Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2014 PH1 Vujovich-LaBarre 2sln1r nr• rtnLeP gnrw [ nt.irnB }rE_I Hntuset�Rrl 4 iNS�.Y. -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 -5415 PHONE (405) 549 -3101 FAX (405) 549 -3329 7I'Y 711 www.dot.ca.gov/dist05 June 16, 2014 Mr. Timothy. Bochum Deputy Director of Public Works City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SAN LUIS RANCH DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Bochum: COUNCIL MEETING: 17 Ll ITEM NO.:_ 'V,,bOka b� Kla 14 ovi'th *L0,-Z)r-rC_ �.J Serious drought. Help save water! 1 I SLO CITY CLERK In anticipation of the San Luis Ranch development proposal, for which the city is beginning to consider, this letter is provided for early guidance on traffic circulation and infrastructure needs related to the state highway system. We recognize the importance of this project to the city and offer this in a spirit of partnership and in support of mutual goals for a safe and efficient transportation system. The San Luis Ranch project is located on the former Dalidio property adjacent and west of US 101, between the Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road interchanges. Although some information developed for the former San Luis Marketplace project may still be. relevant, many factors and circumstances have changed over the decades of time since passed. As we discussed at a February 27, 2014 meeting together with staff from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and the Regional Transit Authority, the city should not regard past decisions or any implied commitments related to US 101 as foregone conclusions, including but not limited to constructing a new interchange at Prado Road. Central to this discussion is access to US 101. For traveler safety and operational integrity of the freeway, a new interchange in an urban location such as this must be no closer than one mile to the next interchange. Because the Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road interchanges are less than two -miles apart now, this requirement cannot be met for a new Prado Road interchange. Recognizing the city's stated desire to pursue new access as an option, however, it is critical for the city to establish a clear purpose and need for any new proposal. In support of that pursuit, we offer these suggestions: • Conduct a thorough subarea traffic analysis of the circulation across, along and including the US 101 corridor between Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. Evaluate a full range of options to mitigate the traffic impacts of the new development in a progressive sequence, to include: (1) making local circulation improvements only, (2) establishing new local access only across US 101, without connections, eliminating the existing northbound ramps, (3) modifying access at the two existing full access Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient unnsportalion syslenr to enhance Californta's econonty and livability " Timothy Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works June 16, 2014 Page 2 interchanges, and (4) establishing a new connection with a full or partial access interchange at Prado Road. Should the analysis support new access at this location, the city should also anticipate the potential for numerous exceptions to design standards for a project on the State Highway system. While interchange spacing will be among the more critical factors to address, a variety of other features and standards must be considered together and will be equally important to ensure that a safe and effective product design will result. In addition, other features unique to the project site will require careful consideration: Floodplain - The drainage characteristics of the project location are well documented. The addition of impervious surface to the ranch property has significant implications for San Luis Creek and US 101. A revised flood plain map may be required by FEMA. Caltrans cannot approve any improvements or modifications to State Highway facilities until FEMA requirements are satisfied. In addition to coordinating with Caltrans' experts and FEMA, we suggest the city also coordinate with San Luis Obispo County and other agencies when approaching this subject. For more detailed information regarding hydrology and flooding with respect to the State Highway please contact Mr. Ben Erchul of the District Hydraulics Department at (805) 549 -3391. Aviation safety and Airport Impacts - The San Luis Ranch property is proximal to take -off and landing approaches for all runways at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Locating new residential and commercial development within and around these flight paths raises questions regarding airport operations and safety. We suggest that the city consult directly with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics prior to issuing an RFP. Please contact Mr. Terry Barrie, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, at (916) 654 -4151 to initiate a dialog on this topic. In conclusion, Caltrans values our partnership with the city of San Luis Obispo, and we look forward to participating in the upcoming scoping meeting regarding the development proposal. If you need to discuss these issues further with Caltrans please