Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/2002, B3 - ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 2001 council M fi4DaApril2, 2002 j acEnba RepoRt 1�Numh�$3 C ITY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner OcM SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 2001 CAO RECOMMENDATION (1) As recommended by the Planning Commission: (A)Accept the report as revised. (B)Pursue certain aspects of General Plan implementation. (2) Give staff direction for any desired follow-up or changes from previously approved Council priorities. DISCUSSION The General Plan provides a comprehensive, long-range vision focusing on preserving community resources and meeting community needs. The General Plan provides a basis for rational decision-making regarding the City's long-term physical development. The General Plan is adopted and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens, appointed advisory bodies, other agencies, and City staff. The City publishes an annual report on the status of its General Plan and actions taken to implement it. The report is to help citizens and City officials understand recent actions involving the General Plan. The annual report is done in part to comply with State law, which says that "the planning agency shall ... provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the general plan and progress in its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs..." (California Government Code Section 65400). San Luis Obispo's approach has been for staff to draft the report, and present it to the Planning Commission for review and direction before presenting it to the City Council, which is the legislative body. The General Plan itself also calls for an annual report, to be completed during the fust quarter of each calendar year(Land Use Element policy 9.3). According to this policy, the report is to include the following items. A. A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet general plan goals; B. A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to meeting general plan goals; C. An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be necessary; D. A status report for each general plan program scheduled to be worked on during that year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is lagging; E. A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space preservation policies and programs; F. Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan. r -N1 Council Agenda Report—General Plan Annual Report 2001 Page 2 Key Implementation Issues The Planning Commission and the City Council use the Annual Report as a basis for deciding any direction to be given to staff, to change priorities for implementation efforts or to prepare possible General Plan amendments for hearings. Four key issues discussed in the Annual Report are: • Slowing the pace of nonresidential development, which has again exceeded a threshold that triggers consideration of setting limits (pages 6, 8, and 9 of the Annual Report). Last year, the Planning Commission recommended setting a limit (though without recommending detailed provisions), but the City Council decided to monitor activity and not set a limit at that time. This year,the Planning Commission said the Council should carry out the adopted policy or amend it. • In deciding water allocations, giving top priority to residential development, in particular affordable housing projects (page 11). Separately from the Annual Report, the Planning Commission is considering a Council referral of potential amendments to the Water and Wastewater Management Element that involve this issue. The Commission recommendation has not been finalized. • Completing the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which would provide for much of the City's previously planned housing development, in a form acceptable to the Airport Land Use Commission (page 14). Council gave direction on this matter at its March 19, 2002, meeting. • Implementing traffic and circulation policies, through City projects, review of development proposals, and responses to neighborhood requests (pages 15, 16, and 17). The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to increase its scrutiny of these issues when reviewing plans and projects. In 2001, the Commission was particularly involved in planning for bikeways. Upcoming work on specific plans for the Airport, Margarita, and Orcutt areas will be an opportunity for Planning Commission involvement in many aspects of circulation planning (page 14). Future Annual Reports can also involve greater input from the Mass Transportation and Bicycle committees, to enhance the "synergy". of these advisory bodies relative to overall transportation and circulation matters. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff presented a draft Annual Report to the Planning Commission on February 27, 2002. No public testimony was offered. After discussion, the Commission took several actions. The Commission's actions were divided into two aspects: (1) recommendations for the content of the report, and (2) recommendations to the City Council concerning follow-up actions. The Commission's recommendations and staff comments are summarized below. (1) Content of the Annual Report (A) Commission recommendation (by consensus): The report should amplify on the daytime population of the city, and on actions concerning historical preservation and neighborhood quality. �z Council Agenda Report—General Plan Annual Report 2001 Page 3 Staff comment: Additional information has been provided on daytime population (page 6), historical preservation (page 13), and neighborhood quality (page 16). (B) Commission recommendation (vote of 7-0): Address Circulation Element Objective IIA that calls for completing a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths by 2000. Staff comment: Additional information has been provided on page 15. (2) General Plan Actions (A) Commission recommendation (vote of 6-1): Address the nonresidential growth rate either by adopting measures to reduce that growth relative to residential growth, or by amending the General Plan to change the policy. Staff comment: The City Council needs to consider setting limits or to refocus the policy away from relative development rates and toward the build-out (land-use capacity) relationship between job-generating development and housing. If the Council favors keeping the pace of nonresidential development more in line with housing growth, as suggested by the General Plan, staff will return with an evaluation and recommendation. That report would include a study of the nonresidential vacancy cycle, an analysis of the underlying reasons people chose where they live and work, the pros and cons of specific tools (such as phasing nonresidential annexation areas, similar to Residential Growth Management), and the implications for proposed major projects. (B) Commission recommendation (vote of 7-0): Dedicate additional effort to neighborhood preservation, with emphasis on proper+y maintenance and noise abatement. Staff comment: The City continues to direct substantial effort toward good- neighbor relations and to code enforcement, which is largely complaint-driven. A Planning Commission recommendation for revising the property maintenance standards is scheduled for the same Council meeting as consideration of the General Plan Annual Report. Options that would follow General Plan direction, but which would require a change in priorities, include hiring more staff who would seek and respond to code violations, and preparing plans for individual neighborhoods. (C) Commission recommendation (vote of 7-0): Add a new Historic Element to the General Plan. Staff comment: The Land Use Element contains a fairly detailed section on Community Heritage (policy LU 6.6.1 through program LU 6.7.6) as well as policies concerning heritage resources (LU 2.2.10, 3.3.4, and 4.12). Most of these items are proposed to be relocated to the new "Resource Conservation Element." .3-3 _ 1 Council Agenda Report—General Plan Annual Report 2001 Page 4 A separate historical element could be prepared. However, during consideration of the General Plan Annual Report for 2000, the Council did not give high priority to having a separate element. It should be noted that actions to further identify and protect historical resources can and do continue without having a separate General Plan element. (D) Commission recommendation (vote of 7-0):Adopt a new, long-range transit plan. Staff comment: The Public Works Department is working on an update of the Short-Range Transit Plan, and intends to prepare an update every five years. Despite its .title, this plan looks ahead 10 years and addresses future routes, equipment, and facilities that would be needed to serve anticipated expansion areas, such as Margarita, Airport, and Orcutt. (E) Commission recommendation (vote of 5 to 1, with I stepping down): Extend Central- Commercial(C-C)zoning to the upper Monterey Street area. Staff comment: Expansion of the C-C zone is to be considered as part of the citywide commercial zoning update. For that effort, a consultant has been hired and a public workshop has been scheduled for May 9, 2002. One aspect of extending C-C zoning to the upper Monterey