Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/1989, 3 - A PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW THE CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT AREA. DATE 1110 1p,mll City of San luis OBISpo f Mff 1-3 89 COUN06,AGENDA REPORT n! YHONEMichael Multari,Community Development Dir. By: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner SUBJECT: A public meeting to review the concept land use plan for the airport area. CAO RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should adopt and forward to the Board of Supervisors a resolution that: 1. supports the concept plan and planning principles; 2. presents responses to key issues presented in this report; 3. presents responses to the issues presented in the Major Issues Report -- attached as Exhibit B; 4. recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Phase II of the specific plan work program to proceed. BACKGROUND On September 12th and 20th, 1988, the City Council reviewed the airport area concept plan and took public testimony. The council directed the staff to work with the county to develop an agreement which would better control rural area development while the Airport Area Specific Plan is being prepared (the "interim MOU" concept). In addition, staff said that they would work with the airport area planning team to respond to the following key issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council: Preservation of agricultural land within the airport planning area. Airport noise and compatibility concerns. Balancing employment growth with housing capacity and affordable housing. The application of Transferred Development Rights' (TDR) programs in the specific planning area. The potential impacts of septic systems serving county development on ground water. The feasibility of developing a fraternity row in the airport area. The impact of community water and sewer systems serving "interim" county development on future annexations. Creating an "umbrella zone" covering agriculture, open space and recreation areas. Circulation and water supply concerns. The city staff has met with county staff to work on a Board of Supervisors "policy resolution" that will respond to the council's concern for rural area development. The airport area planning team has met to discuss the issues listed above. Both city staff and planning team members agree that all of the these issues are significant and must be addressed. However, it was acknowledged that some cannot be dealt with in Phase I but are issues most appropriately considered in Phase II -- the preparation of the Airport Area Specific Plan and comprehensive EIR. �� I� ' City Of sai I tuts OBISPO NOCOUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Page 2 -- Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The full range of environmental and fiscal impacts of developing the airport area will be addressed: (1) as part of the preparation of the specific plan (Phase II work), and (2) as part of the preparation of a comprehensive EIR. The city's own efforts to revise its Land Use Element will also respond to broad issues such as the balance between jobs and housing and affordable housing programs. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING AN ACTION The preparation of the airport area specific plan area would be delayed. Alternatively, the County Board of Supervisors could authorize work on Phase II of the specific plan without City Council input. I �iinai ��N��Ii U city of san tins owpo Ni;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 -- Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) EVALUATION OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION ISSUES 1. An Interim MOU for the Airport Area Discussion: At its September 20, 1988 meeting the City Council directed the staff to work with the county to develop an agreement that would better control development in rural areas south of the city while the Airport Area Specific Plan is being prepared. The staff met with Paul Crawford, County Planning Director and Vic Montgomery (representing the property owners) to develop such an agreement. Various options for the form and content of an agreement were discussed. On October 22, the Community Development Director sent council members a progress report that outlined a proposed set of development policies for the airport area and surrounding rural areas. The report asked for council comment if the development policies were unacceptable. No responses were received by the director. On December 12, the City Council supported the draft development policies for the airport and authorized a council member to attend the Board of Supervisor's December 13th meeting. On December 13, the board unanimously approved the policies for the airport area. However, the board continued consideration of the policy which would limit individual general plan amendments in the remainder of the fringe area until the County's LUE is updated. The board will again consider this policy on January 17. The staff will continue to keep the council updated on the County Board of Supervisors actions. i Recommendation: No council action is required at this time. 2. Preservation of agricultural land within the airport planning area. Back round: Both City and County Planning Commissions recommend that the specific plan consider designating all undeveloped or vacant land with Class I and II soils as "agriculture" after evaluating its significance in the greater regional context. These areas adjoin the city limits east of South Higuera Street and have frontage on Tank Farm Road. The concept plan designates these areas for "Business Park" development. Discussion: Vacant land with Class I and II soils represents a small percentage of the total acreage within the airport planning area. These areas adjoin or are surrounded by land developed with urban uses or planned for future urbanization. All of these parcels are designated as "industrial" by the County Land Use Element (LUE). Underlying parcel sizes range from 5 to 10 acres. I � -3 ���►��►,►�,uliipiq �� city of san'tuis oBispo