contact Mr. Larry Newland of my staff at (805) 549 -3103. Sincerely, At een K. Loe Deputy District Director Planning and Local Assistance "Provide_a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transporlation system to enhance California's economy and livability" TF Minutes, Dec 4, 2013 Subject: TF Minutes, Dec 4, 2013 From: Sandra Rowley <macsar99 @yahoo.com> Date: 11/29/2014 11:45 PM To: Carolyn Smith <ke6hng @att.net> [Note: Chris Richardspn recused himself from the vote] ''Staff wanted us to include a statement (in the Airport Land Use chapter of the LUE) encouraging the council to override the Airport Land Use Commission. We declined to do that. Instead we agreed unanimously on the following wording. The Task Force supports the City Council's efforts to have fact based consideration of noise and safety zones and recommends the Council consider the proposed airport policies and their legal ramifications. (December 4, 2013 - Meeting #29) I don't recall (or believe) that we were provided with an "overlay" of the actual airport safety zones, nor how they specifically affected any of the proposed developments -- until we received various documents in preparation for the December 2013 meeting where we were to discuss the LUE's airport chapter. At that time we were given a drawing of the airport safety zones that included a symbol showing where each plane had crashed as well as the consultant's report. By the way, if you were not given the safety zones drawing that includes the airplane symbols where crashes occurred, recommend you ask for it; a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. Re: our discussion about the safety zones and overriding them, here are the minutes for that item. Airport Land Use Chapter (TF -LUCE Minutes, Dec 4, 2013, pages 5 & 6) Member Juhnke stated that the Airport Land Safety zones described by the Airport Land Use Commission encompass a wider area of control than the City's Airport Land Use Compatibility Draft Report because the Airport Land Use Commission wants to keep development far away from the airport to protect airport operations. He stated that this has led to difficulties for the City's land use planning. There was discussion about background information provided in the Compatibility Draft Report which was compiled by experts and is based upon scientifically - determined technical data. Community Development Director Johnson stated that, under State law, the City must refer the LUCE update to the Airport Land Use Commission for their consideration as to consistency with their own Airport Land Use Plan, after which the City Council will consider input from the State and the Airport Land Use Commission's review, and then can decide whether to override the Airport Land Use Plan which can be done by a 4 /5ths vote. Member Saunders stated she is fascinated with the difference between the City considering overriding the Airport Land Use Plan while having to be consistent with "SLOCOG's efforts." She stated that she sees a double standard. Member Rademaker stated that SLOCOG actually builds things, such as the LOVR interchange, while the Airport Land Use Commission is just making rules. Community Development Director Johnson stated that the City does not have to be consistent with SLOCOG and that State law is clear about the City's right to maintain sovereignty over land use. Member Rowley asked about the City's liability in the case of an aircraft accident if the City overrides the Airport Commission's denial. Community Development Director Johnson stated that there would be a shift in liability but that the Draft Report's map is nFi - 11/30/20147:05 PM TF Minutes, Dec 4, 2013 based upon the crash statistics and other data. Associate Planner David noted that future expansion of the airport has been taken into consideration. Member Multari stated he is sympathetic with the City's efforts and understands the Draft Report is based on scientific data but the Task Force has no way of knowing the liability involved and the Members are not experienced at dealing with this kind of information. He suggested forwarding the Draft Report to the City Council without either approval or disapproval. He noted he is expressing reservation with the process, not the content. Members Meyer and Brown agreed and stated they do not feel qualified or prepared to deal with this. On motion by Member Multari; -and seconded byl�lember Juhiike; to refer proposed updates to policies 7.1. and 7.2, and the two added policies to -the Council with the statement as follows: The Task Force supports the City Council's efforts to have fact based consideration of noise and safety zones and recommends the Council - consider the proposed airport policies and their legal ramifications. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser The. motion passed on a 13:0 vote. 2 of 2 11/30/2014 7:05 PM 1lanuary 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Task Force LUCE Minority Report Regarding Process and EIR Input Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, Prior to presenting our Minority Report we would like to express our gratitude to the 2008 and 2012 City Councils for their affirmation of the importance to the City of residents and established neighborhoods. Both councils directed that the process of updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements-was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based. Both councils directed that staff use legislative drafts to make proposed changes clear to residents, and both councils directed that the process start with primarily resident involvement. INTRODUCTION Each of you was elected by the residents of this city to look out for their welfare. We hope you will keep this in the forefront of your mind as you provide input to the EIR process and, later, when *you review the Land Use Element (LUE) update and the Circulation Element (CE) update. PROCESS We are extremely disappointed that Council direction was not routinely followed. 1. Meetings in the neighborhoods. Although two Councils were very clear that this process begin with meetings in the neighborhoods, such meetings never occurred. It appeared they were not part of the update plans. When reminded (several times) of the requirement for neighborhood meetings, staff instead set up roving workshops where residents, city -wide, could drop in throughout the day. This process did not allow for individual residential groups to assemble and provide their comments and concerns and it severely diluted each neighborhood's input When queried about holding meetings at various elementary schools for neighborhoods in the area we were told the $100 cost was too expensive. However, there were sufficient funds available to pay half of the $10,000 speaking fee for Peter Kageyama and purchase at least twenty copies of his book, For the Love of Cities. The City sponsored an Economic Task Force to "inform" the LUE /CE. The Sierra Club asked for an Environmental Task Force; their request was denied. Residents didn't know they needed a Task Force because the General Plan is very clear about the City's requirement to ensure early involve- ment of residents and to hold meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. 2. Survey. Both Councils directed that the questionnaire be based on the 1988 questionnaire and ___ include updated questions as needed. Instead questions were altered to the point that an accurate comparison could not be made. The reason given for the changes was to remove inflammatory language; however, substantive changes were, also, made. 3. Recorded votes, not consensus. Had it not been for the 2012 Council's specific direction, it is possible that assenting and dissenting votes would not have been recorded. Initially, as well as periodically thereafter, it was necessary for staff and other task force personnel to be reminded of the requirement to proceed by recorded vote and not by consensus. On September 18, 2013, the Task Force received the first, partially completed, element from the consultants to review. Shortly thereafter repeated consensus "straw votes" were taken followed by official votes for each section because it was faster. 4. Council directed that definitions should be consistent with the present LUCE and any proposed changes should be treated like any other proposed language changes in public hearings. The current definition of "infill" in the General Plan Glossary is development on vacant (emphasis added) sites which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when this element was adopted. " Infill" is now used to denote development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. A partial explanation of what this means can be found in the following statement that refers to new housing built within an existing neighborhood: A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable. This implies that the San Luis Drive neighborhood and other established neighborhoods will be retrofitted with a mix of housing types, a range of density and new commercial development, including a grocery store. 5. Use of the LUE_and CE Goals to guide the development of new policies and programs or revise existing ones. The Task Force and Planning Commission voted unanimously for the existing Goals in both elements to be the "Guiding Principles" for the development of new policies and programs. Council agreed. Thus, all proposed changes were to support the existing Goals prior to being provided for Task Force review. However, after approving some of the text changes, the Task Force was advised that some of the Goals might need to be revised in order to conform to new policies or programs. 6. Staff should identify what language it thinks needs to be updated, with documentation of said need. Documentation of need was often not provided. Many substantial changes had "style" or "clarity" shown as the reason for the change. 