Street area is making available the option of paying an in-lieu fee for parking, rather than providing parking on site. Doing so would allow less on-site parking and more pedestrian-friendly streets. However, this could also lead to a deficiency of parking spaces. A City Council study session has been set for April 9 to explore potential unintended consequences of enlarging the C-C zone, before holding further public meetings or Planning Commission hearings. FISCAL IMPACT The Council's giving direction on priorities would not by itself change previously established budgets or staff resources. The Council could direct staff to shift resources from current projects to new priorities. Such changes, depending on size, could require separate action, especially if the overall amount of work needed to increase. Such actions are usually taken as part of the Council's goal-setting and budgeting processes. Additional information on fiscal impacts will be presented with future discussion of nonresidential growth management. ALTERNATIVES The Council may: • Direct staff to make further additions or changes to the Annual Report; • Not accept Planning Commission recommendations for follow-up actions; • Continue action. Al Council Agenda Report—General Plan Annual Report 2001 Page 5 Attachments #I —Draft Annual Report #2 —Draft Planning Commission minutes, February 27, 2002 L:gp annual report\2001car.doc 3-5- Attachment 1 � n city of • / , annual on the • plan: tuft `/ � ren. �� .�•, �.!'�eY� k. i�.'Sit--..::s:._:_,::•aY�.Fi:��'<."�'iav:wld.-_�ttw.ei=.�'Ca! Attachment 1 This report was prepared by the Community Development Department, for review by the Planning Commission and acceptance by the City Council. The Community Development Department's Long-range Planning Division often takes the lead for staff work involving the General Plan. However, all City departments and commissions are involved in General Plan issues and contribute to the plan's implementation. City of San Luis Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Our Mission Statement Our mission is to serve all persons in a positive and courteous manner and help ensure that San Luis Obispo continues to be a healthy, safe, attractive, and enjoyable place to live, work, or visit. We help plan the city's form and character, support community values, preserve the environment, promote wise use of resources, and protect public health and safety. Our Service Philosophy The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff provides high quality service when you need it. We will: • Listen to understand your needs; • Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions; • Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City's rules; • Help resolve problems in an open, objective manner; • Maintain high ethical standards; and • Work to improve our service. Report reviewed by the Planning Commission[date], and accepted by the City Council[date] Cover photos: Several General Plan policies favor mixed-use development, so modest dwellings can be provided close to jobs and services. Left: the well established Crossroads development on Broad Street at Orcutt Road. Upper right: the recently completed Takken project on South Higuera Street, near Margarita Avenue. Lower right: the site of the proposed Quaglino development, on Broad Street near Tank Farm Road. Such compact development can also help preserve open space. Each view includes, in the background, hills to be preserved as open space. 3 - � city of san Luis ot.lspe c;r':nt. }plan annual 12t.hollt 2001 Attachment 1 Report at a Glance Introduction Page 4 The General Plan is a long-range vision focusing on the city's physical development. It is adopted by the City Council after public participation. Administration of the General Plan General Plan Status Page 4 In response to State law, the City has adopted ten elements of the General Plan, seven of them addressing required topics. Element Updates Page 4 A revision of the Parks and Recreation Element was adopted. A scheduled update of the Conservation Element again was delayed. Amendments Page 5 Several changes to the Land Use Element map were adopted. Implementation of.the General Plan Development & Population Housing & Residents Page 6 Housing construction has been about half of the General Plan's target, with few new rental projects,but permit activity is increasing. The city's estimated population has increased faster than the number of dwellings. Commercial Development & Daytime Population Page 6 Commercial and industrial construction continues to outpace housing and the preferred growth rate, though permit activity may be slowing. Growth Management Residential Growth Management Page 9 Housing development in large annexations is subject to a citywide phasing schedule. Building permits for those areas and for other parts of the city closely matched the City's policies and assumptions. Commercial and Industrial Growth Management Page 9 There are no direct limits on the pace of commercial development, but the Council must consider setting some since a preferred growth rate has been exceeded for several years. Phasing development in large annexations, as is done for residential development, will be considered. A Note on Store Size Limits Page 11 The City Council adopted design guidelines and size limits for large stores. A Note on Water Allocations Page 11 The City Council determined that retrofitting of plumbing fixtures has been substantially completed, resulting in some water being available for development projects, though not enough to supply all proposals. Retrofitting is expected to remain an option for some projects until the City obtains a supplemental water supply. A key issue is giving higher priority to residential projects,especially affordable housing. 3 -7 Ott: OV S.\t) WIS OBISJ)i\, 2 t}ta)t.. _/})l.\It .\ilt)U.\I Rtl)OQL 2001 Attachment 1 Affordable Housing Page 12 The requirement for most developments to include or contribute to affordable housing started to have an effect. Open Space Protection Page 13 The City acquired land or easements in four areas, to assure protection of especially sensitive resources and secure a greenbelt. Historic Preservation Page 13 Procedures for reviewing changes to historical resources were refined, and eight additional properties were designated as historic. Annexations Page 13 Annexations on Los Osos Valley Road and along Broad Street in the Airport Area extended City jurisdiction over proposed housing and industrial sites as well as development previously approved by the County. Major Implementation Plans Page 14 Margarita Area Page 14 A draft specific plan for this 420-acre area was referred to the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which determined that it was not compatible with the Airport. Representatives of the City, the County, and the ALUC tried to find an approach that would meet all agencies' goals, but their work was not finished by the end of the year. Airport Area Page 14 Staff,working with a consultant team, completed the first draft of this specific plan. It covers 1,000 acres, including the airport itself, a former oil-tank area slated mostly to be a natural preserve, and sites where commercial and industrial development has been occurring under County jurisdiction. Formal review of the draft plan will begin, and possibly be completed, in 2002. _ Orcutt Area Page 14 Staff worked with the owners in this 230-acre area to reach agreement on basic features that could lead to a draft specific plan. Most of the area is undeveloped and slated for residential use. Formal review of the draft plan will begin in 2002. Mid-Higuera Street Area Page 14 The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan was adopted. It aims to enhance appearance, business vitality, the flow of all forms of traffic, and flood protection. Also, several implementing actions were taken. Traffic and Circulation Walking and Cycling Page 15 Progress was made in extending the bicycle path along the railroad and in planning for other bicycle routes. Transit Service Page 15 Major accomplishments were assuring continuation of"no fare"rides for Cal Poly students,and re-timing bus routes and portraying them in new schedules. Railroad Transportation Center Page 16 Layover space for regional busses and more parking spaces were provided close to the Amtrak station. 3-g- Caty off: San tins Ot�lsp(.