MINIM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 -- Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) Factors that argue in favor or designating areas with Class I and II soils as agriculture are as follows: A. These areas have historically supported agriculture. Given the industrial nature of nearby properties, their continued agricultural use may not create significant compatibility problems. B. The supply of land for light industrial and service industry development would be reduced. This might reduce overall employment growth in the airport area and attendant impacts on city and regional housing markets. C. There is already a substantial supply of land in the airport area earmarked for industrial-service commercial use. This supply may exceed future demand. D. Food production is an important activity. Use of land for agriculture helps maintain open space and the community's rural character. E. The city's existing "rural industrial" land use policies for the airport area encourage the retention of agriculture. Factors that argue for retaining the proposed urban land use designations for areas with Class I and II soils are as follows: A. Considering the amount of agricultural land in the city's.planning area or the region, the amount of land that would be reserved for agriculture is insignificant. B. The areas adjoin or are surrounded by urban uses. The economic viability of agriculture on small parcels in these settings is questionable. C. Reserving these areas for "business park" and service commercial development might reduce the pressure in areas beyond the urban reserve to develop with service commercial/light industrial uses. D. The area is zoned for manufacturing and other industrial uses. The county has already approved service commercial development on one parcel (the Cook property) and other property owners are discussing development concepts. The staff feels that the preservation of agricultural land uses within the specific planning area is an important issue that warrants further analysis. This analysis, including an appraisal of the factors listed above, should be part of Phase II of the specific plan's work program. The EIR for the specific plan should evaluate the significance of eliminating agricultural production potential within the planning area. Recommendation: The reservation of vacant, undeveloped land with Class I and II soils for agriculture should be analyzed as part of preparing the Airport Area Specific Plan. The impact of the loss of prime agricultural land to urban uses on these sites should be evaluated by the plan's EIR. 3. Airport noise and compatibility concerns. Background: The Airport Manager and county staff are preparing revisions to the 1973 Airport Land Use Plan. The revised plan will establish compatibility standards for land uses around the county airport. The County Airport Land Use Commission adopts and administers the plan. "��� �Nlll��jell► crty of san tuffs osispo COUNCIL AGENDA►► REPORT Page 5 -- Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) The City Planning Commission were concerned that new development -- especially residential development - should be compatible with existing and future airport operations. Key compatibility issues are noise and safety. Discussion: The planning team has discussed airport compatibility issues with the County Airport Manager. Based on these discussions, it appears that residential development proposed by the concept plan can be compatible with airport operations. However, additional analysis of future noise levels, the development of construction standards for area housing to mitigate noise, and the development of other mitigation measures is needed. This impact analysis will be done as part of the specific plan's EIR with mitigation measures incorporated into the specific plan. Recommendation: The following principal should be added to the concept plan: Residential development will incorporate mitigation measures needed to ensure compatibility with airport operations. 4. Balancine employment erowth with bousine capacity and affordable housing. Backeround: Full development within the airport area will have significant effects on employment levels. Increased employment will increase the demand for housing. The city's ability to provide housing to serve people who work in San Luis Obispo is a central policy issue that has been raised by staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Affordable housing for people who work in the airport area was also a council concern. The council is concerned that some amount of "modest-cost" housing must be assured. Discussion: The "jobs-housing" balance issue is central to city land use policy. The city staff is analyzing how future levels of housing demand will be affected by increases in employment within the urban reserve, increases in college enrollment, and increases in senior households. Full development of the airport area will have a significant effect on housing demand. Can this demand plus the demand created by other commercial and institutional growth be served by future housing within the urban reserve? The answer at this point seems to be maybe. As part of the city's update of its Land Use Element, research is being conducted to gauge future housing supply and demand within the urban reserve. A number of land use strategies will be evaluated and determine how these factors can be balanced. One of the central elements of staff's work on the general plan is developing an "affordable housing" program component. The structure of this program will be presented in draft LUE materials. Areas of the community likely affected by these programs include the residential expansion areas (eg. Margarita, Dalidio, Irish Hills, Orcutt) and major project sites elsewhere in the city. Recommendation: Housing issues will be addressed as part of the city's Land Use Element update program and as part of Phase II of the Airport Specific Plan work program (preparation of the specific plan and EIR). p� 1 City Of SM LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 6 -- Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) 