RECEIVED . e-AVORNEY WZLERKrORIG CHF Schmidt, Islay Rezoning, Page 1 E FEB 2 u 1996 ❑ MGMT TEAMIRd7C FILEIR CTYCOUNCIL¢AN LUSOBISPO.CA � IR When it came time for approval of the Islay area, a Southern California.developer, Pacifica Corp. (progenitors of the anywheresville Orange County-style subdivision already there), decided to pull a scam on the EISP's affordable housing promise, and persuaded a compliant Council to go along with allowing relatively costly single-family houses on tiny lots in violation of the EISP's requirement for more affordable housing types in this area. This was purely greed-driven on their part. They didn't care a hoot about affordable housing opportunities for our citizens. Many people in town, however, did, and we cried "foul!" When the Council refused to listen to reason, we chose to use the blunt instrument of a referendum to stop this ripoff of housing opportunities for the non-affluent, and this blatant violation of the EISP. The community's response was overwhelming. A healthy city needs to have a variety of housing types, and the R-2 zoning for this site helps assure this will be the case in this new area. Healthy neighborhoods also have a variety of housing stock. We must remember that most of San Luis Obispo's new housing stock will be built in a few "expansion areas" like Edna-Islay. If we fail to provide housing variety there, where will we provide it? Therefore, in the interests of housing diversity and providing housing cost alternatives, l quest #hat You direct the developer to stick with the specific plan's mandate for affordable R-2 housing on this site -- and you might also suggest that something more attractive and neighbor-friendly than their recently-completed barracks along Tank Farm is in order. Thank you. Richard Schmidt Schmidt, Islay Rezoning, Page 2 ME .PNG AGENDA y.. COUNCIL LTCDQDIR PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT SAO ❑ FlN DIR Ci--%CAO O FIRE CHIEF G-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING RunDRu3 ❑ POLICE CHF - 13 TEAM ❑ REC DIR Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 c R FILE ❑ U11L DIR j � ❑ PERS DIR The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffFZME,VED EEB 'l U 1990 Name Address clrrcocN� rloS�f ren SAN &Jresfu,eto Circle. r < C' t WA o 4 S 39oI 14 Loi Z:25 p `i 385 ulau{yt-��, Sly, a3�£al u ' SAC_,, L_ -S CM PC> CSA- 43eeo t - t,ll 3ID3 ArPil .t DD ,__- . YUI li of l .ZI c - a 3Yd j 1pa9 e' PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address (900drouy, 3 WuV �e/- tree 5�.� i iY S V'. • S •� 1 y3 of 0 '4 59&)(IX1�� s34 e L(535 .rz��re� a 5LU CA qwd i 014 . 473%0 l 7c CC j2 E 1-/& 7 _90)r cuae�n X31 L nvgAr y t 4L_0 1_f4 2, PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address AL T - G �. CLQ ��a rjo�Je0 157 S,4 iJ kLe nB i S Pc C' ?se iia L O6;s��• R. c� kz } � b /9 S S D 6� 53 PL 3 PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In.the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development, a low density, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed development pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe that there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, , and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address 1-1374 D (:� . SLo , C'I,,, 9 yo J _y.4 7y o%u qol 3sv &&e Ce7�— 01�7Zi 9.3/o ani,uc,.,(A�-- 0 �y� Sly 1140)Q, --�l Ig 6 AJA _�36 CJ�ch_-rhe -7-3'1a/ sco 93�Ia 1 / Uq3(,p wQLer re-e 5L.0 ct3gol y PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re. 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 . The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development, a low density, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed development pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe that there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, I and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address 'ix-) am .5-L .A . S LO ��- ��/a Q)a&c:L,yj, Gam. 7 l p l ..------ 1117 c c. S PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address iV/2,3 As1 irnc, e SF � (,a 5 3 Flo/ S-t o t�l 5�yo •� i �(J1��G��l 1�1�i V lair, 7 A!)h0)rjy:e /0/'4�V t2 LO 1 Cid - � \y�z Cashmr�re. Sr• C� <''aA' v!s OX15 pa ('.¢-4 3Y01 i4.33 Rshmorc St '!1�,.�.�.�,�.Q �y/ C.k - San ►-k„ Ub��no C ►�--. 93LFG1 14375 TA ue ,S St,iT 3' I 115 �ShtMP'6_ 6t, 4110 43 0l PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. 'Name Address zz !