� 3 Ct•ne, plan annual QC. )Oia 20oi Attachment 1 Reworking Streets and Interchanges Page 16 Detailed studies began for changes to Highway 101 interchanges at Santa Rosa Street and at Los Osos Valley Road. Transportation Survey Page 16 A periodic survey of residents' transportation choices showed declines in all trip modes except walking. Neighborhood Traffic Management Page 16 Residents along Margarita Avenue and Augusta Street supported features to slow traffic, which the City Council approved. Neighborhood Quality Page 16 Work began on revisions to architectural guidelines and the Zoning Regulations' property-maintenance standards Capital Projects Page 17 Major facilities not covered in other parts of the report were completion of the Higuera Street bridge replacement, replacement of water lines and street paving, and start of the Marsh Street garage expansion. A Note on Creeks and Flooding Page 17 The City continued to work on a new management plan for waterways, aiming for environmentally sensitive and cost-effective flood protection. Other Agencies' Activities Page 17 Cal Poly's Master Plan Page 17 Cal Poly adopted the first comprehensive update of its master plan in 30 years, aiming for increased enrollment and more housing on and next to the campus. The Airport Land Use Plan Page 18 The independent Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) continued work on a revision of its plan that could mean big reductions in future housing development. The City and the ALUC worked on ways to accommodate housing in the long-planned Margarita Area. Program Status Page 19 The General Plan contains a wide array of programs, some carried out routinely and others needing special action. City budgets usually decide timing. For More Information Page 21 Come in, write, call, or visit the City's Web site to learn more about the General Plan and the City's planning activities. 3-q i,lt\ 01. S.\n LUIS OM,, )v'_ q t;rilt'k PIAII AMILI\1 Qt:POPt 2001 Attachment 1 Introduction The General Plan provides a comprehensive, long-range vision focusing on preserving community resources and meeting community needs. The General Plan provides a basis for rational decision-making regarding the City's long-term physical development. The General Plan is adopted and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens, appointed advisory bodies, other agencies, and City staff. Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and actions taken to implement it during the year just ended. This report is to help citizens and City officials understand recent decisions involving the General Plan. It fulfills the requirements of state law, and the General Plan itself, which call for an annual report. The Community Development Department provides a separate Annual Report on all of its activities, emphasizing statistics on planning and building applications, public meetings, and code enforcement. Administration of the General Plan General Plan Status State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan that addresses seven topics. Additional topics may be included. Each topic may be addressed in a separately published document, or topics may be combined. The published sections of the General Plan are called "elements." Table 1 shows the status of the City's General Plan elements. The City maintains a General Plan Digest that makes all policies and programs available in one document. State law says the General Plan should be kept current. This is done through comprehensive updates, and through amendments. Updates for an element are usually undertaken at least five years apart. They look at underlying conditions and preferences. Amendments are typically smaller in scope and involve changing one part in a way that fits with the overall framework. Consideration of amendments is triggered by private applications or by direction from the City Council. Changes to the General Plan require hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. The type of notice provided for the hearings depends on the type of proposed change, but always includes a descriptive item on the meeting agenda, which is published in the newspaper. The City's Web site and public access television channel provide additional information. Element Updates The City adopted a revised Parks and Recreation Element in 2001, updating programs and priorities. The scheduled update of the Conservation Element was delayed, with staff taking over tasks previously assigned to a consultant. The Conservation Element update is proposed to include consolidating policies on conservation that are found in all the other elements, including Land Use, Open Space, Housing, and Energy Conservation. 3-lo city of ;.v1 l.u1s ot;1 pk� 5 c}r,tlt:� A1111Ua1 T1CP0ut toot Table 1 Attachment 1 General Plan Elements Element Required or Date of Adoption Comment Optional or Mgkjor Revision Land Use Required 1994 Housing Required 1994 Update to be considered in 2003.. Open Space Required 1994 Circulation Required 1994 Includes "Scenic Roadways." Noise Required 1996 Conservation Required 1973 Update combining these topics Energy Conservation Optional 1981 with Open Space is in progress. Safety Required 2000 Includes former Seismic Safety Element. Parks&Recreation Optional 2001 Water&Wastewater Optional 1996 State law requires an "Urban Water Management Management Plan," but it need not be part of the general plan. Amendments During 2001, the City approved the amendments listed in Table 2. Some substantial changes were made to implement the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. Other amendments were relatively small-scale changes to the Land Use Element map to accommodate specific types of uses that would not otherwise be allowed, and to achieve greater consistency between the text and the map. Since the 1994 updates, there have been no major citywide changes or overall patterns among the individual changes that suggest a comprehensive re-evaluation of goals or policies is necessary at this time. Table 2 General Plan Amendments in 2001 Type Location or Subject Change Area Initiated by;comment acres Land Use Mid-Higuera area(see Med-high to High Dens ResidT 6.4 City;to implement Mid- Element map page 20) Serv. &Man. To Gen'1 Retail 19 Higuera Enhancement Plan. Public to Park 4 Public, Serv. &Man. to Tourist 13 Serv. &Manuf. to Open Space 1.5 Land Use El Capitan Way Medium-density Residential to 0.2 Applicant; to accommodate Element map Services &Manufacturing mixed-use project. Land Use South Higuera Street Services &Manufacturing to 10 Applicant; to accommodate Element map at Suburban Road Neighborhood Commercial more retail uses. Land Use Railroad at Santa Services &Manufacturing to 3.3 City; to accommodate Element map Barbara Avenue Public transit facility and railroad museum. Land Use Woodland Drive area Delete specific plan area symbol 158 City;to clarify that a Element map development plan or specific plan could a 1 . 3-11 ULY Or Sall Luis OBISPC. 6 c:,tnr;, fl-xii annual nsporzt 2001 Implementation of the General Plan Attachment 1 Development & Population Housing & Residents In summary, the General Plan says city population, and therefore housing supply, should grow at about one percent per year. New housing should include a variety of housing types, and dwellings affordable to low-income and moderate-income residents. Table 3-A summarizes residential construction since 1994. Annual increases in the number of dwellings have averaged about one-half percent. (The table reflects only construction within the city limits, but there has not been substantial housing construction on land around the city.) Residential construction in 2001 was dominated by single-family tract houses, though development included custom houses, a mid-size apartment project, and several additions of apartments to sites with older houses. This year saw the first completion of affordable dwellings (three apartments) under the inclusionary housing requirement. Two relatively large projects involving group housing for seniors were completed, but do not appear in the tally of dwellings (though part of one was later converted to apartments, and these do appear in the multifamily section). The city had 44,613 residents on January 1, 2001, according to the California Department of Finance estimate. This was an increase of one percent over the year 2000. (The estimate for January 1, 2002, will not be available until after this report is prepared.) Housing conservation is an important part of balancing supply and demand, and preserving community character. Zones that allow office and commercial uses contain several older dwellings. In 2001, the Planning Commission recommended requirements for developments to preserve or replace some housing in the downtown; Council consideration was postponed until 2002. Commercial Development & Daytime Population San Luis Obispo's daytime population includes those who work in the urban area or who come as students, shoppers, tourists, and other users of various services. A precise estimate of daytime population is not available but it is known to substantially exceed resident population, according to U.S. Census and traffic-count data. Roughly 20,000 people commute to jobs within the city and adjacent areas such as the Airport and Cal Poly. The General Plan says that the gap between housing demand, due to more jobs and college enrollment, and housing supply should not increase (Policy LU 1.4). This overall direction is supplemented by a policy that the City will consider setting nonresidential construction limits if the amount of nonresidential floor area increases faster than five percent over five years, excluding the first 300,000 square-feet built after 1994 (Policy LU 1.11.4). Table 3-13 summarizes nonresidential construction since 1994. The year 2001 saw completion of several stores on Madonna Road, some large office buildings, and a large church complex, as well as smaller commercial buildings throughout the city. The 300,000-square-foot threshold was reached in 1997. As the table shows, nonresidential floor area has increased faster than five percent during the last three five-year periods, even with the 300,000-square-foot exclusion. (The table reflects only construction within the city limits. Projects at Cal Poly or in the unincorporated parts of the Airport Area, for example, are not included.) Overall since 1994, nonresidential floor area has increased.three times faster than the number of dwellings. 