5. The application of TDR programs within the specific planning area Discussion: TDR (transfer of development rights) is a technique used to transfer development rights from environmentally sensitive areas to areas of lesser sensitivity. The property owner is allowed to market the development rights and thereby avoids the elimination of reasonable economic return that might be caused by prohibitive land use programs. TDR has been associated with open space preservation programs. TDR is identified as part of the city's Hillside Planning Program TDR is one of many types of techniques that can be used by communities to implement land use policies. It is not clear whether there is potential for its application in the airport area. However, TDR has also been associated with agricultural land preservation. In that context, it may prove useful if preserving agricultural land in the airport area becomes an objective and an integral part of the airport area specific plan. Recommendation: Staff will continue to consider TDR as an implementation tool for the airport area. 6. The potential impacts of septic systems serving county development on around water, Discussion: Existing development within the airport area is served by on-site septic systems. The City Council indicated that the county should review its standards for septic systems and make sure that future development under county jurisdiction will not result in any damage to the groundwater. The effects of septic systems on area ground water is an important environmental concern. The cumulative effect of establishing uses on small parcels that generate liquid waste could be significant. Can development in the county be served by septic systems without degrading ground water? This question will be addressed as part of the comprehensive EIR that evaluates the Airport Area Specific Plan. Recommendation: The EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan should evaluate the individual and cumulative effects of serving development in the airport area with septic systems. 7. The feasibility of developing a fraternity row in the airport area. Discussion: The concept of establishing a "fraternity row" in the airport area was identified by the council at its September 20th meeting. In the past, this concept has been seen as a strategy for improving the quality of life in existing neighborhoods by grouping sometimes-incompatible fraternities/sororities at a single location. The planning team did a preliminary survey of potential sites and found that the best ones in terms of airport compatibility are relatively distant from the freeway which may be important for easy access to campus. The idea certainly has merit and should be further analyzed as part of Phase II of the specific plan. Compatibility with the airport and access to campus will be key factors to consider. I Recommendation: As part of Phase II, the planning team should further evaluate the feasibility of locating a fraternity row in the airport planning area. 1111H1IIII1�11W�l my of san tuffs oBispo SIM ACOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 7 — Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) 8. The impact of community water and sewer systems servine "interim" county_ development on future annexations. Backeround: The draft planning principles for the airport area state the following: "Community service.systems, managed by the County, may be established to support clustered rural housing or rural commercial development" (Principle 5-E). The Planning Commission is concerned that once community systems are established to serve these uses, property owners will resist annexation because municipal services would represent additional costs. Discussion: The planing principles for the airport area state that community systems must be managed by the county and should only serve rural development. Property owners who want to develop "urban" levels of development (as defined by the planning principles) would have to annex their property and hook up to municipal systems. Connecting to municipal services and annexation as a prerequisite for urban development was seen as a way of avoiding future resistance to annexation. However, the picture is not clear. Owners of rural clustered housing or rural commercial uses in business park areas that have installed their own community systems my resist hooking up to city systems if they have to pay the cost of connection. On the other hand, municipal systems may be cheaper to operate than a community system. This type of cost analysis has not been done. Clearly, the city should avoid the creation of unincorporated "islands" if it intends to eventually annex the airport area. Avoiding this problem will require research into the types of agreements that can be established between the city, county, and property owners concerning future annexations. Recommendation: As part of Phase II, direct the planning team to further analyze the impacts of establishing community service systems on future annexations in the airport area and develop appropriate service strategies. 9. Creatine an "umbrella zone" covering sericulture, open space and recreation areas. Discussion: This issue was raised but not specifically discussed at the council's September 20th meeting. The city is involved in updating its open space and conservation elements. The Community Development Department has hired a long-range planner for two years to do this work. Establishing appropriate open space zones within the city's urban reserve and beyond is part of the planner's work program. Zone designations may be created that better indicate the "purpose" for the open space in specific areas -- eg. permanent green belt, creek and hillside preservation, agricultural reservation. Recommendation: No council action is required. Establishing appropriate zones and descriptions of open space area will be part of the Community Development Department work on the Open Space Element. 