The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/15/2005, - CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF 15 MAR 2005 - STUDY SESSION ITEM 2 - AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN ETC. 4 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-City Council hearing of 15 Mar 2005 Study session 2-Airport land use plan Page 1 of 2�_ ^Anp 15 Mar. 2005 , (_ ) To: City of San Luis Obispo,CA 5�v From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614 RE: City Council hearing of 15 Mar 2005 - Study Session item 2- Airport land use plan etc. 1. The City's proposed definition of "existing development" is probably inconsistent with the law. Staff report at page 2-35 shows section 2.8.1, Existing land use(from the Airport Land Use Plan). That section defines a land use to be "existing" when one of the following conditions is met: (a) a vesting tentative map has been approved and all discretionary approvals have been obtained; (b) substantial construction investments by the landowner make it infeasible for the property to be used for anything other than its proposed use; or (c)the land use physically exists. The above definition seems to be at odds with the language in state law(Public Utilities code 21674.7,Planning handbook, shown in staff report at page 2-11). Sec. 21674.7(b): "It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore,prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure,or facility,and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations.... etc." This plain language indicates that "existing" land uses are those that are already built and operating. This would be a more restrictive definition than the one given in the Airport Land Use Plan sec. 2.8.1, above. So, the relaxed standards for definition of"existing" should not be relaxed any further to include "existing" to mean potential future uses that are permissible based on the current zoning of the land. 2. Some of the findings in the DRAFT Airport compatible Open Space Plan (City of San Luis Obispo, Feb. 2005, staff report at p. 2- 16 etc.) appear to be incorrect. Laguna Lake Park Staff report at p.2-21 states that the reserve space is flat, low level grass land and that there are some wetland areas within the reserve space. However,there are also some shallow gullies(swales)within this area. According to the scaled map(p.2-22, staff report)the high voltage electrical transmission towers To City of San Luis Obispo fron. 4ichael Sullivan-City Council hearing of 15'Mur 2005 Study session 2-Airport land use plan Page 2 of 2 are about 500 feet(less than 0.1 mile)from the reserve area C, making this site potentially unsafe for emergency landing. Dalidio Open Space Staff report at p.2-23 (Current ownership and development status)states, "The majority of the reserve area is currently owned by the Dalidio family and managed by Ernie Dalidio. The area includes portions of the Madonna gap property and the McBride property that are designated on the City's General Plan as permanent open space, therefore no future development within this area is anticipated." It is unclear whether the above statement is accurate,without a.map to show exactly which areas can be developed and which must remain in open space. The Madonna_ Gap property will be a future commercial development area. The McBride property is proposed to become an automobile dealership. A proposed collector road from the proposed Marketplace project(Dalidio site)may also be close to or within the proposed reserve area These details must be clearly explained and shown on a more detailed map before findings of adequacy can be made for this open space site. Margarita Area Staff report at p.2-27(Implementation)states that"it would be hard to guarantee compliance with all of the restrictions associated with Airport Compatible Open Space,although the open and undeveloped nature of the property would not change." Such an uncertain fate of the land use is not amenable to public safety. There is also no guarantee that the Garcia land would not eventually be re-zoned for some other use such as residential or commercial use. Airport Area Reserve#2 Staff report at p.2-31 (Site Description)states that the"orientation of the restricted reserve space areas appears to follow certain flight paths(ALUP, Figure 10),although it was chosen more with respect to topography and the ability of this space to meet the most restrictive ACOS requirements." However,the map(Staff report,p. 2-32)shows this landing area is almost at right angles to the normal flight path for the Airport's main runway,so this proposal is probably not safe. 3. The ACOS Action plan (Staff report, p. 3-33) may be infeasible. The plan states that the City shall pursue ownership,through property owner dedication,or shall pursue conservation easements,for proposed open space areas. There is no information here about how the City could produce the funds needed to gain such ownership or easement. Where is the plan for the funding? If these actions are not feasible, the City will pursue S zone(Special Considerations)re-zoning. What if a property owner objects? Wouldn't such a re-zoning be considered a taking under the law? The details of implementation remain hazy and appear to be infeasible. Michael Sullivan q1S CC San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 March 15, 2005 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255•TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to make the following recommendations regarding Item B-2 on tonight's Council agenda: review of the recently amended San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan and its effects on the City's General Plan development program. First,we support a policy whereby the City of San Luis Obispo is able to use a balanced approach in reaching its General Plan target numbers for housing and commercial development. We believe that the implementation of an Airport Compatible Open Space plan is a reasonable way to help achieve this goal. Setting aside open space areas that are compatible with airport operations in exchange for the ability to develop urban areas to greater intensity is a commonsense approach toward accomplishing the goals of the City's General Plan while protecting the viability of the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. Second, we would like to ensure that under this agreement density would not be calculated on a parcel by parcel basis but rather on an area wide basis, especially for annexation areas. This will help to provide reliable projection numbers for both housing and commercial development and will encourage a higher density city with compact urban form. The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has long held to the belief that both businesses and individuals should be able to rely on the General Plan to determine what projects they will engage in. We also are firmly committed to the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport which is a key component of our economic vitality. We hope that the recommendations that you have before you tonight will move forward to help accommodate both. Sincerely, Bob Wacker Chairperson of the Board email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com