3-�a R -TZ r V v 3 c y � p r•' _ 0o C (� 0 n 1* CT7 h � � N U v ••l h 7 c o d `'..' ON v) v10 O en 8 zN t 3 _ it 3 Q z0 ._ 0O\ bNN (� Sr y 4ti Ll O O O O O M rt CO` OMM .r ZN 7 7 y '" 3 y C 3 N O O O O O O 00 O y CU zu s O C�. •C 'D p obi Q O 0 0 0 0 0 M T y O E C� ,V i >1 .G y 00 3 y — w pp 1 % O O Sp N QD U C� > _ z N N cR O i N ._ .. C 'n J Yti r 00 Vl O ON cu M pop H g N ° O c O O L O 4 ° E a 3 ani c ° r c " w. .5 ani n V E $ 4- 00 00 E a ao eo b4) —0crco c ° 0 0 0 ami O 0 ' 'n .0 � m E _ N N L O •0 1p .dam �•'� Y° N O 67 .O 0 W r U" E y F r y, F D a Q o 0 0 0 0 .r 't 0 00 = °oL = 0 `L° 0 o " c °lclm cas s v oo o0 0 9 y . a._ y T C7 E ° 0 >>– v > 0 z o > "C1 d oo " CO I — N GU LT. 0 0 S c r . r � � Q `n° 33o •7m Ea � � oL000000 A � bE>N � N N cq E 'C .= � > •L •� 'fl to C ' = O v cC O\ LO � •T N .y.. 7 .5.. i 7 y •0 GL w C h O Cv 0 0 3 i 0 y f d O 0 7 d E _N , O co ?+= iC O, C -Op •_ 'O 'O N N h .N C C bo > L L ►1 t b4 '3 vi ��• L O `' q•O G y� N ¢ C o O O O O 0 O O '� T.fl O y v 2O -Z b0 = L H Q a on3 s +? • h 03chbW cz r- M G 0 r .5 O� O� \ON O kn N M a� 'O _ 6 E '—:-a ^- c0 E $ 00 O N ti y z M �n 0\ a d oo U 3 u ` c* U -0 O n 3 E `° N y [� N N d' r O 00 w0 :d y O w '� O w C w G d. •D C Op LY. O M " O. T O Gy�' N c7 bA = 2 cd ca L N 7 V' N N E •T ed b M. e c—ca d w C ::E oxN E o o M vi a, N e .? " E x d 0 c avow. V awi 3v ° r- 2 $ to \0 r� 00 ON o ai a e � rn rn a o°'. a o /3 O o .O O r O o0 p cc O O -� O cV O N O° T O 14., f` C7 00 '. v1 O, r` O t` a1 M O 7 O 00 00 v1 �O t� � O 7 N ON O N O N co U � � _ \O t0� �°N 00 �cn IIl/��.� O M .. .. 00 O R • ' N \ ' ♦ ' 00 1=1 C O •�'n U 40.1 Q Q = N 4-1 .V zN N O cz O E G Z O1 cu E U 00 M O� N D N O 0 O v ao O� t� �D v� �O N M y' t O .j ;, R 3 `' [- vi c+i � r In0 � °^ oo = o � v > flyu o ytU Q > 3 's o 0 0 en o 0 o M o o Icr R a� o �° o -- M .0 U .: U o. 7 N > y O r M O, 00 00 00 = R UO � w �, p C = a O N D\ N _ O� �p C rn "' 7C 0 0 V1 R L N I Q U O td G 44 I U oom3 •� t— en "t N M r- M I �„ L X _ y ry G U 00 R 00 ON M O� In t- N �O O R 4+ G T C=) O N �° M > N O O\ O O N U v 0 O N n w) h oOOo LL ai Z N N 0 > a = �>. C7 w �A m . y . N N O ^ cq vNi O N O y ° N .r 00 t` l' h cn p I a y W O U 00 N 00 to R00 C 0 E z d' � 00 t ON � C C 3 > N O y .� 00 0 0 0 0 0 \0 � UR E C .G > rA 0 " � _ ti d Vi m 0 O C ct CD R + NC14 xn r- E* O W L = I I E ° to bD 0 00 b0 N t a0 [� t� t oo U •> C E T1 = 00 N 00 N � v U 4 o0 N O, V 1 O U O N X4.1 . 41 O O M 00 00 00 E p U J G E h vOiw .T O > C O 00 O r N W) � m vi N C C �. eCd z M •-• •-• N N U U CZ J tr C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C cUi O O 30 o o 0 rn o o M ao 00 0o Roo v y 'p O 00 O O N M DD M E O to W) \0 '' t` l4t O O1 N N '�- rr.. 0 1 w M --� l- 00 M °O � - U R N Ocq w 00 1 0 N U m 0 0 0 0 00 In O 0 7 7 5 "' .N. W M r- N b 4R+ C O w O Z M M C' N - r y C >O R E U 001 cd y 0 O E 0 0 L N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 „Oj 'O R O O L •7 0D U O V '� •.+ R 0 �1 y r- -5 C C Ia{' ,C crrzN 7 0 10 � O0 0 0 d0' 00 N OM O O O a� O o� U y = N 00 M 00 r- C O O � 'y Oca N N %O N 00 "� O O N to C y M N 00 a� u :O C O 0� CN ON ON C% O O 0 d 00 N N F z LAIN Of -;Al) LIDS OBI q l:�P.lnt: F)L.\Il .X111nuM 11cpoRt. 112001 Growth Management Attachment 1 Residential Growth Management Residential growth management policies are implemented through phased housing construction in certain expansion areas. These areas are mainly the large annexations the City has approved or is considering (map, page 20). (Housing built on State-owned land for State purposes, such as Cal Poly students or faculty, is not subject to the limits.) The phasing system is based on issuance of building permits to specific expansion areas, during three-year intervals, as shown in Table 4. During the first three-year interval, permitted construction in areas not subject to the limits and housing losses were very close to the projected amounts. At the end of the interval, for areas subject to limits, building permits for 222 dwellings were in the building plan-review process and considered issued for purposes of growth-management accounting. The major difference between the number of allowed and actual permits was that the Margarita Area did not begin development, due to delays in adopting the required specific plan. Council approval of an adjustment to the initial phasing schedule allowed the Irish Hills (DeVaul) area to pursue completion sooner than originally shown, without increasing the citywide growth rate above previous targets. Commercial and Industrial Growth Management While the General Plan contains policies on the pace of nonresidential development and its relationship to housing growth, there are no direct limits on the rate of nonresidential construction. In 2002, the City Council again will need to consider setting such limits, because the General Plan threshold for doing so has been exceeded for several years (Table 3-13). Nonresidential floor area has increased faster than five percent during the last three five-year periods. In March 2001, the City Council considered last year's report and a Planning Commission recommendation to set limits on the pace of nonresidential development. The Council decided to take no action at that time, but to monitor the situation. Due to projects under construction, the moving five-year growth rate is expected to remain above the five-percent threshold for at least the next two years or so. National and statewide economic trends may reduce the pace in following years. According to the policy on nonresidential growth, any proposed limits could not apply to existing businesses, projects in the downtown core, public agencies, or manufacturing or research businesses. These exclusions would limit commercial and industrial phasing requirements to some major developments in expansion areas, such as the Airport Area. Setting actual limits on the pace of nonresidential development is complicated by: • The ability of some developments to proceed outside the city limits, under County jurisdiction; • The desire to have nonresidential development occur at a pace that can amortize the large initial costs of facilities needed to serve it; • City goals calling for provision of goods and services which substantial numbers of area residents leave the area to obtain, and retention of existing businesses and agencies that may seek expansion space. 1',11.\' ol, �.\n IMS OMSjrtO 10 lilall`r. .. ill_U1 .111111.\1. R.l:ilORl 2001 Attachment 1 Table 4 Residential Growth Management Phasing Status Number of Dwellings Authorized by Buildin Permits a, b 1999 -2022 Calendar year intervals: 1999-01 2002-04 2005-07 2008-10 Total f Demolitions a assumption -40 -40 -30 -30 -220 actual -46' New in-city c assumption 290 1.10 100 100 1,000 actual Dalidio allowed 0 0 180 0 180 actual Y; Irish Hills North allowed J 190 80 0 0 270 actual a ' ''„' 1c7fi; Irish Hills South allowed 53 70 0 0 123 k" 46 actual a �:.�«'"-mow: Orcutt allowed 0 70 90 215 640 actual Margarita allowed 77 275 235 310 1.,200 actualw?Q Other annexations I assumption 01 20 30 301 200 actual Tar et maximum total dwellin s permitted 570 585 605 625 3,393 actual v; . 48$ Annual percent change, target d 1.01 1.011 1.01 1.01 0.69 Annual percent change, actual Exempt affordable dwellings permitted a 69 Total non-exempt and exempt dwellin s 557 Notes: (a) Dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes, as defined in the Housing Element, are exempt. Includes affordable, exempt dwelling in plan-check for Irish Hills North and Irish F3ills South (b)This is a simple count of dwellings and is not meant to reflect the Zoning Regulation's method for calculating fractional dwellings. (c) Includes the incorporated area in 1994 and certain annexations during 1994- 1998 (Stoneridge; Prefumo Homes;and the EI Capitan, Goldenrod, and Fuller Road parts of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, which has its own growth management provisions). (d)A calculated result, assuming that the maximum amounts are achieved in previous intervals.. (e) Includes losses from fire, use conversion, and moving out of the city. (f) Columns for years 2011 through 2022 have been omitted for formatting reasons only. (g) Building permits for Irish Hills North and Irish Hills South had not been issued but were in plan-check at the end of 2001. 3-16 1 . (AIX Or �.