�!Tor9 , � . GW iliPe, 'T L412— Q2: PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. /-Name Address CL(2GG�et GCG� GA32T ✓VQ✓P �►��a R ma���n w a *379 Vla✓•e4­4ree. I O — CR 93yo� dL.Y•4 ` _Iyo/ qtr t cG`� C� 79 2U Ste. L� Cwt CJV` e u r 3�d PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OFHIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development, a low density, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed development pose a serious threat to the cldldren residin in the Arbors. We believe that there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, , and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address 43 v 7 IAOW Go /� V(D �� t��eP.yi l(lPi�lP, /3 .� Liz z.� 41,-6 934'0 /J are1c�zkJ Ld 93 0 13,5�/ /RORJ[-3AB K / Ca, I3 �CAlf/�Ms 13c,, 7 5tz PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000'square .feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address "AJ i.397 :�- (/� off q3 Vol PETITION FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH AND LOW DENSITY HOUSING Re: 4411 Brookpine Drive, PD 139-95 The undersigned are concerned about the effect of the proposed high density homes on the health and safety of the children residing in the Arbors development. High density developments should be located near major traffic arteries. In the proposed development currently before the City Council, the high density development is located away from the major street, and the residents will be forced to drive through the existing Arbors development. a low desity, family-oriented neighborhood. The increased traffic from the existing and proposed deveopment pose a serious threat to the children residing in the Arbors. We believe there should be no lots less than 6,000 square feet, and that trees should be planted to create more of a family neighborhood. We urge the City Council to consider the 'effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and the dangerous precedent of locating high density housing away from major traffic arteries. Name Address k,,h JU )bi - 1 �l I THIS ITEM James& Shannon Cox CONTINUED TO 4374 Olea Ct. San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Q;l �I,a��as•>I RECEIVED February 5, 1996 FEB u iyyb CITY COUNCIL SAN ' • eA Dear City Council, As homeowners in the Arbors, we ar opposed to the increased density plan being proposed a the end of Wavertree. Our property values have already decreased 15% to 20% over the last several years. We feel this proposed development would further decrease our property values. Increased traffic and congestion would make our neighborhood a less desirable place to live. As a couple that was raised in the Bay Area we feel fortunate to have escaped the crime and congestion we had to live with. Please, we beg of you not to make the same mistake of other city council members that allowed greedy developers to squeeze as many homes as they could in the smallest area possible. This ruined neighborhoods, overloaded school districts and increased crime. In conclusion, we would like to say that San Luis Obispo is one of the most beautiful places to live in the Country. Please don't ruin the small town atmosphere that everybody loves. Sincerely, /, n v ' `IIX, �[ !a'COUNCIL CDD DIR / ` eCAO ❑ FIN DIR tD James D. Co 'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF eATrORNEY ❑ PW DIR Shannon E. Cox UrCLERKORIG ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGMrTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ rREAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR .._........:.............. .......... THIS ITl:N GOULD & STAKE �{'q r;NL'Eo TO A Professional Low Coroaradon 'a''2'0 it 11: A SC:ho.�,h2 710 GRAND AVENUE TELEPN0NE(808)489.1386 ARROYO GRANDE,CALIFORNIA 03620 FAR 180614899186 RONALD I.GOULD E-1ALL WCLAW@AOLCOAL ROBERT B.6TANE VALERM a GOULD February 5, 1996 RECE1�/LD j7ACDD DIR ;FEB f B 0 iyy� ❑ FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ PW DIR 990 Palm Street 15AN�m COUNCIL' ❑ POUCE CHF San Luis Obispo, California 93405 ',NC'1L ❑ REC DIRRes Planned Development Rezoning (PD 139-95) ❑ UTII DIR4411 Brookpine Street 1] PERS DIR Council Members: We have had the opportunity to review the proposed development rezoning to allow smaller lots and increased density near the existing Arbors development in San Luis Obispo. This project represents a compromise in principles of the worst sort, and should be disallowed. When the specific amendment to the General Plan was adopted allowing development of the Islay Hill