7. Legislative Draft. Both Councils directed that a legislative draft be used. The 2012 Council further directed that everyone needs to know at every stage exactly what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by whom. Several task force members thought the Task Force would be reviewing the elements and preparing the legislative draft. However, that was not the case. The consultant team drafted all of the policy language in the legislative drafts. Then their proposed policy language was provided to the Task Force for consideration, putting Task Force members in the position of being reactive instead of proactive. MAIN. DRIVER FOR THE - UPDATE PROCESS_ We believe the update process was driven primarily by the grant application, not by the Council. The grant's primary focus was on infill, but infill was not mentioned in the 2008 Council's direction. The 2008 Council directed that the process was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based, but that was not in the grant application. It does not appear that the inclusion of infill was a requirement for grant approval because grant requests by other cities for General Plan updates that were approved at the same time as our grant request did not focus on infill nor on complete neighborhoods as ours does. K COMMUNITY OUTREACH We are, also, extremely disappointed in the community outreach process. The process that was chosen did not result in significant input from city residents. We think one of the reasons residents were not involved was the absence of meetings in the neighborhoods that, among other things, would have informed them of the process and their part in it. In general there was low resident attendance at workshops (about 50 each) and open houses (about 12 each). Attendance was higher at the Future Fairs with, we think, 125 being the highest number of attendees. This is a very small percentage of the City's 44,000 residents. _ The turnout of residents from neighborhoods that could be affected by proposed land use and /or circulation changes was not good either. Of approximately 38 neighborhoods that could potentially be affected by proposed update changes.. only six were sent post cards and only on one occasion (after repeated queries to staff asking whether any of the affected neighborhoods would receive notification). Unfortunately, the post cards were unclear about what was being proposed and few residents responded. A few neighborhoods were energized, incidentally being informed on a someone - who - knew - someone basis... of those, four of the five were able to influence the outcome to some extent. When staff was asked why notification post cards were not sent to all affected neighborhoods, they said it was because of the cost. However, recently, informatively worded post cards were sent by the Police Department to every, or at least most, addresses in the city notifying residents of double fines during WOW Week. Apparently meaningful notification can occur. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During the meetings that were held at the library, the only public comment allowed occurred at the end of the meeting, after the Task Force had discussed, deliberated and, in some cases, voted. Needless to say, after three or four meetings, attendance by the public was minimal. Meetings at City Hall were handled differently, with a public comment period at the beginning and several opportunities to speak throughout the meeting. Attendance improved, but it was still not good. A large percentage of the meetings had only a handful of residents or less. Participation was not easy for the public because, unlike Council agendas, Task Force agendas only generally described items /areas to be covered; it was not until later meetings that more specifics were shown. Occasionally, the Task Force did not know what it would be covering until the meeting began. In many cases too many sections were agendized and the Task Force did not complete all of them in the allotted three hours. Probably -as a result of -the lack of notice of- topicsto be- covered -and the-inability to participate initially, there was minimal public input provided during meetings. City staff and consultant input were the primary sources of information that we considered. TASK FORCE ADVOCACY The vast majority of the task force had no history of being advocates for the preservation of the City's established neighborhoods. However, many of the task force members were board members of and /or active in organizations that advocate for real estate development interests. 3 SUMMARY In our opinion, the process failed to follow Council guidance at every step of the process. The City never received meaningful input from residents of the various neighborhoods concerning problems they want corrected or characteristics they liked about their unique neighborhoods and wanted to have protected, what city -wide problems they wanted to have corrected or what they considered to be City assets that needed to be protected. NEXT STEPS 1. Focus on what residents said on the survey. Responses were received from about 2,200 resident households and San Luis Obispo business owners. 2. Bring Neighborhood Mapping back to Council and do away with the Area designations (Staff Report, April 2, 2013) 3. Provide input for the EIR preparation as follows: a. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the City's established neighborhoods. b. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the potential for increased noise impacts by student /young adults on the City's established neighborhoods. c. Ensure that early and meaningful notice to City residents is part of the EIR community outreach process in accordance with our above comments. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney M 1TF -LUCE Minority Report January 14, 2014 SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Review INTRODUCTION We are not opposed to new neighborhoods of diverse character, mixed uses and increased density being created through annexation. Nor are we opposed to new neighborhoods being created in undeveloped areas within the city's_pecifically identified for increased density and development. We are, however, opposed to adding mixed uses, a variety of housing types and creating a range of densities in our established neighborhoods. The Task Force was assured early -on that our established residential neighborhoods would be protected. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. Proposed changes to the LUE encourage increasing both density and non - residential uses in the city's established residential neighborhoods — even if those neighborhoods oppose the density and use changes. This seems to be consistent with enabling the large -city planning theory of "complete neighborhoods" (appropriate for San Francisco's large neighborhoods) to be inappropriately applied to the significantly smaller neighborhoods of a small city of 44,000. ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS For the past twenty years residents of San Luis Obispo have depended on the protections for established neighborhoods that are found in the current Land Use Element (LUE). These neighborhood protections assume even greater importance as our City's exceptionally low number of owner - occupied residences continues to decline. Neighborhood protections were weakened or eliminated by expanding the definitions of words, by removing content that provided protection for established neighborhoods and by adding goals, policies and programs that encourage compact, mixed -use neighborhoods with a variety of housing densities in all residential zones. We believe that established neighborhoods must be protected from such retrofitting. GOALS Two Community Goals were added that we strongly believe must be modified in order to better reflect the desires of city residents and foster or maintain the stability of our established neighborhoods. Our recommended additions to these goals are shown as underlined text. 1. Goal #10 (page PH1 -46). Support statewide and regional efforts that the City deems to be locally appropriate to create more sustainable communities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and develop transportation systems that support all modes of circulation to meet the needs of the Cam. 2. Goal # 341page PHI -48). Create compact, mixed -use neighborhoods within the City's expansion areas that locate housing, jobs, recreation, and other daily needs in close proximity to one another. DEFINITIONS 1. Infill. Infill is defined in the General Plan as "development on vacant sites (emphasis added) which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when this element was adopted." Infill Housing is defined as "Development of housing on vacant lots (emphasis added) within the City limits on property zoned for such uses. (See General Plan Glossary) However, in paragraph 2.1.1* (page PH1 -80 of the draft), it appears that "infill" is being used as a generic term that also includes "redevelopment, rehabilitation* and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." In January 2012, Council directed that definitions of terms should be consistent with the present LUCE and any proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in public hearings. For clarity and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation, we believe it is critically important to include the definitions of "infill" and "infill housing" in the body of the LUE as well as in the Glossary. We, also, believe the concepts "redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse" should not be applied to our established residential neighborhoods. 2. Neighborhood Enhancement. Although no definition of enhance or enhancement was in the General Plan, Webster's defines it as "to make greater, as in cost, value, attractiveness, etc.; heighten, improve, augment, etc." Common interpretation with regard to our neighborhoods is that it means improving the quality of life so that all residents can have the peace and quiet they need in order to enjoy their home and neighborhood. Paragraph 2.1.1 (page PH1 -80, see note 1) states that "Neighborhood Enhancement" is "infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation ** and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." It states that the City should promote these activities, but does not define "contributing positively" nor clarify to whom. Although this paragraph was quoted above, under Infill, it is restated here to demonstrate how words that conveyed one meaning in our current Land Use Element have been reused, but now have a different meaning. This paragraph should be deleted. What contributes positively to the various existing neighborhoods is extremely subjective. These proposed "enhancements" may not be considered appropriate or desirable to the City's many, unique established neighborhoods. 3. Neighborhood Amenities. Paragraph 2.1.6, "Neighborhood Amenities" (page PHI -79) is a list of characteristics, not a list of amenities. Neighborhood amenities are things like parks and nearby schools. The Task Force spent the greater part of one meeting discussing the desirable characteristics of residential neighborhoods and concluded that only one can be applied to all neighborhoods, safety. * Note 1: Paragraph 2.1.1 on PHI -80 appears to be misnumbered and probably should be numbered 2.1.7. * *Note 2: An FHA home rehabilitation program allows,.among other things, a one - family dwelling to be converted to up to a four - family dwelling. It can be used by prospective homeowners or investors. 