�n LUIS of+15, it c}C,11k,1, �)Idtl .ltliltl\t PCI)O I. 2001 Attachment 1 A Note on Store Size Limits The City has been faced with several proposals for large retail developments, including what are often called "big box stores." During 2001, the City Council adopted design guidelines and size limits for large stores. The standards were based on General Plan policies concerning new development fitting the character of the community. A Note on Water Allocations Under General Plan policies, the pace of development is also affected by the available water supply. Nearly every project that would increase water usage needs to obtain a water allocation. The amount available for allocation is the difference between (1) calculated, citywide usage at a rate, adopted by policy, that reflects effective long-term water conservation, and (2) the amount of water that can reliably be drawn from the City's supplies, even during a drought. This safe- yield approach assures that there will be enough water for all customers at reasonable usage rates, even during years of low rainfall. (Water allocations have been accounted for as building permits were issued, not when land was annexed or when initial development plans were approved.) For several years until the end of 2001, projects needing water allocations were required to offset their projected water use ("retrofit"), because the citywide calculation mentioned above assumed that all older, less efficient plumbing fixtures had been replaced. During 2001, the Council determined that retrofitting in the city has essentially been completed. The result is that starting in 2002, projects can obtain water allocations and building permits without retrofitting. Developers of large projects, concerned that the water available for allocation may not be sufficient for their later phases, can still complete offsetting retrofits consistent with the Water Allocation Regulations. According to the Housing Element (policy H 6.3.5), if public services such as water must be rationed to new development, residential projects will be given priority over nonresidential projects, and affordable projects will be given priority over market-rate projects. While retrofitting was the only option for proceeding, it made little sense to assign retrofit potential to types of projects, because locating and completing the retrofits was at the initiative of the project proponent. Therefore, Policy H 6.3.5 was not applied. Now that some water is available without retrofitting, and more is likely to be made available in the relatively near term—but not enough to support build-out of the General Plan— the City Council will need to decide how to implement this policy. The City is pursuing the following supplemental water sources. The City intends that one or more will become available in time to support one-percent annual growth. • Using more well water. The.groundwater basin under the city can be depleted quickly by pumping, but it recharges quickly with normal or above rainfall. The City is studying how to get more from the groundwater basin without adverse effects or contradicting General Plan policies on agriculture and wildlife. O IN 0I ;.v) lois 061,, 12 2001 Attachment 1 • Using highly treated wastewater for irrigation. The treatment plant is ready to provide this source of non-potable water. Concerning using part of the effluent for other than stream flow, the Council has certified the environmental impact report and received needed approvals from State agencies. The City needs to approve detailed plans for construction of the pumps and pipes that would distribute this reclaimed water. The City is pursuing a grant and a low-interest loan to help pay for this system. Major new development areas are proposed to include dual piping systems from the start. • Installing a spillway gate at the Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), to increase storage and safe yield. The City has a State-approved permit that allows expanded storage at this reservoir, but the reservoir is owned by the Federal government and operated by the County. The proposed project has been controversial, with questions about its effects on natural habitat around the lake and people and wildlife downstream. In 2001 the City proceeded with additional studies on seismic safety and downstream fisheries. • Tapping into a distribution system for Lake Nacimiento water. The County has an entitlement for a large share of the water available from this reservoir, but there is no pipe to bring it to interested agencies. The City has asked for a portion of the water and has helped pay for engineering and environmental studies. However, it has been difficult to reach agreement among all the agencies that would participate in building the delivery system. It is probably too expensive for an individual agency, especially one farther from the reservoir, to build the system alone. • Installing a seawater desalination plant at Morro Bay. The City is exploring the potential to use the City of Monro Bay's desalination facility. Each year, usually in late spring, the City's Utilities Department presents to the City Council the "Water Resources Status Report" which provides more detail on these topics. Affordable Housing In 2001, the City did the following in support of affordable housing or special-needs housing' • Continued to administer the Inclusionary Housing Requirement, resulting in completion of three affordable dwellings in a mixed-use project, and collection of $193,700 in fees for the City's Housing Trust Fund, to be used for affordable housing projects; • Continued to contribute to operation of the Orcutt Road homeless shelter and the Prado Road homeless services center; • Used $322;300 of Community Development Block Grant funds to help acquire six existing apartments for affordable,Women's Shelter transitional housing; • Revised the Residential Growth Management phasing schedule to accommodate the Irish Hills (DeVaul) development containing affordable dwellings, which was ready to proceed. iiti:\' ll� �,\11 Ltlts ORI:. i 13 '2001 Attachment Open Space Protection A basic General Plan goal is protecting the open land outside the City's urban reserve line, which is the adopted growth boundary, as well as sensitive lands within the urban area. The Land Use Element, Open Space Element, and Conservation Element address this subject in detail. Ownership by the City or a land conservation organization provides the most secure protection. In 2001, the City completed acquisition of the following (map, page 20). • Fee ownership of the 284-acre Hastings property, to enlarge the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve, by purchase; • Fee ownership of the 154-acre Foster property, to enlarge the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, by purchase; • Fee ownership of the 242-acre Johnson property, in the Irish Hills area, by purchase; • A 180-acre conservation easement on the Bowden Ranch, on the west slope of the Santa Lucia Foothills and adjacent to the Reservoir Canyon.Natural Reserve, as a donation. Historic Preservation In response to recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee, the City revised its demolition regulations, environmental-review procedures, and resource-documentation requirements, and provided additional staff training. Also, the Council designated eight additional historic properties, of which seven were houses in or near the downtown area. Four sites were added to the "Mills Act" property-tax reduction program. Annexations Annexations expand the area over which the City has land-use authority, which is a fundamental way to implement the General Plan. Annexations can also increase development potential, open space protection, City tax revenues, space for City facilities, and service demands and costs. In general, annexations require approval by the property owner, the City, the County, and a separate countywide body called the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). During 2001, the following annexations were completed(map, page 20): • The Aerovista area, about 24 mostly vacant acres west of Broad Street, on which the County recently approved a commercial subdivision (Airport Area); • The northern part of the Froom Ranch on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road, opposite the Garcia Drive intersection, consisting of about 53 acres on which the County had approved a large home-improvement store and sites for other large stores, with an open space easement on part of the ownership extending into the Irish Hills; • The southern part of the DeVaul Ranch on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road, northwest of the Garcia Drive intersection, consisting of about 14 acres planned for residential development. Also, the City Council took steps to approve the following annexations, but they had not been completed by the end of the year(map, page 20): • The Creekside property west of Broad Street opposite El Capitan Way, a six-acre site that was fully developed with offices (?airport Area); • The Cannon office park project west of Broad Street and south of Tank Farm Road, a six- acre site that was mostly vacant (Airport Area) �1q ��I, :an tui; oiii;. to r,C,IIG jN_An annual l:r.hcn21. 