area, the planning commission and city council sought to allow a variety of housing densities to reflect the anticipated needs of the City and properly allow for its managed growth. These admirable intentions had to be tempered with the economic realities of the individuals who were proposing the amendment and project. Put plainly, a builder will not invest in a development that does not have a reasonable opportunity of returning his investment with a profit. At the time, the builders saw that low density single family homes were the highest and best use of the available land.Since it would make no sense to build empty roads to put these low density uses in the middle of a larger, mixed use development, the builders sought approval to put the low density uses around the perimeter. This represents the fundamental conflict of purposes which led to this ill conceived plan The builder wants single family homes, the City wants mixed densities. The builder and the City compromised by allowing the single family homes to be built, with the idea that the mixed densities in this area would be part of another project at a later date. The fundamental conflict of needs was thus deferred. But that later date is now. What this compromise has left us with is a current builder (Hertel & Sons) who sees the same wisdom that was evident 10 years ago. The highest and best use for this land remains single family homes, not medium and higher density uses. We are informed that this builder proposed and was denied the opportunity to use 6,000 foot minimum lot sizes in this project. To accommodate this purpose, they are being put in the position of requesting lot size reductions so a low density residence so it can be placed on a medium density lot. This represents an even worse compromise. When the City adopted the new General Plan, it included the original compromise that got the original Arbors homes built. That compromise was to include medium and high density uses near the existing homes. The great fallacy here is in carrying on what was in effect, a mistake. The City did not correctly anticipate the needs for this area in terms of housing densities. To perpetuate the error for future developments would be a worse mistake. The Council must have the courage and will to say we are not bound by this amendment, now part of the General Plan, which imprudently places higher densities in the center of a low density neighborhood. We can amend"the plan to reflect the needs of the community which are for single family homes on adequately sized lots. San Luis Obispo City Council February 5, 1996 Page 2 Let's consider the effect of allowing a large quantity of low density-sized houses on medium density-sized lots. The residents who purchase these homes are bound to have children. Some percentage may be'empty nest" buyers whose children are grown and gone, but it would be foolish to rely on that fact in estimating the quantity of kids this development would put on the street The kids are going to be on the streets precisely because their homes have no adequate yards for them to play. It is admirable that the Islay Hill Park is Finally, albeit slowly, being constructed. But is delusory to assume that it is going to be the place where this new influx of children will play. The park will assume the role of all city parks; a place to go, perhaps even frequently, to play and relax. But do not equate that as a substitute for adequate living space at home. The majority of the time, and for the majority of the kids, their play area will be the streets of an admittedly overcrowded project. This fact is most particularly true of younger children who may not have parental permission to go to a park a few blocks away rather than staying closer to home. Finally, let's consider the effect of this project on the existing Arbors neighborhood. Allowing 70 plus homes in an area that should hold perhaps 40 or less, means an additional traffic burden on Brookpine and Wavertree Streets. Regardless of the design intents when these streets were put in, the fact remains that they are neighborhood streets which will necessarily have to absorb the ingress and egress of these new homeowners. Both streets slope downward from Tank Farm Road. This creates a natural tendency for traffic to speed up. Residents here are very sensitive to traffic speeds because of the quantity of small children already present Allowing higher density development in an area where higher