10. Circulation and Water Surmly Concerns. Discussion: The City Planning Commission felt that circulation needs and water supply issues must be fully evaluated in the Airport Area Specific Plan and EIR. Staff agrees �� i 111111IIIII1JR11U city of sai tins OBISp0 Ift COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 8 — Airport Area Concept Plan Review (December 1988) that these are important planning concerns that must be addressed. The city is currently updating its Circulation Element. This work includes an analysis of the impact of airport area development on the city's and region's road system. Based on this analysis and additional work done as part of the specific plan's EIR, capital projects and non-capital mitigation measures will be identified. We anticipate that required circulation improvements will be significant and that some form of fee system will be needed to help fund needed improvements. Recommendation: No council action is required. The staff will continue with circulation element studies and develop specific circulation requirements and funding programs as part of developing the Airport Area Specific Plan. EVALUATION OF OTHER MAJOR ISSUES In September, the City Council received the "Major Issues Report" -- attached as Exhibit B. The report outlines various concerns raised by property owners in the airport area, describes alternatives, and presents recommendations from the planning team, city and county Planning Commissions, and the Airport Land Use Commission. The planning team's recommendations represent a consensus response of city staff, county staff, and consultants representing area property owners. While initial recommendations of each group may have differed, the team's recommendation accommodates the interests of all parties. The levels of compromise were not significant. The City Council should consider the specific land use issues identified in the "Major Issues" report and make specific recommendations to the Board for each issue. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should adopt and forward to the Board of Supervisors a resolution that: I. supports the concept plan and planning principles; 2 presents responses to the issues presented on Exhibit A; 3. presents responses to the issues presented in the Major Issues Report -- attached as Exhibit B; 4. recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Phase II of the specific plan work program to proceed. Attachments Resolution forwarding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors Copy of draft Board of Supervisors Policy Resolution I RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FORWARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONCERNING THE PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT AREA WHEREAS, the City and the County have been cooperatively working on a long-range plan for the 1,700-acre airport area that adjoins the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the Airport Area Planning Team has prepared a "concept plan" and planning principles for the airport area; WHEREAS, the planning team has reviewed the concept plan with the City and County Planning Commissions, the Airport Land Use Commission, and with area property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the concept plan and planning principles be approved with specific amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has met on three occasions to review the concept plan, take public testimony, consider the Planning Commission's report, and discuss a variety of Cissues raised by the various commissions, staff, and area property owners. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council supports the concept plan and planning principles for the airport area, with amendments to the planning principals as shown on attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The City Council recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Phase II of the work program — preparation of a Specific Plan and comprehensive EIR — to proceed. Phase II of the work include should include the evaluation of the issues described on attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed the specific items presented in a Major Issues Report prepared by the airport area planning team and recommends that each issue be addressed as described of in attached Exhibit B. SECTION 4. The City Council continues to support the cooperative efforts of the city, county and area property owners in developing a long-range plan for the airport area. Page 2 -r Resolution No. (1988 Series) On motion of Counciiperson seconded by Councilperson and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _day of December, 1988. MAYOR Ron Dunin ATTEST: CITY CLERK Pamela Voges APPROVED: 1 CITY 4DMINISTRATIVE OFFICER unn CITY ATYORNE Rober PJAquet COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Michael Multari jEXHIBIT A -- RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) The following principle should be added to the concept pian for the Airport Arca: 1. Residential development will incorporate mitigation measures needed to ensure compatibility with airport operations. The following major issues should be addressed as part of Phase II of the preparation of a Specific Plan and comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the airport.area: 1. The reservation of vacant, undeveloped land with Class I and II soils for agriculture should be analyzed as part of preparing the specific Plan. The impact of the loss of prime agriculture land to urban uses on these sites should be evaluated by the plan's EIR. 2. The EIR for the specific plan should evaluate the individual and cumulative effects of serving development in the airport area with septic systems. 3. The Planning Team should evaluate the feasibility of locating a "fraternity row" within the airport planning area. 4. The Planning Team should further analyze the impacts of establishing community service systems on future annexations in the airport area and develop appropriate o service strategies. 5. Affordable housing issues will be addressed as part of the city's Land Use Element update program and as part of Phase II of the Airport Specific Plan work program (preparation of the specific plan and EIR). 6. The Planning Team will continue to consider TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) as an implementation tool for the airport area as part of Phase II of the Airport Specific Plan work program. 0 JULY 15, 1988 TO: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEAM SUBJECT: MAJOR ISSUES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN FOR PHASE ONE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY This report was requested by the county Planning Commission and is intended for presentation to the various public bodies at a series of public hearings before the county Board of Supervisors authorizes proceeding with phase two of the specific plan process, which is preparation of the actual specific plan and environmental impact report (EIR) . The report is organized into four sections: Section .I is a summary of the background and basic reasoning behind the proposed concept land use plan. Section II is a list of major issues to be addressed during preparation of the draft specific plan and EIR. Section III consists of brief analyses of major issues ready for preliminary consideration, with recommendations by the planning team and blanks for recommendations by the public bodies as they become available. Sect.ion IV is an .itemized summary of all correspondence received, again with brief analyses and recommendations, or reference to ona or more major issues. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Paoe 2 RECOMMENDATION Review this report, discuss each .of the issues presented in Sections III and IV, and provide specific recommendations to the county Board of Supervisors. SECTION I : BACKGROUND AND REASONING BEHIND CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN This report is intended to complete phase one of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan preparation process, and to solicit recommendations from the various city and county public bodies for consideration by the county Board of Supervisors prior to authorizing phase two (preparation of the actual specific plan and EIR) . Phase one has consisted of preparation of technical studies to determine needs for services and improvements, as well as environmental constraints, involved with future development of about 1 ,800 acres of land located between the South Street Hill , South Broad Street, the county airport, and South Higuera Street. In December of 1987, once preliminary information from these phase one studies was available, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan Team (the planning team) , consisting of planning staff of the cfty, the county, and RRM Design Group (on behalf of the property owners) , prepared a conceptual land use plan and planning principles for the area. The concept land use plan and planning principles then provided the basis for a summary of the findings of the technical studies, entitled Preliminary Specific PLan Analysis For The San Luis Obispo County Alro®rt Area Specific Plan, April 1988, (referred to in this report as the "phase one summary report") . That report, along with the individual technical studies, was released for public review in March 1988. On May 26, 1988, the county Planning Commission directed staff to prepare this report to identify major issues and individual requests by property owners and other interested persons' regardfng the concept land use plan. County staff prepared a rough draft of the reporto which was then revlewed and revised by the planning team. The report is intended to enable each public body to make specific recommendations on how the concept land use plan should, or should not, be modified before phase two begins. The proposed concept land use plan represents an increase in overall development potential from what is presently allowable under the county Land Use Element, but it does not designate all land within the boundary of the plan for highly intensive commercial development. The planning team attempted to balance county, city, and property owners' interests, as well as environmental and resource constrafnts, when formulatfnA the concept land use plan. The team recognized the need to designate enough land for a variety of future land uses, as well as the desirability of 3 -/3 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988' � RE: Major Issues Page 3 recognizing established land use patterns to avoid creating nonconforming uses. Clearly defined land use policies were also considered an Important goal by the team. However, these needs must be balanced with other needs. For example, it is important to promote efficient land use patterns by focusing urban developments. in defined areas with adequate and cost-effective services. The amount of permitted development must be set at a level which can be supported by (existing or future) available resources, particularly water. There is also a need to promote housing for new employees, a need for . recreational areas to serve the community and the region, and a need to preserve hillsides As scenic viewsheds. The team also considered land use compatibility, for examplet design®ting areas under extensions of airport runways or adjacent to the airport property for uses which should not threaten the continued operation of the airport, but instead complement it. All members of the planning team agreed that such competing needs should be balanced within the specific plan, to the extent feasible, and not left to other future planning efforts. It is important to recognize that the overall land use intensity reflected in the concept land use plan is predicated on the city providing water supply and sewage disposal services for a substantial portion of the area. The phase one studies revealed that groundwater alone cannot support the ,-- potential development, due to quality and quantity iimitations. Only by extension of city systems and imported surface water (possibly combined with groundwater) v can ultimate bulid-out occur. This is one of the reasons the planning team proposed that development prior to annexation be permitted only at intensities lower than after annexation. SECTION II : MAJOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following issues cannot be resolved until the draft EIR is prepared# since more detailed information about environmental impacts, and needed resources, facilities, and their costs must be developed. These issues are identified now to focus work on the EIR. Comments from the public, the various public bodies, and other agencies will probably identify more issues that fall into this category. 1 . How can potential conflicts between airport operations and land uses within the plan be avoided? 2. How can adequate water supply be provided? a. Using groundwater only? (on-site and/or community systems) SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15. 1988 RE: Major issues Page 4 b. Using groundwater for landscape irrigation and extending city system ( imported water) for domestic uses? c. Using only imported water via city system? 3. How should sewage be disposed? a. On-site septic systems? b. Expanding the city plant or creating new community systems? C. Combination of a. and b. ? 4. Will it be feasible (physicaily and economically) to bu.iid an adequate road system? S. How should areawide improvements and services be financed? 6. In what sequence should areas be scheduled for annexation and development? 7. How will full development within the plan affect area air quality? S. How will full development within the plan affect the local and regional jobs-housing balance? SECTION III : MAJOR ISSUES READY FOR PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION The following issues are appropriate for public consideration before the phase two work on the specific plan and EIR is authorized. However, decisions on these issues may not be final , since information produced as part of the subsequent EIR may lead to more changes during phase two. A map of the project area is attached as Exhibit "A", with locations Of individual requests for changes to the concept land use plan noted by number (where appropriate). Issues List: 1 . Requests to change land use categories shown in the concept land use Llan. A. Damon/Garcia Ranch property. B. Strasbauah Property. C. Cook, et al Business Park. n 2. Expansion of the specific plan__boundary. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988i` RE : Major Issues Page 5 - 3. Residential development in the specific Pian. 4. Permitted intensities of development Prior to city annexation. 5. Conversion. of productive farmland. 6. Agriculture as an interim designation. 7. Protecting visual aspects of ma:ior roadways. 8. A1lowabie_uses table. Detailed Discussions: 1. Land use categories depicted in concept land use plan. (See correspondence items 1 (A3a and A7), RRM Design Group; 3, Terry Simons; 4, Ben Maddalena; 5, Althea Cook; 6, Rob Strong; 10, Bert Forbes) Shouid the areas of land proposed for the various land use categories in the concept land use plan be modified in response to the individual requests received? A. Damon/Garcia Ranch Property (See correspondence item 3) Terry Simons, the representative of the owners of this approximately 195-acre ranch located south of the South Street Hili and west of South Broad Street, has submitted a request for major intensification of the land use categories designated for the ranch property in the concept land use plan. Should the request be accommodated, in whole or in part? Analysis: The owners' proposal would change the concept land use plan by nearly eliminating the Recreation (Rec) and Open Space (OS) designations, replacing them with Agriculture (Ag) , Commercial Service (CS), Commercial Retail (CR) , Commercial Visitor-Serving (CVS), and Business Park (BP) . The ranch property acreages in each land use category are shown below, under the present Land Use Element, the concept land use plan, and the owners' proposal . The owners prefer that the South Street Hill portion of their property be designated Ag instead of OS. They are concerned that the OS designation in Itself would convey or Imply pubilc rights to access or other uses, and might preclude the owners' use of the property more than the Ag designation. They also oppose any easements which would allow public access to their property. However, they do recognize the value of the hill as a scenic vlewshed. \J CSLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 , RE: Major Issues Page 6 Ta le Approximate Acreages of Existlhc and Proposed Land Use Categories for the, amon/caroia Rah Proe@rtv (APN 76-391-04 8__05). Cateciory Present LUE AASP Owners Proposal Open Space (OS) -0- 57 ac B Agriculture (Ag) 73 ac -0- 49 ac Recreation (Rec) -0- 74 4 Residential Rural (RR) 74 -0- Residential Single Family (RSF) 48 62 32 Residential Muiti-Family (RMF) -0- 3 31 Business Park (BP) -0- -0- 49 Commercial Service (CS) -0- -0= 11 Commercial Retail (CR) -0- -0- 3 Commercial Visitor-Serving (CVS) -0- -0- 6 The concept land use plan designates the hill as OS to preserve its value as a scenic viewshed and habitat for native plants and animals. The concept plan also proposes that public access for hikers be provided through easements, and that structures, roads, above-ground.utiIities, significant grading, or removal of vegetation not be allowed on the hilt . The team is concerned that, without th@§@ gr@cautiono, th@ sc@nic va.lu@ of th@ hill could be damaged and soil eFosion (and downstream siltation) could result. With these restrictions, an Ag designation would accomplish the same result as an OS designation. In fact, it may be possible to designate the hill Ag initially, to be changed to OS if and when agreement with the owners is reached regarding potential public uses. The ranch owners further propose that the southerly portion of the ranch property designated Rec_ in the concept land use plan be in§t@ad d@§Ign@t@d a m1xtUF@ 0 ®R► CM; RMF, CM, and 06, Th@ remaining four acres of Rec land would, according to the owners' representative, be adequate for neighborhood parks serving only the residential developments on the ranch property. Additional Rec land could be designated If the need were demonstrated and the owners compensated in terms of increased development