400l Attachment 1 Major Implementation Plans Specific plans, and other types of plans for sub-areas of the city, often bridge between the General Plan and subdivisions or construction plans. The General Plan requires specific plans for certain major new development areas. It encourages sub-area plans for some largely developed parts of the city that have particular limitations or opportunities. These plans typically contain more detailed land-use and design standards than the General Plan, and address the timing and financing of public facilities. They can supersede the Zoning Regulations, or lead to changes in them. The process for adopting such a plan is similar to the process for adopting or amending a section of the General Plan. In 2001, the City worked on the following area plans (map, page 20). Margarita Area The Margarita Area contains about 418 acres in the south-central part of the urban area. The City has counted on the Margarita Area to provide a large share of the dwellings needed to balance projected job growth. In 2001, a Council-endorsed draft specific plan was referred to the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), as required by State law. The ALUC determined that the specific plan was not compatible with the Airport. As a result, representatives of the City, the County, and the ALUC held a series of meetings, trying to find an approach that would meet all agencies' goals. However, their work was not finished by the end of the year. Further delays in adopting the specific plan may prompt consideration of a change to the Land Use Element policy that requires specific plan adoption before development, so construction of the Damon-Garcia sports fields can proceed, as outlined in the recently updated Parks and Recreation Element. Airport Area The Airport Area Specific Plan would cover about 1,000 acres immediately south of the Margarita Area. Almost one-third of the area would be open space. The rest would be for commercial, industrial, or airport uses. The City Council endorsed land-use and circulation concepts, and alternatives, in 1999. During 2001, work concentrated on finalizing plans for water, sewer, and storm drainage systems (which extend beyond the designated Airport Area), deciding how the cost of major public facilities should be funded, and on completing the environmental impact report. Formal review of the draft plan will begin, and possibly be completed, in 2002. Orcutt Area The Orcutt Area Specific Plan would cover about 231 acres in the southeastern part of the urban area. Almost half the area would be open space or parks. The rest would accommodate about 600 dwellings of various types. During 2001, staff and consultants worked with the area owners to prepare a revised draft specific plan. Mid-Higuera Street Area The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan, adopted in 2001, covers about 89 acres along Higuera Street, between Marsh Street and Elks Lane. This is an important corridor, linking the downtown core with the Madonna Road area. Its assets include its convenient location, long-established businesses, San Luis Obispo Creek, historic sites, and architecturally diverse buildings. Its challenges include traffic congestion, flooding, and a sometimes awkward mix of land uses. The enhancement plan is intended to guide carefully considered re-development. Following adoption of the plan, the Zoning Map was amended for conformance. Also, staff completed environmental reports for State and Federal review of the proposed street widening. city of ami Luis owsl ,� 15 C:enel2.._ pl.jn minUAL PEPOP't 2001 Traffic and Circulation Attachment 1 Much of San Luis Obispo's street system evolved before current traffic levels. Additional development is expected to bring more traffic, despite policies and programs intended to reduce trip generation from a given amount of development. Maintaining San Luis Obispo's livability involves fostering options to motor vehicle travel and avoiding excessive speed or congestion, considering all users and neighbors of roads. Following are the principal efforts undertaken or completed in 2001 to implement circulation goals. Walking and Cycling San Luis Obispo's climate, relatively compact form, and young population are conducive to walking and cycling. Safe, direct routes are key to encouraging further use of these modes. The Circulation Element calls for a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths. While the network will not be completed by the 2000 target date, substantial progress has been made since the 1994 Circulation Element update. In 2001, the City did the following to support walking and cycling for basic transportation and for recreation. • Extended the Railroad Safety Trail, with completion of the segment from Bushnell Street to the Jennifer-Osos Street pedestrian bridge anticipated for early 2002. • Completed a "route plan" for a bicycle path that will extend north of the Amtrak station along the railroad to Foothill Boulevard. The City has started a dialogue with Union Pacific Railroad to acquire the necessary easements and right-of-way to construct the path, and is pursuing State grant funding for this project. • Began an update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, to be completed in 2002, which Would make the City eligible for additional grant funding. • Began design of a "bicycle boulevard" on Morro Street between Santa Barbara Avenue and Marsh Street. A bicycle boulevard is a street that accommodates bicycles by discouraging through vehicular traffic while encouraging through access by bicyclists and pedestrians. The design, which may include signage, striping, paving, lighting, landscaping, and traffic control devices, will be reviewed by the City Council in 2002. • Began designing an enhanced pedestrian environment on Garden Street between Higuera and Marsh streets. Transit Service In 2001, the City did the following in support of maintaining and improving local bus service: • Worked with developers to locate appropriate bus stops for projects on city bus routes; • Obtained three new buses; • In partnership with the Air Pollution Control District, arranged a transit subsidy agreement with Home Depot and pilot program to encourage transit usage; • Implemented the demonstration Gold Pass Program to provide an incentive for downtown employees to use alternative transportation; • Prepared and distributed new bus schedules that are easier to read; • Re-timed all routes to improve on-time performance; • In conjunction with the new three-year transit service contract, adopted a new agreement with Cal Poly (extending through June 2006) to ensure that the "no fare" subsidy program for students and employees continues. Evening bus service was reduced due to low ridership and the relatively high cost per rider. city of sin tins oBisfz, annual PtpoPt 2001 Attachment 1 Railroad Transportation Center This facility on Santa Barbara Avenue, completed in mid-2001, includes 123 new parking stalls (some reserved for Amtrak patrons) and layover space for six buses operated by Central Coast Area Transit. In conjunction with this project, Santa Barbara Avenue between Morro and High streets was widened to include a center turn lane and a sidewalk, using an historic boardwalk design along the eastern side. Reworking Streets and Interchanges In cooperation with Caltrans and other agencies, the City began detailed studies of possible revisions to the interchange of Highway 101 with Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, and of Highway 101 with Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1), to make traffic flow safer and smoother. Design work also started for the potential closure of Broad Street between Monterey and Palm streets, to strengthen the pedestrian connection along Mission Plaza. Transportation Survey The Circulation Element calls for periodic surveys to gauge success in meeting goals. In May, questionnaires were sent to 3,500 City households asking residents how they currently use various types of transportation and what could be done to improve transportation services. About 27 percent responded. The results show that San Luis Obispo resident's use of automobiles, city buses, and bicycles declined slightly from 1999 levels, but walking trips increased significantly. Full survey results, including resident feedback on various transportation programs and activities, are available at the Public Works Department, 955 Morro Street. Neighborhood Traffic Management Neighborhood traffic management is intended to improve safety and reduce the intrusive effects of traffic, mainly in residential areas. City efforts in support of neighborhood traffic management are targeted to areas where a majority of residents support the proposed measures. Five neighborhoods have initiated the preparation of neighborhood traffic management plans. • The Margarita Avenue area received Council approval of its plan, and as a result three stop signs were installed. • The Augusta Street area had resident support for the installation of three speed tables between Bishop and Sydney Streets. This proposal was reviewed and approved by the City Council in January 2002. • The High Street area did not receive the necessary majority approval by residents, so a plan was not adopted. However, the City marked narrower lanes on the roadway to encourage reduce speeds. • The Spanish Oaks and Highland Drive areas began to consider preparing neighborhood traffic management plans. Neighborhood Quality In addition to the traffic items noted above, the City continued its code-enforcement and public education efforts. Also, progress was made on drafting new, more explicit architectural review guidelines (relevant for infill projects), and refining the Zoning Regulations' property maintenance standards. Both of these items were expected to be presented for adoption in 2002. 3 ' Cite of san tins owsE,_, 17 r,E:nsiz._ f)tan annual PG1101:t 2001 Capital Projects Attachment 1 Capital projects are the City's major investments in facilities and equipment. They are one way to implement the General Plan. During each two-year budget cycle, the City evaluates its list of proposed capital improvement projects for consistency with the General Plan. During 2001, the City advanced or completed several major capital projects. Major projects supporting General Plan goals are listed below, in no particular order. Additional items requiring substantial investments are listed under relevant topic headings. • Began expansion of the Marsh Street garage; • Completed reinforcement of the Higuera Street bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek; • Continued to replace old water and sewer lines and to repave streets, through intensive efforts aimed at doing major work within targeted areas, then avoiding disruptive activities within those areas for as many years as practical; • Completed updates of master water and wastewater plans, concerning citywide facilities. A Note on Creeks and Flooding The General Plan says waterways and floodplains should be managed to maintain and restore fish and wildlife habitat, prevent loss of life and minimize property damage from flooding, and provide compatible recreational opportunities. In 2001 the City continued work on a Waterways Management Plan, which was presented to the City Council at the end of the year. Main proposals are: • Make better use of the culvert under Highway 101 near Cuesta Park to detain peak storm flows, reducing flooding downtown. • Encourage taller, less bushy vegetation along the creek between Marsh Street and Madonna Road. • Create by-pass channels parallel to the creek along some segments from Marsh Street to Prado Road. • Increase the capacity of the Prefumo Creek culvert under Highway 101, and widen the floodable terrace along San Luis Obispo Creek near where Prefumo Creek enters. • Replace Stenner Creek bridges at Foothill Boulevard (started in 2001), Murray Street, and Santa Rosa Street. • Allow no net increase of fill for undeveloped floodplain areas. Other Agencies' Activities The City's plans must take into account what other agencies' plans have allowed. The City often tries to influence other agencies' plans and programs, so they will help rather than hinder attainment of the City's goals. In 2001, there were significant activities involving Cal Poly's plan and a plan for compatible land uses near the Airport. Cal Poly's Master Plan The Cal Poly campus is within the City's planning area, and the presence of the university exerts strong influences on the community. However, nearly all of the campus is outside the city limits. Even more significant, as a State agency, Cal Poly is not bound by City or County general plans 3 -a3 (at;y L�j sm) tuts �,[ii. Is i) Al nual [ to ['dlCWf Gflt 1 or land-use rules. In 2001, the State University system adopted an update of Cal Poly's Master Plan, which covers programs, enrollment, and campus facilities. Major features of the proposed plan include increasing Fall-quarter, head-count enrollment from about 17,000 to 20,900 over 20 years, providing housing for an additional 3,000 students on campus, and reducing the ratio of on-campus parking spaces to students. The General Plan says the City will seek to minimize growth of housing demand from Cal Poly enrollment increases. However, Cal Poly's plan would help address the underlying concerns by providing enough housing on campus for most of the new enrollment, developing some new housing for faculty and staff close to the campus, and encouraging alternatives to individual vehicles for trips between dwellings and campus. In 2001, Cal Poly began development of additional on-campus student housing, and proposed a housing project next to Highland Drive, which prompted concerns from several neighborhood residents. The Airport Land Use Plan The Airport is a major influence on the community, particularly the southern part of the urban area where most future development has been planned to occur. Under State law, a countywide, independent Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopts a plan identifying land uses that are compatible with present and future airport noise and safety conditions. The area subject to this Airport Land Use Plan extends beyond the City's designated airport specific plan area, and includes land under City jurisdiction and under County jurisdiction (map, page 20). Proposed specific plans and amendments to the General Plan and zoning must be referred to the ALUC for a determination of compatibility. The ALUC uses its plan as a basis for the determination. For the City to override a finding of incompatibility, a four-fifths vote of the City Council and certain findings are required. The City's General Plan calls for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUC has been working on an update of the Airport Land Use Plan. The most recent draft would restrict development, particularly residential uses, more than the adopted Airport Land Use Plan. The changes could in particular affect the Margarita, Orcutt, and Dalidio areas. The jobs-housing imbalance would be further worsened if the area now shown in the City's General Plan for residential use were to be designated for commercial or industrial uses, which are usually seen as more compatible with airport operations. Loss of housing development potential is of added concern with expected new State mandates for housing capacity, which must be addressed in next update of Housing Element. During 2001, two council members and three members of the ALUC met several times as a working group, assisted by City and County staff. Their charge was to outline ways that residential development potential in the identified areas could be maintained, while avoiding conflicts with the Airport. Their efforts focused on the Margarita Area. Their work had not concluded by the end of the year. However, it appeared that an acceptable approach was within sight: the most restrictive proposed standards would not be applied throughout the Margarita Area, though there would be substantial changes to the Margarita Area land use layout, to eliminate a school site, shift the location of higher density housing, and show more parks or open space in areas closest to flight paths. 3�� 19 .\111111M t2(--'POt2'i: 2Q01 Attachment 1 Program Status The General Plan contains an ambitious array of programs covering many types of City activities. The Housing Element, in particular, includes many programs with specific time frames. This report touches only on the major programs that saw activity in 2000. (A separate list of all General Plan programs is available from the Community Development Department.) The City Council formally reconsiders program priorities and support levels every two years, as part of the budget cycle, while General Plan elements are usually revised only every five years or more. The two-year priority determinations made by the City Council supersede the target program- completion dates in the General Plan. Also, some programs depend on other agencies. As a result, the actual program work often varies from the originally targeted completion dates. .�-ate c.ii.}! of sin lois orispo 20 cfr t pLxn annual QEIOQL 2001 Attachment 1 Locations of Some Q Major Planning Items in 2001 N _ Annexations 0 0.5 1 Miles Open Space Acquisitions 0 0.5 1 l(ilometers s . Urban Reserve Line Sa'� ,p Cal Poly housing sites os I I 1 t Hwy °1 r•r.r•r.J• rY•rY•r 1 S L S..L.ti.ti.ti.ti S l•J•r t•r•r•r•r•J•r•r f•� r•r A C y� ti•ti.i ti•ti•ti•ti•ti.ti.ti.{ ti 4..,•i.•ti r-r•r•i•r•r.r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• OS ti.ti.ti.ti.ti ti.ti.ti.ti.ti•ti•ti•ti.ti.ti•ti r• •r•r•f•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r-r r• K•ti 5..•L.ti.ti.ti.ti.ti.l.ti.ti.ti tP� t •r.r•r•r.r•r.r•r•r•r•r. •tiK•ti•1•Yti•ti•L.S,•ti•ti .�•J•r•r r•J•r•r•r• •r•r•r yMid-Higuera Area — ~•'�� ♦ y�r: .ti 2 •r•r• •r•r ••fir .� a •:::::::•. r•r.r•r•r• 1Q;. t •ti•5n'L• •r•J•J•r•r r•J•rY - •S .ti. .r• :•�. i '.. } ' # ` Port Land Use Plan Areasub11ect to :•J. r•r•r �i1CIIR �yfti•ti•ti r•r•J•r• .ti•ti•ti.ti. r•r J•r•r• 9Z� r•r•r•r•r•r• .r• Yti•L•1rti•ti r•r•r•r•r.r• .t.ti•ti.ti.ti.ti 3-� I � i CAIN 01, S,VI 1.1115 081-..,.J 21 Cita1E. 1��.1i1 .\111111.\� Rti}.