density uses do not even make economic sense to the builder, will only serve to make these streets approach dangerous safety levels for the existing residents. The builder of this project has economic survival at stake in proposing the best uses for this land. Were he to put in pure medium density housing as the General Plan reflects, his analysis shows that he could not build and sell them fast enough to recoup his investment The use that makes sense, both in terms of economic reality and what is clearly best for the City, is a further specific amendment to the General Plan to allow low density single family homes on this property. This is an opportunity for the Council to show both leadership and courage. Deny this planned development rezoning project, and invite an amendment to allow low density uses on this property. Sincerely, Robert &Valerie Stake 4512 Wavertree Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805) 549-8441 I►.__f ING AGENDA� DATE - -& ITEM # February 20, 1996 MEMORANDUM ; TO: City Council FROM: Allen K Sett SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION ITEM: KSBY REQUEST On Friday, the City received the attached request from KSBY concerning their desire to relocate their operation to the former Loco Ranchero Restaurant on Calle Joaquine. Due to timing imperatives, KSBY is requesting that the City use the annual "floating request" for the needed General Plan amendment so their application can be processed without having to await the next "batch" of amendments. I am asking that the City Council refer this request to staff, and direct staff to return with a recommendation concerning their request on the March 5, 1996 Council meeting. The staffs recommendation would relate only to the General Plan amendment process ("floating request"). The actual processing of the General Plan, amendment, zone change, and project applications would follow the usual course through the Planning Commission, ARC, and Council. AKS:ss Attachment ,�NCp, CDD DIR O CAO 0 FIN CIA KACao 0 FIRE CHIEF e�NEY C3 PW CIA [T CWRKDRIO 0 POLICE CMF 0 MOW TEAM E3REC CIA C R D FILE O UTIL DIR j. 0 PERE CIA „yy F 467 HU Sheet San LWs Obispo,CA 93405 805.541.6666 11=805,S41-5142 AWA 1� KSBY February 16, 1996 Mayor Alan Settle City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: As a follow-up to our meeting last week this is to advise your office and appropriate city officials that KSBY would like to relocate their operations and facilities to the former Loco Ranchero Restaurant at 1772 Calle Joaquin in San Luis Obispo. This relocation has 2 positive effects for the community: 1. It enables KSBY to relocate from its current location in a primarily residential neighborhood on Hill Street. 2. The relocation provides a more functional and attractive utilization of the former restaurant building. On December 31, 1996 it is imperative that we have a new location for our signals and technical equipment. Our separation from KSBW TV in Salinas, from where we currently receive our signal, will be completed. We understand that relocation to 1772 Calle Joaquin will require a general plan amendment and zoning change. It is requested that the change be to Office or other appropriate zoning designation. As you might expect, timing is critical. Delaying consideration by the Planning Commission until May is not practical. It is requested that City Council direct staff to use this as the annual "floating request" and initiate proceedings on this general plan amendment and zoning change immediately. Please contact me with any questions. W Richard B. Armfield President and General Manager xc: John Mandeville RECEIVED Ken Hampion FEB 1._6 1996 CITY COUNCIL %AN , - n.01QDn I`4 �. MEEAGENDA DATE ITEM # &W.&. - February 20, 1996 MEMORANDUM i TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Allen K. Settle SUBJECT: Funding Request At this time of mid-year budget adjustments I would like to propose that the Council request funding for an optical scanner and a laptop computer for use by Administration and the City Clerk's office. Purchase of this equipment will increase our capability and productivitiy. The cost of an optical scanner is in the $1,000 range, with the laptop in the $1,500 - $2,000 range. AKS:ss c: CAO ACAO Ef'OOUNCIL ❑ coo DIR V A0 ❑ FIN DIR WACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF G�ATTORNEY ❑ P.W DIR �CLERIUORI(3 ❑ POLICE CHF .❑ MOMTTEAM O RECDIR ❑rC READ FILE ❑ UTIL'DIR j•�p ❑ PER$bIR ,