2 The proposed list of neighborhood "amenities" includes in the first bullet point "a mix of housing type (and) styles, density and affordability." This bullet point must be deleted. Mixing housing types is a planning concept, not an amenity. A mix of housing styles, depending on the disparity in mass, scale and height, solar access and overlook /privacy issues , may or may not be an amenity in a neighborhood. A mix of densities within our established R -1 and R -2 neighborhoods is not seen as an amenity, especially by residents of impacted neighborhoods. And affordability is primarily based on market rate. The things these items have in common is that they are all characteristics of "complete neighborhoods." We see deletion of this bullet point becoming more important because the proposed policy 2.4.2, Density Changes (page PHI -89) states, "The City shall approve re- zonings that increase density in existing residential areas only if it finds that the following are not adversely impacted: neighborhood character and identity; compatibility of land use; impact on services and facilities (including schools). In addition, the City shall find that proposed density changes meet policies related to neighborhood amenities (Policy 2.1.6); compatible development (Policy 2.2.9) and residential project objectives (Policy 2.2.11) (emphasis added)." We see these policies as intertwining and building on each other to allow, maybe promote, up- zoning in our established residential neighborhoods. 4. Compatible Development. Paragraph 2.2.9, Compatible Development, (page PHI -82) states that compatibility shall be evaluated using the criteria provided. One of the criteria, sub - paragraph H, states "A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable." The explanation accompanying this addition is that the paragraph was revised to expand the definition of compatibility. We do not think the definition of compatibility needs to be expanded; we think the result of doing so would be detrimental to our established residential neighborhoods. Therefore, we think sub - paragraph H should be deleted. 5. Interim Open Space. Interim Open Space was deleted in this update. We strongly recommend that it be retained. As new and unforseen situations and opportunities arise in the future, this is a unique designation that should be available to the City as a "tool in the land use tool box." It allows the City the critical flexibility that other land use designations do not have. 6. Lastly, we need a well thought out, resident - initiated definition of "quality neighborhoods." That term seems to mean one thing to residents and another thing to non - residents. SUMMARY Although the Task Force rejected "Complete Neighborhoods" as not being appropriate for San Luis Obispo and Council eliminated the "Neighborhood Areas," the concepts associated with "complete neighborhoods" permeate the draft LUE. It was impossible in the time available to identify every instance where such concepts were inserted into the document. However, staff and consultant personnel are sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to find and remove the language that states or implies that the concepts and changes associated with "complete neighborhoods" should or must be applied to our established neighborhoods. This should be done before the EIR review is begun. 3 Adding goals, policies and programs that promote and provide for the retrofitting of the City's established residential neighborhoods with mixed uses and a different variety of housing densities and types could place residents in a virtually untenable position. They would be required to try to defend their neighborhoods against new City/ policies that promote and provide for neighborhood changes that residents of that neighborhood may strongly oppose. The right of established neighborhoods to protect their unique character should not be weakened by such proposed new changes to the LUE. There has been no outcry from the City's established neighborhoods to initiate such changes, nor has there been any input from any neighborhood organization supporting such changes. RECOMMENDATIONS We strongly encourage Council to: 1. Modify Goals # 10 and 34 as shown on page 1, above, and revise the draft LUE as necessary to conform to the goals. 2. Delete the paragraph 2.1.1 that is on page PH1- 80 (that probably should have been numbered 2.1.7). Also, direct that the current glossary definitions of "infill" and "infill housing" be used within the body of the LUE as well as retained in the General Plan Glossary. 3. Ensure that "mixed uses, a variety of housing types and a range of densities" are not added to paragraphs related to our established residential neighborhoods. 4. Delete the first bullet point in paragraph 2.1.6 and change the heading to "Neighborhood Characteristics." 5. Delete sub - paragraph 2.2.9 H. 6. Delete paragraph 2.4.2. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney in