HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/2006, BUS 3 - RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO EXPAND FROM THREE YEARS TO EIGHT YEARS council
j ac enaa uEpoin Bus. 3
CITY O F SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM- John Mandeville, Community Development Directoy►
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner ((
SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO EXPAND FROM THREE YEARS TO
EIGHT YEARS THE INTERVALS USED IN THE RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PHASING SCHEDULE.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Reconsider the Planning Commission's recommendation to evaluate proposed changes to
the Residential Growth Management Ordinance phasing schedule and report back to the
Council with options and a recommended action (in approximately six to eight months).
DISCUSSION
Situation
On April 18, 2006, the City Council accepted the 2005 Annual Report on the General
Plan and approved a revision to the Residential Growth Management Ordinance phasing
schedule (Council Resolution 7989, Attachment 1). The Council also discussed a
Planning Commission recommendation to consider extending the intervals used in the
phasing schedule from 3 years to 8 years. With Council Member Settle absent, the
Council deadlocked on this issue 2-2 (Attachment 2). At the May 2, 2006, Council
meeting staff was directed to bring the item back for consideration on May 16`h so that the
complete Council could discuss and consider the issue.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The proposed change to the phasing schedule would have the effect of allowing more
residential development to occur in the City's expansion areas within any given year, while
maintaining the 1% average growth rate for dwellings when measured over the eight-year
interval.
For example, under the current phasing schedule, all of the units in the Margarita Area can
be constructed by 2014. Units are allocated every three years starting with the 2005-07
interval and continuing through the 2014-16 interval. An eight-year interval would cover
essentially the same years, 2007-14. During this eight-year period, all 868 of the planned
units in the Margarita Area can be constructed as feasible considering market conditions
and infrastructure requirements (such as construction of Prado Road). The benefit that
the Planning Commission sees with the eight year interval is that the units can be
constructed at any time during the eight year span, which may provide housing developers
with more flexibility to respond to peaks and valleys in the housing market.
3-�
Council Agenda Report Page 2
Growth Management Ordinance Phasing
It should be noted that construction of 868 units (total potential for the Margarita Area)
over an eight year period constitutes a residential growth rate of about .5%. The other
.5% is expected to come from infill development and units in the Orcutt Area, since
General Plan policies allow for some overlap of construction in the expansion areas.
The proposal to change the length of the phasing interval would require an amendment to
LUE policy 1.11.2, which establishes the current 36-month interval (Attachment 3). At
the Council meeting, staff will be able to discuss how the interval change relates to the
timing of Prado Road construction, and the affect of the change on development in the
Orcutt Area. However, all affects of the proposed phasing schedule revision will not be
known until a complete analysis can be prepared.
What Other Issues Will Need to Be Considered
The contemplated change to the phasing schedule could have the effect of allowing
planned development to occur sooner. One of the most important reasons for having the
phasing schedule is to match the City's ability to provide services with the pace of new
development. Land Use Element Policy 1.11.1 provides the overall intent of the City's
growth rate and phasing controls.
LUE 1.11.1: Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution
of the community and the gradual assimilation of new residents.
Growth must be consistent with the City's ability to provide resources
and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the
environment, the economy, and open space.
Accordingly, the following issues will be evaluated as part of the complete analysis:
1) Timing and availability of water resources (Water Reuse Project, Nacimiento Pipeline
Project).
2) Sewer collection capacity (Tank Farm Lift Station Project).
3) Transportation infrastructure requirements (Prado Road construction, including the
status of the Prado/101 interchange).
4) Expected population growth and the comparative impact on park facilities, City
recreation programs and service organizations.
5) Temporary impacts to air quality and traffic operations resulting from high levels of
construction activity.
Project Timing
Staff estimates the project to revise the phasing schedule will take 6 to 8 months to
complete. Environmental review will be required. It is possible that staff will conclude
that a change to the phasing schedule is not recommended. However, it is also quite
possible that some change is warranted and will return to the Council with a recommended
J -z
Council Agenda Report Page 3
Growth Management Ordinance Phasing
action that could include additional General Plan amendments and changes to the Growth
Management Ordinance. In no case will staff consider a change to the underlying policy
imperative that limits residential growth to one percent.
Existing Residential Growth Management Exemptions
Council member Ewan has requested a summary of the types of residential development
that are not subject to the residential growth management regulations and not a part of the
growth management phasing schedule. The types of residential development include
deed-restricted affordable units and new dwellings in the downtown core (CD zone).
Therefore, when permits for new affordable dwellings in the expansion areas are issued,
those permits do not count against the total allocated for that area in the phasing schedule.
And, the number of building permits identified in the phasing schedule as "assumed new
in-city" reflects only market rate units outside of the downtown core.
FISCAL IMPACTS
If staff is directed to consider changes to the Growth Management Ordinance phasing
schedule, associated fiscal impacts will be evaluated.
CONCURRENCES
If staff is directed to consider changes to the Growth Management Ordinance phasing
schedule, the Community Development Department will coordinate with the Public
Works, Parks and Recreation, Utilities, Police, Fire, Finance, and Administration
departments to evaluate the affects of the proposed changes on City programs, services
and infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may decide not to direct staff to evaluate changes to the Growth
Management Ordinance phasing schedule.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Council Resolution #7989 (revision to phasing schedule), and Residential
Growth Management Ordinance (SLOMC 17.88)
Attachment 2: 4-18-06 City Council Meeting Minutes
Attachment 3: Land Use Element Policies on Growth Rates and Phasing
Attachment 4: 4-18-06 Council Agenda Report including the 2005 Annual Report on
the General Plan
LAGP Annual Report\phwing\phning(5-16-06).doc
a3-3
Atta.,hment 1
RESOLUTION NO.9789(2005 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PHASING SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in
the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 18,
2006, for the purpose of considering a modification to the Residential Growth Management
Phasing Schedule(Schedule); and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo held a public hearing to review the proposed Schedule and recommended its approval by
consensus to the Council; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the proposed
amendment to the Schedule will not cause a direct physical change in the environment, or cause
a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment, and therefore does not constitute a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Schedule is consistent with the General Plan and the
Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC 17.88) because it allocates units to the
City's major expansion areas to insure that the residential growth rate does not exceed 1% during
any three-year interval;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendations of the Planning Commission and
staff,presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to Schedule. The Residential Growth Management Phasing
Schedule is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
On motion of Council Member Ewan, seconded by Council Mulholland and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Brown,Ewan, and Mulholland, and Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Settle
R 9789
�y
� 1
Atta�hMent
Resolution No.9789 (2006 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of April,2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey per
City Cler
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J P.Lowell
City Attorney
3 -s
Atta�hmant 1
a
a
W
ti
Od 0Nr 0000 M ci
N + r CO o
N
O
O
N �
p
N0000000Lo N T
Z
N ' r .m.
O c
m
O O
0Ln � 000 ^ Oto Lo w Lo c
O
� N drSRnEn
„OtDto 000 toN4q � 00f 0 :g . O0
l0 m C
m �w �.4 ca
G. G O 0
9t G =
� N oo G E°1 = �£� � 'o
acq � vc0p0O0o `o N o m�
a r NO CD � Oa � E
.0 r r � 00 . �� C.
3N c6E2
[] U) O O O O O W Lo 00 O -S g� C.•� T
I,. 1� t0 O O c to � afi �
Q r r r 0 ( r .O _N !A L 'QVp1 O
0 =F �.- _> -
£ N •O j r' a N C
000000017 to tt c a =
Z 0 1 cr)r)) OD M 00 b a a �
o $ c = Eg;
N t N a.0 '- 3
N 0
p W
co Lf)
O1c pcc G -S CSi0
C 1 !IE„I�Iq ��k t•• : u5'i Z• G p
CLS m
01 B
O �x cc € v
a) °) t � o acio, mimS
d L p O O .. H to -or- E
'a C c N to m p G O , Op d
r U m c p p 9S
o c V t° W Z a
� c a 0) vm8 -0
N m Q w to W `p c o m e
CD v cC = = Oa 0 5 c W � m � Sam
d C 7� Z7 QS Ol R N .0 3 NNS p
y 0 m Q1 m Qi f� C .� t1 C [0.1
D IL > = 3 3 3 3 3
y 0 a 0 O O. N ; w Q 6
t6 c6 16 t6 10 0 cisU) 0 ca
>
Attachment 1
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 17.88
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Sections:
17.88.010 Purpose and justification.
17.88.020 Allocations.
17.88.030 Adjustments to allocations requested by property owners.
17.88.040 Periodic city council review and consideration of revisions.
17.88.010 Purpose and justification.
A. The regulations codified in this chapter are intended to assure that the rate of population growth
will not exceed the city's ability to assimilate new residents and to provide municipal services,
consistent with the maximum growth rates established in the general plan. Also, these regulations
are to assure that those projects which best meet the city's objectives for affordable housing,
infill development, open space protection, and provision of public facilities will be allowed to
proceed with minimum delay.
B. San Luis Obispo is a charter city,empowered to make and enforce all laws concerning municipal
affairs, subject only to the limitations of the city charter and the constitution and laws of the
state. Regulation of the rate of residential development is a reasonable extension of municipal
authority to plan overall development, in furtherance of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
C. According to the general plan land use element, the city should achieve a maximum annual
average population growth rate of one percent. The reserve of developable land within the city
and the capacity of proposed annexations could sustain growth rates which would exceed the
objectives of the general plan.
D. General plan policies and the annexation-area phasing schedule required by these regulations
reduce the likelihood that any property within the city might be deprived of reasonable
development entitlements through the operation of these regulations.
E. The growth rate policies of the general plan reflect the city's responsibility to accommodate a
reasonable share of expected state and regional growth.
F. To avoid further imbalance between the availability of jobs and of housing within the city, the
general plan also manages expansion of growth-inducing activities. The burdens of growth
management are not being placed solely on the residential sector, since it largely responds to
demands caused by other sectors.
G. Considering the likely levels of housing demand and construction throughout the housing market
area, nearly coinciding with San Luis Obispo County,these regulations are not expected to affect
the overall balance between housing supply and demand in the market area. These regulations
will not impede and may help meet the needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income
households. (Ord. 1459 § 3 (part), 2004: Ord. 1359 § 3 (part), 1999)
17.88.020 Allocations.
A. The city council shall, by resolution, adopt a phasing schedule that allocates potential residential
construction among annexation areas, consistent with the general plan and with these regulations.
Printed from Folio Views Pryagel
Atta-hment 1
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
B. The limitations on residential development established by these regulations apply to new
residential construction within certain areas that have been annexed to the city or that will be
annexed to the city. Development in such areas is subject to development plans or specific plans,
which shall contain provisions consistent with these regulations and with the phasing schedule.
C. For locations which the phasing schedule shows as "allowed," allocations shall be implemented
by the timing of issuance of building permits.
D. These regulations shall not limit the issuance of building permits for locations which the phasing
schedule shows as having an "assumed"rate of construction.
E. Dwellings affordable and enforceably restricted to residents with very low, low or moderate
incomes, as defined in the city's general plan housing element, and new dwellings in the
downtown core (C-D zone as shown in the most official zoning map) shall be exempt from these
regulations. Enforceably restricted shall mean dwellings that are subject to deed restrictions,
development agreements, or other legal mechanisms acceptable to the city to ensure long-term
affordability, consistent with city affordable housing standards. In expansion areas, the overall
number of units built must conform to the city-approved phasing plan.
F. It shall not be necessary to have dwellings allocated for a particular time interval or location to
process and approve applications for general plan amendment, zone change or other zoning
approval, subdivision, or architectural review. (Ord. 1459 § 3 (part), 2004: Ord. 1359 § 3 (part),
1999)
17.88.030 Adjustments to allocations requested by property owners.
Upon verified written request by each owner for whom the timing of property development would be
affected by a proposed change (either hastened or delayed), the community development director may
adjust the allocation of dwellings among expansion areas shown in the phasing schedule, so long as the
total number of dwellings for all expansion areas within an interval does not change. The director shall
approve such requests upon determining that there would be no substantial difference in provision of
affordable housing, necessary public facilities, or open space protection as a result of the adjustment.
(Ord. 1459 § 3 (part),2004: Ord. 1359 § 3 (part), 1999)
17.88.040 Periodic city council review and consideration of revisions.
A. The community development department shall provide status updates to the city council
concerning implementation of these regulations, coordinated with the annual report on the
general plan. The status update will describe actual construction levels and any adjustments to
allocations that have been approved by the director, and may include recommendations for
revisions.
B. Following consideration of the annual report, or at such other times as it deems appropriate, the
city council may revise the phasing schedule. Such revisions shall be consistent with the general
plan.City council approval shall be required to do any of the following:
1. Change the total number of dwellings that may be permitted within an interval;
2. Change the number of dwellings assumed for demolition or infill development or small
annexations, or allocated in total to expansion areas;
3. Reduce the number of dwellings previously allocated to a certain expansion area, when
there is not verified written approval by each affected owner;
4. Shift the years covered by intervals.
Printed from Folio Views Page2
- Attazhmant 1
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
C. Before approving a revision, the city council must conduct a public hearing. Notice of the
hearing shall be provided at least ten but not more than thirty days prior to the hearing, by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and by first-class mail to each owner
of property potentially affected by a delay in building permit issuance as compared with the
schedule in effect at that time. Owner information may be obtained from the county property
assessment roll, or from other sources which the community development director determines
will provide complete and current information. Failure of an owner or owners to receive notice
shall not invalidate any duly adopted revision.
D. For in-city development and for minor annexations, the annual report shall compare the actual
number of permitted dwellings with the assumed rate of permit issuance. When the previously
assumed number of in-city and small-annexation permitted dwellings exceeds those actually
permitted, and expected to be permitted based on current trends and project processing, the city
council shall consider revising the phasing schedule to make the difference available to the
current phases of large annexations.
E. If an annexation area does not fully use its allocation within the previously indicated interval, the
city council shall consider assigning the unused potential to that same area in future intervals. It
is the intent of this part to encourage completion of neighborhoods that have been started;
provided, that doing so does not cause the allowed citywide growth rate to be exceeded; and
further provided, that the allocations previously assigned to other annexation areas will not be
reduced without the approval of the affected landowners. (Ord. 1459 § 3 (part), 2004: Ord. 1359
§ 3 (part), 1999)
Printed from Folio Views Page3
.3- 9
Attachment 2
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday,April 18,2006-4:00 p.m.
_._.... PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. ANNUAL-REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS
TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PHASING SCHEDULE.
Senior Planner Hook introduced Associate Planner Codron who presented the staff report
and responded to Council's questions.
Mayor Romero opened the public hearing.
Andrew Carter.San Luis Obispo,referred to his correspondence to Council(on file In the City
Clerk's office)which provided a background as to why the Planning Commission
recommended changing the intervals used in the Residential Growth Management Ordinance
phasing schedule from three to eight years.
Bill Morgan,Shell Beach,said he is a potential builder in the Margarita area and spoke in
support of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
I
Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.
Council Member Mulholland discussed the history of the Growth Management Ordinance,
particularly the passage of Measure G,and the residents'support of slow growth in the City
over the years. Therefore,she opposed the recommendation to change the intervals used
in the Residential Growth Management Ordinance phasing schedule.
Council Member Brown spoke in support of the recommendation because of the need for
housing and that the Planning Commission's proposed change would allow normal
building cycles to produce housing in the Margarita and Orcutt areas.
Council MemberEwanspoke in opposition to the recommendation because he thought the
community's intent was to phase growth in order to assimilate growth. His concern was
that going to an eight year interval could create a growth bubble and make it difficult to
assimilate the new growth. He also cited Land Use Element Policy 1.11.4 and noted that the
amount of nonresidential floor area excluded from the nonresidential growth rate
calculations make it difficult to get an accurate Idea of commercial growth. He noted that
the report does not include this information and suggested that future reports-should
include this information.
Mayor Romero spoke in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation because
of the concerns in the community regarding the lack of housing.
ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Mulholland to: 1)accept the 2005 General Plan Annual Report,
and 2)adopt Resolution No.9789 42006 Series)revising the phasing schedule for the
Residential Growth Management Ordinance; motion carried 4:0:1 (Settle absent).
It was also moved by Mulholland/Ewan to oppose the consideration of the Planning
Commission request to change the intervals used in the Residential Growth Management
Ordinance phasing schedule from three to eight years and provide staff with direction;
motion failed by a 2:2:1 vote(Romero/Brown opposed the motion and supported the
' Planning Commission's recommendation,Settle absent).
Attachment 2
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday,April 18,2006-4:00 p.m.
It was then moved by Brown/Romero to table consideration of the Planning Commission's
request to change the intervals used In the Residential Growth Management Ordinance
phasing schedule until a full Council could be present; motion failed by a 2:2:1 vote
(MulhollandlEwan opposed,Settle absent).
The failure of the last two motions resulted In no action on the Planning Commission's
recommendation to change the Intervals.
4. APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART FOR MITCHELL PARK.
Parks Recreation Director Kiser presented the staff report,following which David Cum,
one of th I artists who designed the artwork,discussed the design and philosophy
behind the Ipture that was designed by himself,Allen Root and David Hinman.
Public Comm
on
None.
--end of publi
ACTIOolland/Brow to 1)approve the public art piece entitled
Perpetual Hope for Mit Park; 2)Authorize the CAO to execute an agreement
with the artist for complete project;motion carried 4:0:1 (Settle absent).
5. UPERAn OR LE HALL'7DA 10 RANCH TASK FORCE. '
Chief Administrative Officer Hamalan prose the staff report. In addition to reviewing the
list of suggested topics in the agenda report o hich the Task Force may want to focus,he
suggested that discussions regarding the follow topics should be avoided: site planning,
uses and project"mix,"financial tools,and land u iternatives and competing philosophies.
Public Comments
David Broad Atascadero,discussed his opposition t a Dalidlo Initiative because of
its potential for precedent-settling consequences. He urged ncil to do everything
possible to prevent it from getting on the ballot. He also urged until to require that the
proposed task force be expanded to Include representatives from Incorporated and
unincorporated towns in the County. (Mr. Broadwater's concerns a panded on in an e-
mail to Council,on file In the City Clerk's office).
Dennis Kish.Cayucos,spoke In support of the Council's participation In k force and
asked that It be expanded to include the members from all of the cities and emntental
agencies throughout the County. He discussed the need to resolve this situa now in order
to keep a measure off the ballot
Gerald Crala,Santa Marla,also supported the task force and suggested that Mayor Oro
and Vice Mayor Settle be appointed to it
a need for the task force and
e a unc em ors laulnollano anu '
Attachment 3
Land Use Element
Table 2: Anticipated City Population Growth
60,000 - -- — ---- _ 54.900 157.200
4 nor) 47,300 49,700 52,200 —i
50,000 42.800 19 Approximate
40,000 - 1 Maximum Number
30,000 - -. 24,300 of Dwellings
20,000 201 21.000 22 2 23,300 ❑Anticipated
10,000 _ - Number of People
(1)
0
1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022
o Estimated urban reserve capacity: 57,700 (2)
Notes:
(1) Includes residents of group housing.
(2) Includes Cal Poly campus residents,who are inside the urban reserve but who were outside the City limits in
1994.
LU 1.11.4: Nonresidential Growth Rate
Each year, the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential floor area
over the preceding five years. The Council shall consider establishing limits for the rate
of nonresidential development if the increase in nonresidential floor area for any five-
year period exceeds five percent,except that the first 300,000 square-feet of nonresidential
floor area constructed after 1994 shall be excluded from calculating the increase. Any
limits so established shall not apply to:
A) Changed operations or employment levels, or relocation or
ownership change, of any business existing within the City at
the time the limit is set;
B) Additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core
(Figure 4);
C) Public agencies;
D) Manufacturing, light industrial, or research businesses.
city of san Luis owspo- Geneml plan attest-6eC6MBCR 2004 LU-17
—�oZ
- ------
- Attachment 3
Land Use Element
LU 1.10: Air Quality
If measures proposed at the time this element was adopted, mitigation decided during
project review, or other programs or incentives intended to offset significant air-quality
impacts of growth prove to be ineffective, the City will amend this Land Use Element to
reduce its development capacity and will encourage other jurisdictions to reduce theirs,
so that air quality will not deteriorate unacceptably because of growth. The City would
then consider raising planned capacities to previous levels only if measures effective in
protecting air quality are carried out.
LU 1.11: Growth Rates & Phasing
LU LII: Overall Intent
Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community and the
gradual assimilation of new residents. Growth must be consistent with the City's ability
to provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting
the environment, the economy, and open space.
LU ML2: Residential Growth Rate
H 6.2.1 The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over
a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low
incomes as defined in the Housing Element. This rate of growth may continue so long
as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 2 shows the approximate number of
dwellings and residents which would result from the one percent maximum average
annual growth rate over the planning period.
LU 1.113: Phasing Residential Expansions
Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must have adopted a specific
plan or a development plan for it. Such plans for residential expansion projects will
provide for phased development, consistent with the population growth outlined in
Table 2, and taking into account expected in-fill residential development within the
1994 City limits.
Though the periods of development of the major residential expansion areas may overlap,
the City prefers to complete one neighborhood before beginning another. The sequence
of development of the major residential expansion areas will be decided based on the
affordability of dwellings, and other public benefits, primarily open space. The area
committing to development of the largest number of dwellings affordable to residents
with very low, low, or moderate incomes would be developed first, with open space
dedication or other public benefits used to decide the order if two or three areas offer
substantially the same housing affordability. The anticipated intervals for the major
expansion areas' development are: first area, 1997 - 2003; second area, 2004 - 2010;
third area, 2011 - 2017.
LU-16 6GCCMBG 2 2004 -geneml plan NgEst- city of san Luis oRispo
3 -13
Attachment 4
- J
council M..Og°�
j acEnba RepoRt Item Plumb.
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE 2005 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND
CONSIDERATION OF A REVISION TO THE RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PHASING SCHEDULE.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1) Accept the 2005 General Plan Annual Report.
2) Adopt a resolution revising the phasing schedule for the Residential Growth
Management Ordinance.
3) Consider the Planning Commission request to change the intervals used in the
Residential Growth Management Ordinance phasing schedule from 3 years to 8 years
and provide staff with direction.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of the General Plan Annual Report
Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and
actions taken to implement it during the past year (Attachment 1). This report is provided
to help citizens and City officials gauge progress towards achieving the goals listed in 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).
The General Plan Annual Report is an opportunity for the City to keep the General Plan
current by reflecting on how well the Plan continues to meet the City's goals and
objectives. It is an opportunity to review the changes that have been made during the
preceding year and consider if those changes are caused by an underlying inadequacy in
the Plan. It is also an opportunity to review how well the Plan's programs are being
implemented and determine if the programs are still relevant or if priorities should be
reassigned. This latter objective is also addressed every two years when the City Council
develops a new financial plan. During the budgeting process, the City Council reviews
the progress being made to implement the General Plan and decides whether or not to
make particular implementation programs a major city goal for the next two years.
� �y
Attachment 4
Council Agenda Report
2005 Annual Report on the General Plan Page 2
Key ImWementation Issues
The Annual Report is organized around key implementation issues. These include
Development and Population, Growth Management, Open Space Protection, Historic
Preservation, Annexations, Major Implementation Plans, Circulation, Safety,
Neighborhood Quality, Parks and Recreation, Sub-Area Planning and Development and
Program Status. The following issues highlight the 2005 Annual Report:
• The Airport Area Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council.
• The McBride Annexation was processed, creating space in the City's Auto Park
for new dealerships for the first time in several years.
• The annual residential building growth rate was .29%, an historically low rate.
However, the 36-month average for the period ending in 2005 was still .91%.
• Non-residential development proceeded at an above average pace in 2005, with
over 347,000 square feet of new floor area developed, primarily driven by Costco,
Court Street, and the County Government Center.
• The Four Creeks Rezoning Project was approved, allowing for development of
275 dwellings on land that was formerly designated Services and Manufacturing.
• The Foothill Bridge Replacement Project was completed.
• Permits were requested for seismic retrofit work for every building left on the
City's URM Inventory.
• The Damon-Garcia Sports Fields were opened and officially dedicated.
• Approximately 300 acres of open space land were dedicated to the City or placed
in conservation easements, including 180 acres between Reservoir Canyon and the
Bowden Ranch subdivision, and 96 acres along both sides of Foothill Boulevard
between Los Osos Valley Road and O'Connor Way.
Planning Commission Review
Non-residential and Residential Growth Management Discussion
On March 8, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft 2005 General Plan
Annual Report, and forwarded it to the Council (Attachment 1). The Planning
Commission's discussion focused on non-residential and residential growth management.
There was discussion about the difference between the rate of non-residential
development and the rate of residential development. For instance, the average growth of
non-residential floor area over the five year period from 2001-2005 is 2.09 percent
(Source: 2005 General Plan Annual Report, Table 3-B). The average residential growth
of the number of dwellings over the same period was .90 percent (Source: Building
Division data on final inspections of new dwellings and demolitions of dwellings).
3 �s
Attachment 4
Council Agenda Report
2005 Annual Report on the General Plan _ _ Page 3
The following table illustrates this data:
Total Number of New Dwellings(Net Demolitions)
Year New Units Total Dwellings Annual Growth
2001 105 19,603 0.54%
2002 94 19,697 0.48%
2003 224 19,921 1.14%
2004 370 20,291 1.86%
2005 100 20,391 0.49%
Annual Average 0.90%
Total New Commercial Floor Area(Net Demolitions)
Year New Floor Area Total'FloorArea Annual Growth
2001 255,060 9,521,103 2.60%
2002 59,537 9,580,640 0.60% S
2003 196,180 9,776,820 1.95%
2004 195,877 9,972,697 1.91%
2005 347,863 10,320,560 3.28%
Annual Average 2.09%
According to the California Employment Development Department there were 25,400
jobs in the City of San Luis Obispo at the end of 2005. Using the data above, this equates
to approximately 1 job per 400 square feet of non-residential floor area on average. Data
from the 2000 Census indicates there were 1.44 employees per household in the City of
San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the City of San Luis Obispo would have to create
approximately 1 new dwelling unit for every 576 square feet of non-residential floor area
if it was City policy to maintain a 1-to-1 balance between jobs and dwelling units.
Consistent with General Plan policy, San Luis Obispo has been building one dwelling
unit per 1,180 square feet of new non-residential floor area over the past five years.
The Land Use Element EIR predicted a gap between new employees and new dwelling
units. This is inherent in the land use plan adopted in 1994. The EIR identified this
condition as a significant and unavoidable impact because of additional commuting and
associated impacts that would likely result. The Council accepted this impact and
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in recognition of other goals for
"maintaining San Luis Obispo's fiscal health and hub role, and avoiding further
expansion of residential development into open space areas" (Council Resolution No.
8332, 1994 Series).
Decreasing Household Size
One important trend that could not be predicted in the Land Use Element EIR is the
change in household composition that the City is currently experiencing. Land Use
Element Table 2, Anticipated City Population Growth, predicts a constant household size
of 2.35 people per dwelling through 2022. In 2005, there were 2.18 residents per
dwelling. With the drop in average household size, the number of employees per
household discussed above may have also dropped, or the drop in household size may be
attributed to younger, pre-employment family members. For instance, an increase in
DINKs (double income no kids) would tend to increase the average number of employees
per household. �_/�
Attachment 4
Council Agenda Report
2005 Annual Report on the General Plan. Page 4
While it is not clear how the "employee per household" figure is changing in San Luis
Obispo, it is clear that the City is experiencing - on a local level - the worldwide trend of
decreasing household size. Based on a 2003 study published in the journal Nature,
Stanford University ecologist Gretchen C. Daily concludes that "the (worldwide) housing
boom is largely being driven by a global trend toward smaller households. Throughout
the world, the average number of people living together in a household is shrinking -
primarily because of lower fertility rates, higher divorce rates, higher per capita income,
aging populations and a decline in multi-generational family units." The Nature study
shows that fewer people per household leads to higher per-capita consumption of water,
land, fuel and other natural resources, even when population declines. In addition, fewer
children and an older population can change the character of neighborhoods and the need
for services, as evidenced by the closure of some schools, changing recreation facilities,
and increased demand for emergency medical services.
What can the City do to Respond to Different Growth Rates Between Jobs and Housing?
There are several ways the City can affect the different rates if the Council determines
that a change is warranted. For example, the City can enable increased housing
production or reduce the potential for new non-residential floor area. In 2001 and 2002,
the Council considered this issue, and declined to set specific limits on the pace of non-
residential development. The Planning Commission, during its discussion on March 8,
2006, also opposed the concept of non-residential growth limits because their concerns
were a lack of residential zoning and the potential for the City to become a bedroom
community because of a lack of jobs and affordable housing.
Instead of placing limits on non-residential growth, the City has aggressively pursued
policies to increase the number of total potential dwelling units in the City. Even though
the 1994 General Plan allows for a residential growth rate of 1% over a three-year period,
in practice this limit has never been reached. The adoption and certification of a new
Housing Element in 2004 and more aggressive pursuit of new affordable housing were
major steps towards identifying and facilitating increased residential development.
For example, Housing Element Policy 6.3.7 identifies large, underutilized properties for
potential change from.commercial to residential zoning, which can change the net ratio in
favor of housing. The Four Creeks project accommodates 275 dwelling units on one of
these identified sites, which was previously designated Services and Manufacturing. As
high density residential housing, the project utilizes less land per dwelling unit and is
likely to be more affordable than single-family detached houses. Planning applications
have been submitted to rezone two other large infill sites identified in the Housing
Element for housing, which will be considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council in 2006. In 2003, the City approved a new mixed-use ordinance that allows for
residential development of up to 24 units per acre in combination with commercial
projects in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. Completed and planned mixed-
use projects in these areas include Broad Street Mixed-Use, 3592 Broad Street (86
dwellings), Cinderella Carpets, 3510 Broad Street (4 dwellings), Sycamore Plaza, 3592
Sacramento Drive (12 dwellings), the Roadhouse (24 dwellings) and Parker Plaza, 2146
Parker Street (20 dwellings). The City has also adopted a no-net loss housing ordinance
—/7
Attachment 4
Council Agenda Report
2005 Annual Report on the General Plan Page 5
for the Downtown area.
Residential Growth Management Phasing.Schedule
The Residential Growth Management Ordinance allocates building permits to the major
expansion areas in three-year intervals (Attachment 3). This implements General Plan
policies to assimilate new residents gradually—as resources permit, and to build out new
residential areas one at a time to avoid long periods of construction in new
neighborhoods. The 2005 General Plan Annual Report includes a Growth Management
Phasing Schedule, which is recommended for approval by resolution (Attachment 4). A
revised phasing schedule is necessary at this time because of several reasons discussed in
the Annual Report, including changed capacities in the Orcutt Area and Margarita Area
and an increase in the assumed amount of in-city development.
After a discussion of these issues, the Planning Commission approved the General Plan
Annual Report by consensus. The Commission then approved a follow-up motion to
recommend that the Council consider lengthening the intervals in the phasing schedule of
the Residential Growth Management Ordinance from three years to eight years. The
purpose of this change would be for the phasing schedule to better reflect the economic
cycle of housing development and not constrain market forces. The change could have
the effect of allowing more residential development to occur in the City's expansion areas
within any given year, while maintaining the 1% average growth rate for dwellings when
measured over the eight-year period and entire General Plan horizon. The eight-year
interval could reduce the potential that housing production would be artificially
constrained by the imposition of the shorter three-year interval, however, more analysis of
this issue is needed before such a conclusion can be made.
The Land Use Element (LUE) policies that guide growth rates and phasing in the City are
attached for Council's consideration (Attachment 5). The proposal to change the length
of the phasing interval would require an amendment to LUE policy 1.11.2, which
establishes the current 36-month interval. Any such amendment would require later
public hearings at the Planning Commission and Council. The interval change proposed
by the Planning Commission would allow for more housing in the Margarita Area to be
completed before major production begins in the Orcutt Area.
FISCAL IMPACTS
When the General Plan was prepared it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis,
which found that the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The annual report does not
change the General Plan. Accordingly, the Annual Report on the General Plan has a
neutral fiscal impact.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department prepares the Annual Report on the General
Plan with significant input from other City departments. The Public Works, Parks and
Recreation, Utilities, Police, Fire, Finance, and Administration departments provided
information for this report.
S —Ir
Attachment 4
Council Agenda Report
2005 Annual Report on the General Plan Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may direct staff to make changes to the 2005 General Plan Annual
Report.
2. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: 2005 General Plan Annual Report (program table not included for brevity)
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, 3-8-06
le)
Attachment 4• g Scriedule
L\GP Annual ReparOCAR(2005).doc
:e:ALc:CC.:':CT�r:.Cs+rt-��G:Lrls:rx.!:;rt«'St'.�'A'4'x.'.n.�::auccGt4�:na:.:.i;a¢lY.::ds:e.:.::.Y.f.iO:a'd9:ri1K✓:aia.e:a��.t Sir�28�
..
• ..
Attachment 4
city of san luws oB,spo
2005
annual izepoizt on the Geneizat plan
an. 9rAll
;✓ �� The Airport Area
Specific Plan was
adopted in 2005.
> r'.�NT��gb�l !"t1'�.r�.�w err+ ✓i `�% w!� `f6`
IL
I SbadSC Play BaulNaf' it��^.'� •��� �• -�y"� y•�� V �
The Court Street Project was completed and occupied in 2005.
e i\
3
1 �� Ah rl f�` `•1+'
. 1
CSGID6'1� C -_-
Attachment 4
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, contributing to the plan's
implementation and this report.
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 March 8, 2006,_ and accepted
by the City Council�_2006
,Auacnment 4
My of San lues OBISpo cEnEu ._ plan annual RepoRt 2005
Report at a Glance
Introduction Page 5
The General Plan is a comprehensive statement of the City's goals and how
those goals will be achieved over the long-run.
Administration of the General Plan
General Plan Status
Element Updates Page 6
In 2005, significant progress was made towards the adoption of a new
Conservation and Open Space Element.
Amendments Page 6
The City approved two text amendments and five map amendments in 2005.
Implementation of the General Plan
Development& Population
Housing& Residents Page 8
According to the California Department of Finance, the population of the City
of San Luis Obispo was 44,519 residents on January 1, 2005, representing a
growth of.8%.
Ouantified Objectives and Affordable Housing Page 8
The City's Affordable Housing Program for 2005 included a successful grant
application for $300,000 in down payment assistance for 10 affordable homes
in the Tumbling Waters project.
Commercial Development & Da �me Population Page 11
In 2005, commercial development proceeded at a high pace in comparison to
previous years.
Growth Management
Residential Growth Mana eg ment Page 13
Annual increases in the number of dwellings have averaged .91% over the past
three years. For 2005, the total number of dwellings increased by .29%.
Commercial and Industrial Growth Management Page 15
The cumulative growth in commercial floor area over the past five years is
11.38%.
Open Space Protection Page 15
The City continued its efforts to protect open space and the natural
environment in 2005.
Historic Preservation Page 15
In 2005, one property was upgraded from the Contributing List to the Master
List of Historical Resources.
Annexations Page 16
Annexation of the McBride property was concluded in 2005.
pace ' 3 —2Z
Attachment 4
city of san lues owspo genet2.._ plan annual aepoat 2005
Major Implementation Plans
Margarita Area Specific Plan Page 16
In 2005, the City began work on three major subdivisions in the western
portion of the Margarita Area.
Airport Area Specific Plan Page 16
The Airport Area Specific Plan was adopted in August, 2005.
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 16
Work continued on the environmental studies for the OASP in 2005.
Water Supply Page 17
As of 2005, there are 130 acre feet of water available to serve new annexation
areas, and 130 acre feet is reserved for infill and intensification projects.
Circulation
Transportation Network Improvements Page 18
The Foothill Bridge Replacement Project was completed in 2005.
Transportation Planning Improvements Page 19
The City continued to work with Caltrans to complete a Federal
environmental clearance for the Mid-Higuera Widening Project.
Neighborhood Traffic Managment Page 20
Eight neighborhoods actively pursued the preparation of Neighborhood Traffic
Management (NTM) Plans for their neighborhoods.
Access and Parking Management Page 21
In an effort to provide additional vehicle parking downtown for employees
and customers, the City began preliminary investigations for the development
of a parking structure that would replace the existing public parking lot at the
corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets.
Safety
Staff Training Page 21
The Police Department is in full-compliance with POST requirements for in-
service training hours for all employees.
Critical Facilities Location and Reducing Structural Hazards Page 21
During 2005, several Level B projects were started and completed.
New Multi Dwelling Property Inspection Program Page 22
In 2005 the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a program to improve our annual
fire and life safety inspections of apartments (with three or more units), hotels,
motels, bed and breakfast facilities, hostel facilities, senior living facilities,
condominiums, and sorority and fraternity houses.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 22
City Fire Department spearheaded a city-wide effort to prepare a Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan in 2005.
paC16 2 3 -
Attachment 4
city of san lues osispo gEnEri..-plan annual REpoRt 2005
Neighborhood Quality Page 23
Code Enforcement-Community Development
A significant reduction in Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance calls to the
Police Department because of proactive SNAP efforts continued in 2005.
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Update Page 23
Because of the success of outreach efforts, there were only 18 ordinance
violations in 2005.
Fraternity and Sorority Inspection Program Page 24
The revitalized inspection program is designed to provide safety inspections
for"group house" occupancies.
Parks & Recreation Page 24
Dedication of the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields and the bandstand in Mitchell
Park highlighted Parks and Recreation program activities in 2005.
Program Status Page 25
This report includes an update of the status of all General Plan implementation
programs, in spread-sheet format.
For More Information Page 46
Come in, write, call, or visit the City's website to learn more about the
General Plan and the City's planning activities.
PJLg6 3 �'2y
Attachment 4
city of san Luis owspo ` genetic_ Milan annual uEpout 2005
Introduction
The General Plan is a comprehensive statement of the City's goals and how those goals will be
achieved over the long-run. Policies and programs in the General Plan provide guidance to staff
and decision-makers on development related issues. Policy and program statements also guide
City efforts to promote a stronger community through programs ranging from Adult Sports to the
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance. 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 provides an
overview of actions taken to implement the Plan during the past year. This report is provided to
help citizens and City officials gauge progress towards achieving the City's stated goals and
objectives. It is also an opportunity to review how well the Plan's programs are being
implemented and determine if the programs are still relevant or if priorities should be reassigned.
The Annual Report fulfills the requirements of State law, and the General Plan itself, which call
for an annual report.
Administration of the General Plan
General Plan Status
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan that addresses seven topics,
typically referred to as `elements.' Additional topics, or general plan elements, may be included.
The law also requires general plans to be comprehensive, internally consistent and that they
provide a long-term perspective. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research publishes the
General Plan Guidelines, which includes the following general plan basics:
1) Geographic Comprehensiveness: The general plan must cover all of the territory within
the jurisdictions boundaries.
2) Regionalism: The general plan must take into account regional plans for transportation,
air quality and water quality, and must spell out measures needed to meet federal or state
standards for the region.
3) Issue Comprehensiveness: General plans must address the jurisdiction's physical
development over the long term, but because the general plan is the most comprehensive
expression of the general welfare, it should also recognize social and economic concerns.
4) Internal Consistency: All of the general plan elements must be internally consistent.
Each element's data, analyses, goals, policies and programs must be consistent and
compliment one another. This includes consistency with area plans and specific plans.
5) Long-Term Perspective: The general plan must address the welfare of current and future
generations, although the time-frames may vary among the different elements. The
Housing Element, for instance, must be updated every five years.
State law says the General Plan should be kept current. This is done through this annual review
process, 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
Attachment 4
city of San Luis oBispo c,Enek,plan annual rzepout 2005
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 website and public access television channel
provide additional information.
Element Updates
In 2005, the City made significant progress on its update and consolidation of the Conservation
Element. The new Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) is intended to be an update of
the Conservation and Energy Conservation Elements. The new Conservation Element would
also consolidate all of the goals, policies and programs from the Open Space Element and the
conservation related policies currently found in the Land Use Element, Housing Element, and
Circulation Element into a single General Plan element. The Planning Commission held a series
of public hearings on the draft COSE in April through August of 2005. The result of these
hearings was a new draft COSE, published in October, 2005. The Planning Commission
continued with public hearings in November and December, 2005, and the City Council adopted
the COSE in April of 2006.
Table 1 - General Plan Elements
Element Required or Date of Adoption or Activity in 2005
O tional Major Revision
Land Use Required 1994 Amendments approved in 2005.
Housing Required 2004
Circulation Required 1994 Amendment approved in 2005.
Noise Required 1996
Conservation Required 1973 In 2005, significant progress was made
on an update consolidating the
Enerav Conservation Optional 1981 Conservation,Energy Conservation
Open Space Required 1994 and Open Space Elements.
Safety Required 2000
Parks&Recreation Optional 2001
Water&Wastewater Optional 1996
Management
Amendments
In 2005, the City approved text amendments to the General Plan, as listed in Table 2. Table 2a
lists the 2005 amendments to the Land Use Element Map. The most significant map
amendments were those associated with the Airport Area Specific Plan, the Four Creeks
Rezoning Project and the McBride Annexation.
PAGE 6 3 -26
Attachment 4
city of San Luis OBISPO `- geneR.- plan annual.aepotzt 2005
Table 2 - General Plan Text Amendments in 2005
Type Location or Subject Chane Initiated b • comment
Land Use Airport Area Specific Figure#2 changed to reflect a City; implementation of
Plan revised location for the URL. AASP
Figure#9 was amended to
reflect the revised boundaries of
the Airport Area. 11
Circulation Airport Area Specific Amended Figure#2 of the City; implementation of
Plan Circulation Element to reflect AASP
the Airport Area street network.
Table 2a-Land Use Element May Amendments in 2005
Location or Subject Chane Area. Initiated b ;comment
Airport Area Changed the map to reflect the 1,500 acres City;AASP
land use designations adopted
as part of the AASP.
McBride Annexation Reconfigured orientation of 22 acres Property Owner;Provides
auto part to provide greater opportunity to increase
open space buffer adjacent to capacity in the City's Auto
Prefumo Creek and to provide Park.
more highway exposure for new
auto sales uses.
791, 861, 953 Orcutt Services and Manufacturing to 17 acres City and Property Owner;
and 3330, 3360 Broad High Density Residential and Implements Housing
(4 Creeks) Community Commercial Element Program 6.3.7.
Development plans for
275 new residential units
approved concurrently.
1221 Nipomo Medium-High Density 7,500 s.f. Property Owner; Zoning
Residential to General Retail includes MU overlay to
require mixed use
development as part of
future project.
499 Brizzolara Low Density Residential to 31,200 s.f. Property Owner, Design
Medium Density Residential review of eight-unit
project on- oin .
pAGe 7 .�-2
Attachment 4
city of San lues OBISPO - GeneR.--plan annual REpoRt 2005
Implementation of the General Plan
Development & Population
Housing & Residents
According to the California Department of Finance, the population of the City of San Luis
Obispo was estimated to be 44,519 residents as of January 1, 2005, representing population
growth of .8% over the previous year. Table 2 of the Land Use Element shows the anticipated
City population growth to the year 2022. Table 2 predicts a population of approximately 48,740
residents for 2005, with 20,640 dwellings. Actual population for 2005 is approximately 4,221
people less, and actual dwellings are approximately 20,391, or 249 fewer than anticipated in the
General Plan.
It should be noted that while the difference between the projected population and actual
population is 9.4%, the difference between the projected and actual number of dwellings is only
1.2%. In other words, the total number of dwellings is on par with the numbers projected in the
General Plan, however, total population is significantly lower. This difference can be accounted
for by a lower than anticipated average household size. Table 2 of the Land Use Element
predicts an average household size of 2.35 people per dwelling unit. Over time, this average
household size has dropped to today's figure of 2.18 people per dwelling unit.
The projections provided in Table 2 were the basis for many other assumptions in the General
Plan, such as transportation needs. Since the actual numbers are within the projections, the
assumptions based on these projected numbers should be sound.
Ouantified Objectives and Affordable Housing
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction identify the number of housing units that will be
built, rehabilitated, and preserved during the Housing Element's planning period, which is
January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2009. These projections are termed"quantified objectives." Chapter 2
of the Housing Element includes goals, policies and programs to accommodate affordable
housing programs that meet the City's Quantified Objectives. The Housing Element also
includes goals for mixed-income housing, housing variety and tenure, and special-needs housing.
In 2004, the City established a Housing Program Manager staff position to focus on
accomplishing these and other important General Plan goals. The following is a list of program
accomplishments for 2005.
Tumbling Waters (Orcutt Road)
In a public-private partnership, the City was awarded Proposition 46 funds (BEGIN program) to
provide $30,000 in down payment assistance to 10 home buyers, for a total grant of $300,000.
On November 15th, 2005, the Council agreed to match the $30,000 State grant for each of the 10
units from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The developer is also an integral part of the
program by contributing one dollar for every three the City allocates. By leveraging State, local,
and private funds, 10 more affordable housing units will become part of the City's program.
pace 8 ,x'.2F
ttachm nt 4
oc �a � r o v o 0 o c o 0 0 0
N y C' 1 C W. T
00 O V•
a rLh O L eL} N � r r N M. � � ON It N > _
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�
NIn* M N V) ON V 7
7 00 HIn
V) V1 O O1 O1 .?� Q
V1 zi Q =O O
r oo M V) � o o ° mor Mr
[r ¢ a � O V) d' V1. O O N M E M r r OI 00
r O
N
:1 0 _ z
O O\ O V1 M 0 0 0 0 U W
CL z N cF N r V C 0
CV N ti w Gr
H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O O O0.,
o xx o
•v o o� o v, M � — 0 0 0 O� Zg � c � �
c w
c N E
w a O M O O\ et N kn 7 O O� og� r=-i >
_ r+ N N N Q N
N O 00 00 O\ 00
y, 0 i
C
� V ° (ACL
00 V) O T V M M N 01 �r-I yV C O
c = rG C
n C N S vi N
v c`9
p O L
a v z
t
a C � A �
p S y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° E
CP ¢ 'v O O O O O M O O M O N y O
o
Q� •� y N 7 0 N N oc o N' N N L a p y EECD
y (7
es
c y o00000, 00o0 o �M. = o _ = � a�i h Ec
eC ea a y o 06
es 'y cs ° r y = Q
E" Q -p i E s U
p O++ O d• 00 O N N Vn !V m Or
> > C O
y rG a� N V N N V N N 3 w p y v O = a>
o � o0000000 �ov o o = ov s
Q m o oo _ 'c
v
5 ° 3
,O 0 0 TIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .>OC d �+ O pp'fl .t y U
d
Cd `O
a ¢ = 00000000 '0
cu
v7 � 'tl � .0vEZ MtnrnMar � Nr -0c ° � .�
y w � 0 � N N V' l� O M r N 0 ."O+ C T 7 y `" > 3
._ ._
yt3 CN 000 -,t r- m = p,,.0 .� .�_' E v .v 0 c.:,
cz es
MW to
CZ
'N O. O1 O1 O\ a, O\ O O O o C14 tn
O O
J � N N N N N
- - z
Attachment 4
city of San Luis osIspo .:nERat plan annual uEpOttt 2005
People's Self-Help Housing(South Higuera Street.)
30 apartments for low and very-low income households. Project received its land use approvals and the
Council will consider using $350,000 of the City's Affordable Housing Fund to help fund the project
early in 2006:
Margarita Area Specific Plan
The Specific Plan has been approved and tentative maps are being processed for the western part of the
area. Approximately 400 dwellings are planned for this portion of the Margarita Area; the Inclusionary
Housing Requirement results in 50 affordable homes. In 2005, the City, Housing Authority, and
developer created an affordable housing plan that could serve as a model for future annexation areas.
The developers are dedicating land (2.75 acres) in two distinct locations, including completion of the
associated public improvements, to the Housing Authority. Staff and the developer are now exploring
ways to go beyond that minimum number.
Downtown
City staff is facilitating development of several new downtown housing projects. Staff is reviewing
General Plan policies and Zoning regulations in preparation for a Council workshop in spring, 2006, to
clarify building height and intensity standards.
Cooperative Housing—Humbert Street
The City helped the Housing Authority acquire this site from the UP Railroad with a$600,000 loan from
the Affordable Housing Fund. City staff also assisted on the HELP application; a competitive affordable
housing funding program from CalHFA. The proposed project is approximately 65 workforce housing
units of a cooperative concept whereby a member owns a collective share of the project and enjoys the
tax advantages of home ownership.
StatefFederal Grants
Due to the certified Housing Element, the State 2005 Workforce Housing Reward Grant will reward the
City with approximately $44,000 for approving 40 low-income housing units in 2004. The BEGIN
Program ($300,000 for down payment assistance) is a public-private partnership and will leverage 10
additional affordable dwellings in the Tumbling Waters project. In September, 2005, the City made an
application for CalHome funding of$500,000 for first-time home buyer assistance. The City has been
awarded $231,000 for a First-Time Homebuyer Program using federal HOME program funds. The City
continues to receive federal CDBG funds to benefit the low- and moderate persons of the community.
CDBG funds help to operate the City's Homeless Shelter and assist in the development of affordable
housing for lower income households. In total for 2005, the City was awarded $600,000 in grants funds
with$750,000 in pending applications as of December 31, 2005.
City Affordable Housing Fund(AHF)
The AHF, established in 1999, implements the City's Inclusionary housing requirement by providing a
fund for the collection of in-lieu fees. In 2005, $1,300,000 was awarded for affordable housing projects,
including a total of$1 million for the Housing Authority Cooperative Housing project and the first-time
homebuyer program for Tumbling Waters.
pace 10 .3�
-- Attachment 4
city of San Luis osispo _,sneRal plan annual REpoRt 2005
San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund
The City contributed $30,000 in 2005 from its Affordable Housing Fund to assist in the start-up
operations of the Housing Trust Fund; a county-wide non-profit organization dedicated to increasing
affordable housing. In September, the Housing Programs Manager was appointed as the City
representative on the Housing Trust Fund Commission.
Public Outreach
The City is conducting an increased and ongoing public outreach campaign, seeking more funding, and
spreading the word about opportunities. The Housing Programs Manager has spoken before many
community groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, Lions Club, SLO Property Owner's
Association, and KKAL radio. Two brochures have been completed to encourage affordable housing
efforts. Visit the Housing website: http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/Housing/housing.asp.
Commercial Development&Daytime Population
Land Use Element Policy 1.4 says that the gap between housing demand, due to more jobs and college
enrollment, and housing supply should not increase. A look at recent data suggests that the number of
jobs in the City is well matched to the total number of workers living in the City. According to the 2000
Census, there were 21,684 workers who were living in the City of San Luis Obispo. Data from the
California Employment Development Department indicates that 23,700 people were employed in the
City during the same period. While these numbers suggest parity between the number of workers living
in the City and the number of jobs, Census data also shows that only 12,901 (59.5%) of the workers who
lived in the City in 2000, also worked in the City. Therefore, many jobs in the City are filled by workers
who commute from other communities, and approximately 40% of San Luis Obispo workers go outside
of the City to work.
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Many of the County's high quality jobs are situated in areas
immediately adjacent to the City, including Cal Poly, Cuesta College, Diablo Canyon, and the California
Men's Colony. Reducing the number of workers in the City who commute farther for work, such as to
Santa Maria and Paso Robles, may be accomplished as more high quality jobs are created in the City.
The 2005 adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan and continued economic development efforts to
attract major employers provide an environment that allow high quality jobs to be created, consistent
with Land Use Element goals for Society and Economy. Sortie of these goals include:
LUE Goal 9: Provide employment opportunities appropriate for area residents' desires
and skills.
LUE Goal 10: Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of
existing businesses, consistent with other goals.
LUE Goal 12: Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and
land areas already committed to urban development.
LUE Goal 13: Provide an adequate revenue base for local government and public
schools.
However, implementation of the General Plan is not a matter of working towards goals in a singular
fashion. The goals listed above are achieved in concert with other equally valuable General Plan goals,
such as Housing Element Goal 6.1: Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing
needs. Circulation Element goals are also a critical component for achieving the overall vision of the
General Plan, including Circulation Element Goal 2: Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting
PAGE 11 J_S/
Aftachm t 4
O
to o 0 0 00
en
N
� 3 Uj M a• i c
C7 06 in ci r o h rn 7 00 C� 00 c
ro o 0 00 0o to o \o O� o� N o M 3 —
A U N O N O N O N O '- M Nfu
_
d y O
� i h N 00 z to \D M 00 h �D O\ � �
� O � h N l� � 00, O to — ob oo tT O O ••+ i+ c
^- to l� to m \D kn r- m
Q C•" w to w w N v N to m � M to I I d y o ^C
C[ z O O � t �
(� .•� h M O\ N tT h o0 DD N N O C > O
= C L:
bA HtU kn 00 V \D w z m 7 O N .� 04 `� by y
N y tr) M l� h h 'a' O� N d4 C O w •:.
v c z o_ - v w n to M o0 o v ° 3 o O •: «•
Com to > ° o � �_ � o^ e
3 s o 0 o M o 0 0 o to o 0 00 ¢
h o 0 0 > D a 0 0
T M T o0 00 N C C
7 b N O\ N O� \O try O 00 c W tU� p .O C W O
R 3 O c O N N 00 C N CC. E tr M 0
O c3 N
C"*
V,
N , 3 .O y p c D\ 000
C y h — cn 7 cV O\ h 00 d• 7 oD z m m O O O
U OD q 00 m M m to h N to h N \O c�3
C •� ,c ,� 7 to M M \O N \O 00 m O\ 7 >_ y
h h to V h h M O\ O\ O �y ,
d C V V w
w N_ O N V 0c, -'T V 'n V• " p
GTy
cc O z 00 d' — N 0
0 \O M -- to Q c0
cE v oo a r o h ao h •c ,o N
A d .9 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o 'Cn, oes o P W
QEo v
CS
G ` N y O ,� N O\ N \p �«. ccC O U Q.
6i O = i i i N p E C
Ce~ e _ 023 v cs
Ly = N O M eq to vii N 00 7 tT cin w y U > c
r„ U O d h oo h
VT C � 00 dN h
CI- CC14 r- y U >
O
c- poLeO .•.cUN..�.+
O Nm O O cn 00 M h O\ C h O U 'rn
O h O w O O N M w O M O O 00 - p �-
h to to z O\ h ON N N kn O m O G U O
U z 00 0 E%: N to o� C 06 v o; to o r = e
U O i
U C1
C
Okn
N
t, N
U N oo ti
V L
00
O bA O 0
c 3 •c �
..i O tT O O M 00 00 7 N O\ \O 0 O 7 V
U O 00 O O N M W h C 0 0 O\
l� to to \D 7 h �' 'V to O \O c�3 O OC\
t".. •cc-y M O h Noc D\ W V D1 N O O O I O L.
O 7 SNL ELI
OL.
M O O O O do in tr, O 'O O
" N V V N \O O O O \D c .n 0a v�
c U M O O h 'ftt
O d z M N eF N 00 ON t+1 � % •7 Cc3 O N Oyi
E U CS > y
Z SEs � � c0
to c N 'U' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 —E y p .O c` 6c
7 D4 U O N 'O O U
•Q cC cd Q _
N M O M .N 7 = y cid C
_ 7 S '0 h C O O C o0 h to O O O to M O c
h a 7 N M 0 O \O O O U 0 0)
M oo 00 M O 00 O O O O 2
y
O .. N M N N C; C
\O h 00 O\ O N M to — y 00 N 'cf F .:
�°' m m ON m om\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z F.
_,hment 4
city of san LUIS osispo neuaL plan annual aeportt 2005
and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. And,
Circulation Element Goal 8: Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies,
telecommuting and compact work weeks. The General Plan does not contain goals that would
encourage or restrict where City residents choose to work. Rather, the General Plan encourages
diversity in housing types and promotes alternative transportation modes so that residents can make
appropriate choices to suit their lifestyles. This General Plan Annual Report summarizes efforts to
achieve all of the goals, policies and programs contained in the General Plan.
Table 3-B summarizes nonresidential construction since 1994. In 2005, non-residential development
proceeded at a high pace in comparison to previous years. Although the number of commercial
projects that added floor area to the City's inventory was much lower, three significant projects
resulted in a large increase in commercial floor area. These projects included Costco (140,000 s.f.),
Court Street (62,000 s.f.) and the County Government Center (90,000 s.f.). Other projects that added
commercial floor area in 2005 include Cole Motors on Broad Street, the Kennedy Fitness Center's
clubhouse on Tank Farm Road, and two retail buildings at the Village Marketplace on the corner of
Broad Street and Orcutt Road.
In 2006, commercial development is expected to continue at an average pace. The largest single
project is expected to be a new Marriot hotel on Calle Joaquin. Other potential projects include new
retail floor area along Froom Ranch Road, offices at the corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road
and two mixed-use projects along the Broad Street corridor, including Cinderella Carpets and Broad
Street Mixed-Use. Total floor area for 2006 is expected to be between 150,000 and 200,000 square
feet, depending on progress at Froom Ranch.
Growth Management
Residential Growth Management
In 2005, the single-year growth rate was .29%, the lowest rate since 1999. As shown in Table 3-a,
annual increases in the number of dwellings have averaged .91 percent over the past three years.
Residential growth management policies are implemented by the Residential Growth Management
Regulations, SLOMC 17.88. The regulations provide for phased housing construction in large
annexation areas, such as the Margarita Area and the Orcutt Area. The proposed phasing schedule,
Table 4, is recommended pursuant to Land Use Element Policy 1.11.3, which states the City's
preference to complete one neighborhood before beginning another, although some overlap is
permitted. The purpose of phasing development is to insure that residential growth rates are consistent
with the City's policy of 1% growth, established by Land Use Element Policy 1.11.2.
The City Council will need to consider amendments to the Residential Growth Management Phasing
Schedule during 2006 to reflect the following conditions:
• changed residential capacities in the Orcutt Area and Margarita Area;
• revisions to the Housing Element in response to State mandates for the region, which increase
the amount of infill development anticipated.
During the past three-year cycle, assumed in-city development of 100 units was close to the actual
number of dwellings constructed. However, in future phases, the estimate of 100 units for in-city
development will be too. low. With significant residential development proposed or approved along
the Broad Street corridor, staff estimates that in-city construction would be 350 dwelling units during
the 2005-2007 phase. The recommended Growth Management Phasing Schedule is provided in Table
4 on the following page. —��
pACi6 13
itachment 4
0
N
N La O O O M O 00 LO r LO
w O � V O N cm O 00 N LO
Q
O
Qf N Y r r M
O
3 00 ~
� N y
C
OOOOOOOLp LO00 Z
N Ln O U) O m
S N '- O
S1 O w
7
ti O o
U cm
0 � OOOOO SOLA N � o 0
r ' r N co D =y m c
v r >0 -6 m
n N m Uc c c -10-= n
"O Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 O N a)
6Ci .CO Ln T � r Lf O a) L� a) a) G d
Q) o _ E �mm
r c � c °
O N m ° E p
a OOOOOOOLO LO O tL c3) ? = � y
pG y °° T t° N cNo cAi d o -0 E n)
CL O) Q) 7 it
r 3 O °ai °
c — E
D = r = •p °0) 3: •X c
w O N a) t.v ° ° m a)
Q LO O O O O O O LO 00 O -- d o
OrnICT r� Lo O O cEowa '
M CO y fA L •O .0 ~
G� OD i 00 r (D C a)
^' C 0) OC p.pODj U s.. -.2 C?
GSC -C N �19m r
C 7
ZI� COOLOOOOO � In ca a) 19t c ° m
C C M M C 5 co o)0) 0_ U
as Eco= ° o2
C N c N � cv 3
C0 00000000 O O C mL -0 0) 7X `d d' ±— O N. r M I 5 c
m
N r N E a) >`
o xcccE
O E
O d m c p .-
CV
0OCW ; L >
LO. . .� OOi O 0) O O LA, 0) 0000 -3 m c r N o °
rO ' N r -'To a) ca « c a) t
O O 3 E d o v v m
p tl rD
i
M Z' y C O_ C y L
> '0 'e 'pca
•O .'_..
a) 0 °
y 3 E2:%�
L`4
t t U C _ ca 5 a a) p
N r p o m 2 LL y £ n.
O O O ca c rnc , o
ZN . N c} ca
o
¢ N N ,CO. O V c a v o
y - c6 cu O o 25 O D. `c 'o U ° •C t t O Of o f°o ° o ma m L2 y
�. N a a) Q '0
m �� N N. i CO w « 0 O $ ° m m m
J O cC = = 0 m Z1) (5 -0 o (5 •p ° -p
C6 m a m
fSt O) 0 N � a1 N
mVaaaa � a) 9y � L1U0' U
`n W d d a)W d E co 0) m w ca m N
y E —� � ° 3 °
m W O O O O O co U a) � F- w ¢ "pQ
mo
}o N R) ca R C4 m C6a5 U ca :°a 0 _0
3-� y
city of san lues o5ispo 4_ 4eizal planant Attar, IZEpou162oo5
Commercial and Industrial Growth Mana eg ment
The General Plan contains policies on the pace of nonresidential development and its relationship to
housing growth, but there are no direct limits on the rate of nonresidential construction. Policy LU
1.11.4 says the City will consider setting nonresidential construction limits if the amount of
nonresidential floor area increases faster than five percent over any five year period. That threshold
has been exceeded for each period ending in the last seven years (Table 3-B). The table shows that the
five year cumulative growth rate for the period ending in 2005 is 11.38%. In 2001 and 2002 the City
Council considered this issue, but rejected setting specific limits on the pace of nonresidential
development. If any limits are established, Policy LU 1.11.4 says they would not apply to changes in
existing businesses, additional non-residential floor area in the Downtown core, public agency offices,
or manufacturing, light industrial or research businesses.
Open Space Protection
The General Plan contains many goals, policies and programs focused on open space protection. The
policies apply to sensitive lands within the City's urban reserve as well as land in the greenbelt area
that is protected for its biological, agricultural, aesthetic and/or recreational value. The Land Use
Element, Open Space Element, and Conservation Element address this subject in detail. In 2005, the
City did the following in support of the open space program:
• Received an offer of donation of a 180 acre open space property lying between the City
and Reservoir Canyon from Bowden Ranch LP;
• Received a 13 acre dedication of prime agricultural land at Calle Joaquin in conjunction
with development approvals of a project at that location;
• Received a 66 acre and a 30 acre dedication of conservation easement on either side of
Foothill Blvd. between Los Osos Valley Road and O'Connor Way from the
Congregation Beth David and Madonna Enterprises, respectively;
• Participated in preparing the Specific Plans for the Margarita Area, Airport Area, and
Orcutt Area, all of which have significant open space and resource conservation
components to them;
• Completed the Conservation Plan for the Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve and began its
implementation;
• Undertook the mitigation maintenance and monitoring project for the Damon-Garcia
Sports Complex site's two creeks;
• Continued to undertake improvements to the Bob Jones Bikeway along San Luis Obispo
Creek between Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road.
Historic Preservation
In 2005, one new building was added to the Master List of Historical Resources, on 1306 Mill Street.
This property was also approved for participation in the Mills Act program. The Mills Act program
furthers City goals for the preservation of historical resources by providing property tax relief to
property owners who agree to use those savings to maintain and preserve their historic building.
pac,E 15 J'.3-_�
city of san Luis oBispo �' i,_;,eaal plan annual ttepoRt 2005
.- ..-0hment
Annexations
Annexations expand the area over which a city has land-use authority, which is a fundamental way to
implement the General Plan. Annexations can also increase development potential, open space
protection, tax revenues, space for public facilities; as well as service demands and costs. In general,
annexations require approval by the property owner(s), the City, the County, and a separate
countywide body called the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). During 2005, annexation
of the McBride property was completed. This property is located within the Auto Park, as designated
by Figure 3 in the Land Use Element. In 2000, City staff prepared an auto dealership location study to
evaluate properties that would be suitable for development of new or expanded auto sales uses. The
McBride property was listed as the top site in that study.
Major Implementation Plans
The General Plan requires approval of specific plans as a precursor to development of the City's major
expansion areas. Specific 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 a specific plan is similar to the
process for adopting or amending a section of the General Plan.
Margarita Area Specific Plan
The Margarita Area Specific Plan was approved on October 12, 2004. In 2005, a significant amount of
staff time was spent processing applications for the first three subdivisions proposed by owners in the
western portion of the specific plan area. These subdivisions would provide for new residential
neighborhoods and include a total of over 400 dwelling units. If the subdivisions are approved by the
City Council in 2006, construction of required public improvements and possible some dwelling units
would be expected to begin in 2007.
Airport Area Specific Plan
The Airport Area Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in August, 2005. During their review
of the plan, the Council elected to approve an alternative land use plan that extended the airport area's
boundary south to Buckley Road and to land east of the airport. The changes added approximately 500
acres into the specific plan, including the Avila Ranch property, the Senn/Glick property and the
Morabito/Burke property. Each of these sites is designated Industrial in the County's SLO Area Plan.
The decision by the Council to expand the airport area provides an opportunity for the City to insure
that all urban development in this area occurs within the City, which is best suited to provide urban
services. Development of these properties within the City would also provide for higher quality design
and more efficient use of land because on-site septic and fire suppression facilities such as water tanks
would not be required. At this time, the City's Urban Reserve Line (URL) matches the County's
Urban Services Line, so that there is no County land designated for commercial or industrial
development south of the City's URL. The first annexation of land in the Airport Area is expected to
occur in 2006.
Orcutt Area
The draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan covers over 200 acres of land in the southeastern part of the urban
area. Almost half the area would be open space or parks. The rest would accommodate up to 1000
dwellings of various types. During 2005, work continued on the environmental studies for the project
and revisions were made to the specific plan to incorporates the requirements from the environmental
review process into the policies and standards contained in the specific plan. The plan is also being
revised to expand the potential for mixed use development along the primary collector street within the
pace 16
.. J it l lent
city or san lues ompo q__.Eaal plan annual rzspoat 2005
plan area. Other issues addressed in revisions to the draft specific plan include airport compatibility
biological mitigation areas and provisions for affordable housing. Public hearings on the draft specific
plan are expected to begin in 2006.
Water Supply
The policies in the Water Management Element of the General Plan determine the water available for
new development. Section 8.2.A. states "The City will make available to new development only that
amount of safe annual yield which exceeds present water use (policy 3.4)." Policy 3.4 and related
policies define present water use as the current population times the adopted per capita water use rate
(145 gallons per capita per day). Based on these policies, the table below indicates the water available
to allocate to new development in 2005.
Year Population Present Water Demand Safe Annual Water Available
@ 145 gped Yield t for Allocation
2065 44,519 1 7,230 a.f. 7,490 af. 260 af.
1 From Water Management Element,Table 1: includes reductions due to siltation to date
Per Water Management Element Policy 8.1.3, one-half of the water available for allocation will be
reserved to serve intensification and infill development within city limits. Therefore, as of 2005, 130
acre feet is available to serve new annexation areas and 130 acre feet is reserved for infill and
intensification projects. The table below shows the water that has been allocated to residential and
non-residential development since 1995.
Water for Development(acre feet)
Year Residential Non-Residential Total
1995 16.89 12.02 28.91
1996 24.54 5.83 30.37
1997 39.96 16.94 56.90
1998 41.40 8.32 49.72
1999 1 16.26 17.42 33.68
2000 25.08 1.73 26.81
2001 29.10 20.52 49.62
2002 25.02 1.08 26.10
2003 57.87 14.59 72.46
2004 76.70 14.28 1 90.98
Total 352.82 112.73 465.55
Based on the General Plan build-out population of 56,000 and the per capita water use rate of 145
gpcd, the projected demand at full build-out is 9,096 acre feet per year (afy). The following table
shows the primary water supply requirements based on the adopted policies to meet General Plan
build-out.
paCIE 17 3 -37
Attachment 4
city of San Luis OBISPO - G..,cizal plan annual RepoRt 2005
Primary Supply Requirements(acre feet)
Safe Annual Yield Required at Build-out 9,096
Current Safe Annual Yield 2005 7,490
Additional Safe Annual Yield Required 1,606
Siltation(2005 to 2025) 200
Total Water Supply R uirement1,806
The City is currently pursuing or considering several supplemental water supply projects. Water from
the Water Reuse Project is expected to come on-line in spring 2006 and will initially provide 130 acre-
feet of water for irrigation of several parks, sports fields, and other landscaped areas. Ultimately, the
City will produce approximately 1,000 acre-feet of water per year that could be used for irrigation
throughout the City. Other water supply projects that the City is pursuing or considering include the
Nacimiento Pipeline Project, increased water conservation strategies, additional groundwater
resources,potential desalination facility, and the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project. Implementation
of additional water supply projects to increase our current supply by at least 1,806 acre feet per year is
necessary to meet projected demand at General Plan build-out.
Circulation
Transportation Network Improvements
In 2005, the following improvements were made to the City's transportation network, consistent with
the Circulation Element of the General Plan
Vehicular
• The Foothill Bridge reconstruction project which began in 2002 was completed and the roadway
reopened to through traffic in the Summer of 2005.
• As part of the City's pavement management program, neighborhoods north of Highway 101 and
east of Santa Rosa Street were slung sealed or repaved. Additionally, significant pavement work
was completed on Madonna Road, Stanford Drive, Princeton Place, Murray Avenue, and Lemon
Street. The City also completed a joint Pavement Pathing Project on Broad Street (Hwy 227) with
Caltrans.
• Tank Farm Road in the vicinity of Long Street was widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic in
each direction.
• Garcia Drive was extended to provide a vehicle connection with Los Osos Valley Road at Froom
Ranch Way. Additionally, the traffic signal at the intersection was upgraded to accommodate this
additional "leg" of traffic.
• Construction of the realignment of Calle Joaquin south of Los Osos Valley Road began as a
condition of private development.
• To mitigate collision patterns, the intersection of Buena Vista and Garfield was realigned using
signing, striping and temporary delineation.
• Sight distance at four intersections was improved by either removing parking or trimming
vegetation.
page is .� -3
Attachment 4
city of san Luis osispo - c,...ieual plan annual uepoat 2005
• Signage and striping improvements were made to nine intersections.
• As an interim measure prior to future signalization, a stop sign was installed on the west bound
direction of Orcutt Road at Laurel Lane, the crosswalk was realigned, and a new accessible ramp
constructed to improve circulation for pedestrians and motorists.
• Design of a second landscape median on Los -Osos Valley Road west of Madonna Road, was
completed. Construction of the median, located between Descanso Street and Prefumo Canyon
Road, is anticipated to occur in 2006. The beautification project is made possible through grant
funding.
Bicycle
• In October, the City's Police and Parks and Recreation Departments held the annual Bicycle Rodeo
instructing City youths on safe bicycling techniques and proper riding habits.
• The City's supply of short term.bicycle parking expanded by 36 spaces during the first year of the
City's "Racks with Plaques"bicycle rack donation program.
• In May,. the City participated in BikeFest, an annual festival in Mission Plaza that promotes
bicycling.
Transit
• On August, SLO Transit implemented service refinements to improve bus service in the
community. Improvements include installing bus route maps at bus stops and working with
developers to locate appropriate bus stops for projects on city bus routes.
• Taxi service was expanded within the City.
• Transit Ridership has increased approximately 20% from the previous year. A total of 939,116
trips were made by transit riders in 2005. The month with the highest ridership was October with a
total of 108,767 trips.
Pedestrian
• With funding from the Community Development Block Grant program, the City installed 42 ADA
accessible curb ramps around the downtown perimeter.
• Using donated funds, in-ground,pavement lights were added to the Ramona Street crosswalk east
of Broad Street
Transportation Planning Improvements
In 2005, the following transportation planning projects were implemented, consistent with programs in
the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Vehicular
• The City prepared signal design plans and specifications for the intersections of Johnson/Ella and
Higuera/Granada. Additionally, the City prepared signal plan modifications to existing signal
plans at the intersections of Johnson/Bishop and Madonna/El Mercado.
pace 19 "� 9
Attachment 4
city of san Luis osispo ` r4,..1etzal plan annual uEpout 2005
• The City published its fourth annual Traffic Safety Report identifying high crash locations within
the City and recommending mitigation measures to reduce the crash rates.
• The Marketplace shopping center project which included provisions for the construction of the
Prado Road interchange was turned down by voters in April.
• A Project Study Report (PSR) evaluating design options for modifying the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange was approved by Caltrans and contained five alternatives recommended for further
consideration. The City Council reviewed those alternatives and reduced the total number to four
to be passed on to the Project Report (PR) phase of the Caltrans process. The next stage of the
Caltrans process—a Project Report&Environmental Determination was begun.
• The City continued to work with Caltrans to complete a Federal environmental clearance for the
Mid-Higuera Widening Project.
• The City conducted bi-annual citywide traffic counts.
Bicycle
• The City resubmitted grant applications for the construction of the Railroad Safety Trail between
Hathway Avenue and Foothill Boulevard on City property.
• The Bicycle Advisory Committee made further progress on the second phase of their update of the
Bicycle Transportation Plan. The City also participated in Bike to Work Week activities
encouraging the public to use alternative transportation.
• A report summarizing bicycle count data obtained in October 2004 was published.
Transit
In 2005, the City did the following in support of maintaining and improving bus service and other
public transportation:
• Approved a new vandal resistant, low maintenance bus shelter design;
• Organized the third Annual "Stuff a Bus" Holiday Food Drive;
• Implemented a new bus pass structure;
• Prepared an annual performance report;
• Established a"flash" pass program with Costco;
• Reviewed system wide service proposals from the Mass Transportation Committee; and
• Established "easy pay" outlets to provide convenient bus pass sale locations at Albertson's and
Judson Terrace.
Pedestrian
• The City continued its efforts to develop the City's first Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Neighborhood Traffic Management
Twenty (20) neighborhoods actively pursued the preparation of Neighborhood Traffic Management
(NTM) Plans for their neighborhoods. Because so many neighborhoods are requesting NTM projects
paCIC 20 2-'yd
Attachment 4
crty of san Luis 0131sp0 w.,eual plan annual aEpotit 2005
and implementation funds are limited, staff developed a method for prioritizing the projects.
Neighborhoods ranking the highest in 2005 included Ella Street and Johnson Avenue (between San
Luis Drive and Laurel Lane).
Access and Parking Management
• A Task Force was convened to review and make recommendations on increasing the City's parking
revenues in order to fund annual bond payments and the operations of the Palm Nipomo parking
structure. The group considered and discussed increasing structure rates, meter rates and in-lieu
fees; beginning an assessment district; charging for parking on Sundays, adding parking meters in
the city, and increasing parking fine amounts.
• The City entered into negotiations with a private party to redevelop Parking Lot 2.
• Construction neared completion on the City office space/parking structure at 919 Palm Street.
Scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2006, the structure will provide a total of 242 parking
spaces of which 192 will be available to the public. The structure will include a "pay on foot"
option so users can prepay before returning to their vehicle with the goal of reducing the time it
takes for the vehicle to exit the structure.
• Progress was made on the design and location of new electronic parking signs along downtown
entrance corridors. Installation is anticipated to occur in 2006.
Safety
Staff Training
Section S 8.23.A of the Safety Element states that the City will train police officers and other City
employees to levels appropriate for their tasks and responsibilities.
The training of police officers and communication technicians is regulated by the California
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), which mandates minimum content and
hours for basic and in-service training. The Police Department is in full compliance with the POST
requirements for in-service training hours for all employees.. This was accomplished primarily by
sending employees to POST certified training courses in various topics, with the associated costs
reimbursed by POST.
Critical Facilities Locations and Reducing Structural Hazards
Section S 8.6.1 of the Safety Element tasks the City with identifying and evaluating hazards in existing
structures, with the highest priority given to critical facilities. This effort includes maintaining and
replacing City facilities, routine code inspections of certain commercial and residential buildings,
complaint-based code inspections for all buildings, mitigating hazards associated with unreinforced
masonry buildings (URM), and outreach regarding structural safety of private wood-frame buildings.
In 2005, the City continued to include Seismic Retrofit as a major focus. In 2004, the City accelerated
its timeframes for mandatory strengthening of URM buildings and also established low planning and
building fees, low contractor parking fees and hired a part-time Seismic Coordinator to aid building
owners in complying with the City requirements. To facilitate timely construction, the City set
deadlines for requesting and obtaining building permits for retrofit work. During 2005, these
pac46 21
Httdunrneni 4
city or san lues osispo cq....eRal plan annual 2Ep012t 2005
deadlines resulted in permits being requested for every building in the URM Inventory, with issuance
of these permits expected by early 2006.
The URM Ordinance requires full strengthening by July 2010 unless partial, Level A, strengthening is
completed by July 2007. Where Level A is completed by the deadline, Level B work may be delayed
until July 2012. Level A strengthening consists of installation of anchors between the buildings walls
and roof, walls and floors and bracing any parapets. Level B consists of Level A work plus
installation of the steel members that stabilize the storefront and frame. Distinction between Level A
and B was established by ordinance to encourage owners to complete this significant portion of the
strengthening process as soon as possible.
During 2005, several Level B projects were started and completed. Experience has shown that owners
are opting to reinforce to Level B, rather than prolonging the process by completing Level A now and
Level B later. Reinforcement projects continue to come on line at a pace that will assure, if
continued, strengthening of all identified URM buildings in the inventory by the 2010 deadline.
New Multi Dwelling Property Inspection Program
In 2005 the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a program to improve our annual fire and life safety
inspections of apartments (with three or more units), hotels, motels, bed and breakfast facilities, hostel
facilities, senior living facilities, condominiums, and sorority and fraternity houses.
Fire and life safety inspections are done to protect property owners and residents from the devastating
effects of fire. By ensuring a safe living environment in these types of facilities, the chance for fire
decreases. Fire can kill, disable, destroy property and completely disrupt lives.
A typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities include checking fire alarm systems, fire
sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas for fire hazards, exit signs and exit access doors,
fire lane access, hydrant access and signage. Additionally, the Fire Department will be offering public
education materials to apartment owners, managers, and residents to educate them about how to
prevent fires from occurring as well as how to increase their chances of survival in the event a fire
does occur.
The inspection program also includes annual fees, which are projected to provide 77% cost recovery
for this State mandated program. The fees vary according to the type of property being inspected.
Fees are collected on the annual County property tax bills.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2005, City Fire Department spearheaded a city-wide project. The Fire Department, along with
other City staff and the assistance of a consultant, has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that
will guide the City toward greater disaster resistance. It.is in full accord with the character and needs
of the community as well as federal requirements. The potential hazards identified and assessed in this
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan include earthquakes, floods, hazardous materials events, landslides,
wildland fires, and windstorms. Mitigation actions include a range of specific actions and projects that
reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on protecting new and existing buildings
and infrastructure.
pac,E 22 -y.2
Attachment 4
crty of san lues owspo _ c}._.eaal plan annual uEpoat 2005
Neighborhood Quality
Code Enforcement—Community Development
The City's Code Enforcement Officer reports directly to the Chief Building Official. The code
enforcement office deals primarily with violations of building codes and zoning regulations. Code
enforcement activities related to neighborhood quality would include such issues as:
• Garage Conversions
• Conversions of other structures, such as storage buildings
• And violations of the Uniform Housing Code
Of the 358 total complaints received in 2005, 45 could impact neighborhood quality;26 alleged garage
conversions, 3 conversions of other structures and 16 complaints regarding substandard living
conditions. These numbers are similar to 2004 activities, however nearly half the amount based on
activity for 2003. The reductions could be attributed to the introduction of a mediation program
started in 2004. Keep in mind that the report of a problem does not always mean that a violation
exists. Often, the report of a garage conversion may just be residents using the garage as a weekend
gathering place, perhaps to watch a football game or play video games. These types of activities could
create a nuisance in the neighborhood, which would result in a call to the code enforcement office.
Since the introduction of the SLO Solutions Program, residents now have an outlet to discuss
problems that occur in neighborhoods and resolve issues. In the past, when a tenant was upset with the
landlord due to living conditions, or a neighbor was upset about the weekend get-together, their only
recourse was to call the code enforcement office to report, what they believed to be, substandard
conditions or a code violation. Often when an inspector would investigate the problem it would
invariably be minor in nature and directly related to lack of cooperation from one side or the other.
Now, instead of calling the code enforcement office to report a violation, tenants or neighbors can
contact Creative Mediation at no cost to seek assistance, advice and mediation services to resolve
disputes.
Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Update
In 2002, the Neighborhood Preservation provisions were adopted into the Zoning Regulations. These
provisions were highly supported by the neighborhood groups and through collaboration between.staff
and neighborhood groups, standards were adopted to help prevent visual blight of our neighborhoods.
The code enforcement office is responsible for a few of these provisions and other violations are
enforced by the Police Department's Student Neighborhood Assistance Patrol (SNAP). Enforcing the
provision regulating overgrown vegetation initially had the largest impact to the Code Enforcement
office. This section states that it is a violation to have:
"Trees, weeds, or other types of vegetation that are dead, decayed, infested, diseased,
overgrown, or harbor rats or vermin and are visible from the public right of way. For the
purpose of this chapter, "overgrown"is limited to lawns or weeds over twelve inches in
height."
In the beginning there was concern that becoming"lawn police" would be considered too much
regulation, however, the community groups agreed that if it the regulation was enforced reasonably it
paC�E 23 3 ,, V3
Attachment 4
city of San Luis osispo _ ' c,...EtzaL plan annual.12ep0tzt 2005
would be helpful to enhance neighborhoods. During the first two years after adoption of the
regulations there were nearly 100 violations each year. The code enforcement officer then began an
outreach program with local property managers and included language in violation letters, which went
to property owners, warning repeat offenders that subsequent violations would result in fines. The
number of violations immediately went down. We have had 24 and 18 violations for 2004 and 2005
respectively.
Fraternity & Sorority Inspection Program
2005 concluded the second year of a Fraternity and Sorority inspection program. This revitalized
program is designed to provide safety inspections for these "group house" occupancies. Past
inspection programs were conducted by Fire Department and Building Department inspectors and
solely focused on safe buildings. For the past two years inspections have been conducted by a Fire
Inspector, the Code Enforcement Officer and members of Cal Poly's Student Life and Leadership
Department. Including staff members from Cal Poly has proven to work well. There are now
increased efforts to counsel the groups regarding safe and conscientious behavior both in their
organization and in the community. This broader approach of proactive effort and linking with Cal
Poly has given additional clout to the program and helped improve relations between the Cal Poly and
the City. The net result of these combined efforts helps increase awareness within the campus
organizations. They are encouraged to think of safe and proper conduct within their organizations and
within the community. We strive to impress upon these groups that they are responsible for
maintaining safe living conditions, conducting safe events and they should serve as good stewards
within the community.
Parks & Recreation
In 2005, the City took these major steps to implement policies and programs in the Parks and
Recreation Element:
• Staff continues to offer programs and services that enhance the quality of life in San Luis
Obispo. New programs and events include a Sports Festival, Family Movie Night, and Water
Polo Camp.
• The Damon-Garcia Sports Fields were officially dedicated in May 2005. The facility will aid
in addressing an unmet community need for turf-based sports.
• The Playground Replacement Program continued to be implemented with replacement of
worn equipment at Throop Park and the design phase for Anholm Park was started.
• Staff evaluated the possibilities of utilizing synthetic turf to expand sports field uses for year-
round use. A future capital improvement project request will be drafted to convert Stockton
Field at Sinsheimer Park to a synthetic turf facility.
• In its efforts to enhance service delivery, Parks & Recreation staff upgraded their online
registration service and added the ability for customers to view or reserve available park and
building facilities online.
• An amendment to the Joint Use Agreement between the City and School District was
completed in 2005. A portion of the agreement asks that City Ranger Services be used to
assist in patrolling school district fields.
pagE 24
Attachment 4
city of san lues oBispo y_.,egal plan annual aEpout 2005
• Design work was completed for enhancing softball fields at the County's El Chorro Regional
Park. Construction for field lights and improvements is set to begin in early 2006 and adult
softball games will move from Stockton Field at Sinsheimer Park to El Chorro by Summer
2006.
• Laguna Lake Golf Course completed the installation of a 55 foot Mono Pine-like cell tower
as a part of an agreement with Sprint. An additional cell site with Cingular was finalized in
2005. A wastewater filtration system was installed to prevent contamination of groundwater
supplies.
• Work on the Therapy Pool project continues with an anticipated construction start in 2006.
• The Mitchell Park Bandstand was completed and dedicated in July 2005. The project was a
cooperative effort by both San Luis Obispo Rotary Clubs and donated to the City.
• Ranger Services accomplished maintenance and trail work in several open space areas. An
environmental education program was restarted and expanded to include teens and seniors.
Staff continues to work with Police on cleaning up homeless encampments along San Luis
Obispo Creek.
• Programs for"Boomers"—ages 50 and above, continue to grow with classes featuring Global
Gourmet, noontime talks on health and wellness, and computer classes.
• The City's Aquatics program continues to offer instructional classes, lap swim and
recreational swim opportunities throughout the year. Classes are in high demand, including
Lifeguard Training, Water Safety Instruction, Springboard Diving, Baby and Me, and Guard
Start.
• The Parks & Recreation Department has maintained its efforts to offer parent certification
training for youth sports programs through the PAYS (Parent Association for Youth Sports)
as well as training youth sports coaches through the National Youth Sports Association.
Program Status
The General Plan contains an array of programs covering most types of City actions. The Housing
Element, in particular, includes many programs with specific time frames. The written portion of this
report touches on the major programs that saw activity in 2003. A status list of all General Plan
programs follows. While General Plan elements are usually revised on a 5 to 10 year cycle, the City
Council makes priority determinations as part of the two-year budget process, which supersedes the
target program-completion dates contained in the General Plan. Staff will continue to update and
correct this list throughout the City's goal-setting and evaluation activities.
pac,E 25 -ys
Attachment 4
city of san Luis oslspo plan annual RepoRt 2005
For More Information
' Community Development Department offices are in the lower level of City Hall, which
Dg � is downtown at the comer of Palm and Osos streets. Office hours are 8:00 am to 5:00
pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The location and mailing address are:
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
n 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.
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
Department. Paper document purchase prices reflect only the cost of printing. Large
documents are usually made available as "pdf' files at no cost through the City's Web
site, or at nominal cost on CD's. 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.
4 ; Se puede hacer preparativos para traducir en espanol.
L:\GP Annual Report\Annual Report(2005 2-23).doc
page 40 .3 -o'114
-- Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle-Growth Management Flexibility
From: "Andrew Merriam" <amerriam @ mbaplanning.com> RECEIVED
To: <asettle @ slocity.org>
Date: 5/1 6/2006 10:17 AM MAY 1 71006
Subject: Growth Management Flexibility SLO CITY CLERK
Allen,as the principal planner for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, I would encourage you to have the City Council reconsider the
three versus eight year growth management plan. The primary issue with the Orcutt Area is that a proportionately large
number of units is needed in the first several years to provide an adequate economic base to pay for the initial investment in
collector streets,utilities and related Phase I start up costs for this specific plan area. This is in part necessitated by the shape
of the land area itself and the higher expectations of the City for connecting bike paths,dedicating parkland,providing
reclaimed water systems etc.and in part by the potential competition with the Margarita Plan for some of the units in the next
couple of years. While I do not have the actual math and spread sheets at this point, I am sure that the greater flexibility will
serve the City,the owners and the need for affordable housing without breaking the I%growth cap when calculated over this
longer period of time.
Thank you.
LvweG�
Andrew G. Merriam, AICP /-/6 op
�C e
Principal ed d -o i
mba planning group
890 Osos St., Suite A
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805-541-7120
805-541-7124 fax
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/17/2006
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-Growth Cap Revisions
RECEIVED
From: "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer@charter.net> RED FILE
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> MAY 1 E r.
MEETING AGENDA :�v
Date: 5/16/2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Growth Cap Revisions DATES SLO CITY
CC: "Lenny Grant" <Ieonard@Igarchitecture.com> ITEC #�1._
Council Members,
The American Institute of Architects, Central Coast Chapter(AIACCC) is in support of Planning Commission recommendations
to expand from 3 years to 8 years the intervals used in the residential growth management ordinance phasing schedule.
(Business Item 3 on tonight's council meeting agenda)
We recognize the importance of addressing the housing shortage issues within our community. These recommendations will
give developers flexibility to plan for the build-out of planned units based on market forces rather then some fixed schedule.
We also recognize that this build-out should be allowed within the overall limits of the 1%annual growth cap and upon
availability of required infrastructure.
The AIACCC encourages your support of the Planning Commission recommendations.
Thank you, G
fp COUNCIL CDD DIR
B CAO Z7 FIN DIR
MACAO ® FIRE CHIEF
Randy Dettmer,AIA, NCARB 6'ATTORNEY 'B PW DIR
Ij�CLERK/ORIG E POLICE CHF
AIACCC Legislative Director ❑ DEPT HEADS a REC DIR
�2 ,IF UTIL DIR
DettmerArchitecture 7/etd�cwsG 42 HR DIR
r CGE�/C
805 541 4864/Fax 805 5414865
www.dettmerarchitecture.com
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 5/16/2006
councils
Aclenaa Repopt s y
LC
C I T Y O F S A ' I S OBISPO
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO, and Audrey Hooper, City Clero�l
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION OF AUGUST 1 AND NOVEMBER 7,20069
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider cancellation of the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, August 1, 2006; and
cancel the meeting of Tuesday, November 7, 2006.
DISCUSSION
August 1"Meeting
Since 1994 it has been the practice of the City Council to cancel the first regular meeting in the
month of August. This custom is to allow the Council and staff to plan summer vacations and
reduces meeting absences. However, as summer 2006 vacation plans are "shaking out," we are
not sure that this dark period will be especially beneficial this year.
With respect to the summer schedule (from now until September 5th), and assuming a "dark"
August 1St,.we have only five regular meetings scheduled (and we are attempting to respect the
Council's wish of avoiding "special meetings" to the extent possible). Of the five meetings, it
appears that we will.have all Council Members present at only three of these meetings (four
Council Members will be present on June 6th and only three Council Members present on July 5th
— which will significantly limit which items we can schedule for the 5t). This reduced meeting
time may pose a backlog problem, especially with certain priority projects underway, such as the
Lot 2 negotiations and the revenue ballot measure decision (set for July 18th)
On the other hand, we have scheduled the upgrade of our video and audio equipment for the
"dark period," and so it may be difficult to hold a meeting in the Council Chamber. Therefore, if
we hold a meeting on August 1St, an alternative site may be needed. In addition, the CAO is
scheduled to be on vacation on August 1st. However, if most or all Council Members will be
present on August Is', we may wish to tentatively schedule a meeting on this date, if needed for
workload reasons.
November 7`h Meeting
It has been Council's practice to cancel its first regular City Council meeting for the month of
November during election years. Tuesday, November 7, 2006, is the first regular meeting of the
month and the General Municipal Election falls on that date. Therefore, staff is recommending
that this meeting be canceled.
G:\City Clerk Agenda Reports-General Correspondence\Cancel Meetings August and November 2006.doc /�/