�01;C 2001 Attachment For More Information Community Development Department offices are in the lower level of City Hall, which is downtown at the corner of Palm and Osos streets. Office hours are 8:00 am to 5:00 a Ail pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The location and mailing address are: 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 U.S.A. A few short-term parking spaces are available at the curb in front of the building and behind P the building. Additional parking is available in a structure one block west on Palm Street. The department's main entry is wheelchair accessible, and there is a curbside, disabled parking space in front of the building. There are also wheelchair-accessible entries to City Hall's upper level and a disabled parking space behind the building, with access from Osos Street, but there is no elevator or indoor ramp between the levels of City Hall. o� Osos Street at Palm Street is a meeting point for local and county bus routes. Maps and publications may be viewed or purchased at the Community Development ma- li Department (purchase prices reflect only the cost of printing). Most items are also available for reference at the City-County Library across the street from City Hall, and at the Documents and Maps Section of the Cal Poly Library. The libraries generally have evening and Saturday hours. The department phone number is 805 781-7172; the fax number is 805 781-7173. TDD The City's Telecommunications Device for the Deaf number is 805 781-7410. Through the City's web site you can read or download the Digest General Plan and City regulations, learn more about City services, and check on some meeting agendas and meeting updates. The Web site is http://www.slocity.org. This report's author receives e-mail at gmaneso@slocity.org. 1� Se puede hacer preparativos para traducir en espanol. gp annual report/2001 3 � / Draft Planning CommlSsll iinutes February 27,2002 Attachment 2 Page 10 2. Citywide. General Plan Annual Report: Discussion of the report on the status of the General Plan its implementation. Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report. Concerning the non-residential growth policy, Commr. Cooper asked if the reasons stated in the Annual Report for the City Council's decision to not set a limit were the staff's reasons or the Council's reasons. Planner Matteson replied he did not recall the Council stating them in those words, but those are factors to be considered in the issue. Commr. Cooper suggested that the reasons not be included in the Annual Report if they are not Council's position. He questioned if progress was made on neighborhood preservation and where it would fit under the General Plan. Chairperson Peterson asked about the General Plan amendment that deleted the requirement for a specific plan for the Woodland Drive area, because the Planning Commission had decided to retain it. Planner Matteson explained that the Council's action was to allow a Specific Plan to be the planning document that would apply to this area, but it would not be a requirement. Vice-Chair Loh asked about efforts to involve the Planning Commission more in transportation planning. Director Mandeville said the Council was interested in having more advisory-body participation in transportation issues. Vice-Chair Loh commented that institutional (government, schools, or church) development should not be included in the non-residential development total. Planner Matteson noted that institutional development had not been a major part of overall nonresidential construction. Vice-Chair Loh stated she is trying to find a scientific reason or a common denominator to say there is too much non-residential or not enough residential. Director Mandeville referred to the General Plan policies on residential and nonresidential growth rates. Planner Matteson noted that the annual growth for residential was 1/2% last year and the annual growth rate for non-residential was 2.67% for last year. Commr. Cooper suggested that staff translate this into daytime and nighttime population. There were no further questions. Draft Planning Commism,--_.Ainutes February 27,2002 Attachment 2 Page 11 COMMISSION ACTIONS: Commr Boswell moved to recommend the Council adopt the non-residential growth cap that is suggested in the General Plan but that if the Council is not comfortable with doing so it should consider rewriting the policy concerning the imbalance between rates of growth for residential and non-residential. Seconded by Commr. Caruso. Commr. Osborne noted this issue was discussed last year and recalled the motion at that time was to ask staff to come up with some way to implement this. He suggested they come up with a system of allocating the growth. Director Mandeville explained it was the Council's direction to wait for this year's Annual Report to follow through with that. Commr. Cooper said that expansion of existing businesses is not a valid reason to not have growth limits, because approving certain commercial projects at the current rate, would put enormous numbers of businesses downtown out of business. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Loh, and Chair Peterson NOES: Commr. Aiken ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 6-1. Commr. Boswell noted that the Pedestrian Transportation Plan was not in the report and suggested it be addressed. Director Mandeville said the Commission may make any recommendations to the Council that the Commission feels are appropriate regarding either speeding up or changing any of the existing General Plan goals or policies. Commr. Boswell moved to have the Annual Report address the Pedestrian Transportation. Seconded by Commr. Osborne. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Loh, Aiken, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. Commr. Cooper moved to recommend the City Council place greater emphasis on neighborhood preservation including property maintenance noise abatement, etc. Seconded by Vice-Chair Loh. Vice-Chair Loh suggested they have Historical Preservation as an independent element of the General Plan. 3-a9 Draft Planning Commissio.__.inutes February 27,2002 - Attachment 2 Page 12 Planner Matteson noted he was hearing two different things; one is they want to express a concern to the Council about putting more effort toward neighborhood protection, in particular noise abatement and property maintenance, and secondly to make say more on the topic in the report itself. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Loh, Aiken, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. Vice-Chair Loh moved to recommend that Historical Preservation should be a stand- alone element within the General Plan. Seconded by Commr. Cooper.. Commr. Boswell noted that the Annual Report is on the status of implementation of the General Plan and when comments are made in this context, they should be based on the Commission's assessment of what has and has not been implemented in the General Plan. Director Mandeville noted the Commission is free to make a recommendation to the Council anytime. Commr. Osborne asked for a clarification on the merit of having the Historical Preservation be a stand-alone element in the General Plan. Community Director Mandeville stated the City does support historic preservation through current policies in the General Plan. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Loh, Aiken, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. Commr. Osborne move to recommend that City Council proceed with adopting a long- range mass transportation plan. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Loh, Aiken, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. Commr. Osborne asked if there was discussion about increased density or some other way to meet the increased housing demand. Director Mandeville explained that as the Commission reviews the Housing Element Update, they would be investigating one of the State-mandated topics, which is finding 3-3v Draft Planning Commiss. Minutes - Attachment 2 February 27,2002 Page 13 suitable sites for the housing units that are going to be allocated to the City of San Luis Obispo. As a part of this analysis, they will be evaluating several alternatives for finding suitable sites, including rezoning and increasing densities. Chairperson Peterson commented that mainly single-family, detached housing is being built, which is not affordable, and suggested having less R-1 and more R-3 and R-4 in expansion areas. Commr. Osborne moved to support extension of the C-C zoning to the upper Monterey Street area. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Community Director Mandeville explained there is a consultant working on a Commercial Zoning Update, which includes a comprehensive look at the zone map and text. Chairperson Peterson suggested they might want to decouple the C-C zone expansion from the rest of the commercial zoning update. Commr. Osborne suggested eliminating the onsite-parking requirement and moving to an option of paying an in-lieu fee. Director Mandeville explained the Council has directed staff to move ahead with the analysis of decoupling the in-lieu fee parking option from the comprehensive commercial zoning update and creating an in-lieu parking fee district that could be separate from the C-C zone. Commr. Aiken noted that he would be abstaining from this motion because his office is in the upper Monterey Street area. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Boswell, Caruso, and Chair Peterson NOES: Commr. Loh ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commr. Aiken The motion carried 5-1. Vice-Chair Loh suggested that there be a separate committee for pedestrian circulation and access. PUBLIC COMMENT: Warren Sturgal, Cal Poly student, commented that the upper Monterey Street area seems like it has a lot of hotels and car dealerships and they are not conducive to removing parking because if you are staying in a hotel you would not want to carry your luggage far and if you own a car dealership you don't want to remove your parking for your cars. There were no further comments from the public. 3 -31