potential elsewhere on the ranch. SLO County Airport Area Specific Pian July 1.5, 1988,'_,,,,, RE: Major Issues Page 7� One of the concepts Incorporated Into the concept land use plan Is that a balance of land uses should be established within the boundary of the plan, but not necessarily within each property ownership as the Damon/Garcia Ranch owners have proposed. For example, there should be enough housing within the plan for the new Jobs created, but not necessarily within every property ownership. Some areas of land are appropriate for commercial development, but not for residential . Apparently, the owners of the ranch property have proposed that developments on their property be balancedl without addressing the need for balance within the entire plan. The potential connection of the South Street Hill Open Space area with the Recreation area (accommodating a variety of private and public recreation uses) led to the present concept land use plan layout. For example, horseback riding stables could be established in the Recreation area, with riding trails extending throughout the Open Space areas of the hill . The Recreation area also would act as a buffer between residential (RSF 8 RMF) and commercial areas (BP). Replacing nearly ail of the Recreation category with higher intensity urban uses would substantially increase the potential environmental and service impacts of the plan. Demands on water, sewer, and road systems would increase, and there would not be enough housing within the overall sp@clfic plan for th@ number of new employees. The owners recognize that their proposal would accommodate only enough housing to support the commercial development on the ranch property itself. Adding an additional 60 acres of CS and BP categories would add to an already-generous supply of land in these categories and block efforts to meet other community needs (which are identified in Section I of this report). Alternatives: 1 . Change the concept land use plan as requested by the Damon/Garcia Ranch owners. 2. Allow for partial conversion of the Recreation area to Business Park or Commercial Service if, after a specified period of time (perhaps 15 years), it hds not been committed to recreational uses. 3. Increase the total number of permitted residences shown for the RSF category on the ranch property from 300 units (about 5/acre) to 500 units (about B/acre) . 1 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 8 4, Change the designation for the hillside areas from Open Space to Agriculture until agreement with the owners regarding potential public uses is reached. 5. Do not change the concept land use pian. Planning Team.Recommendation: Alternative 3 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 Airport Land Use Commission: Do not increase residential areas City -Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 5 City Recommendation: B. Strasbaugh property. (APN 76-061-046; see correspondence items 1A7, 4, and 6) Should this 20-acre parcel be changed from Agriculture to Commercial Service in recognition of an approved Development Plan for the site? Analysis: RRM Design Group, Ben Maddalena, and Rob Strong have requested. that this 20-acre parcel be changed from Agriculture (Ag) to Commercial Service (CS), since the county has approved a Development Plan (08700870) for the site. This approval permits establishment of a "machinery manufacturing" use which would become nonconforming if the site was designated Ag in the plan, The planning team designated the site Ag in 1987, before the Deveiopment Plan application was accepted for processing by the county. The present county Land Use Element designates the site as Industrial . The planning team has reevaluated the site in light of the recent development approval , and recommends that the entire 20-acre site be designated CS. This wail prevent the approved development from becoming a nonconforming use. Alternatives: I.. Change the concept land use plan by redesignating this 20-acre parcel (APN 76-061-046) from Agriculture to Commercial Service. 2. Redesignate only the portion of the site to be developed under the county approval to Commercial Service. 3. Do not change the concept land use plan. � -1 9 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 \1 RE: Major Issues Page Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative l County Planning Commission Recommendations Alternative I Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 1 City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2. City Recommendation: C. Cook, et al , Business Park. (See correspondence items IA3a, 5) Should all or a portion of this 40-acre Business Park area be redesignated Commercial Service? Analysis RRM Design Group and Althea Cook have requested that all or a portion of this 40-acre Business Park (BP) area located on the north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera Street be changed to Commercial Service (CS) in the concept lend use pian. They requested this change because some of the land uses being established on Anthea Cook's 5-acre site under Development Plan 08700990 would become nonconforming in the BP category. Similar to the previous Strasbaugh case, the planning team designated the site SP before a Development Plan application was processed by the county. The site is designated Industrial under the present county Land Use Element. Upon reevaluation of this BP area. the planning team agreed upon a preferred alternative configuration of land use categories. Rather than converting the entire 40-acre BP area to CS, the team supports converting only the 20 acres which front on Tank Farm Road to CS. The other 20 acres would remain in the BP category, allowing for better integration with the adjacent business park located in the city. Also, the team recommends that a master plan be required to coordinate infrastructure to the extent feasible for the entire 40 acres in conjunction with the business park within the city. The team does not support converting the entire 40 acres to CS, since there is already an abundant supply of CS land in the concept land use plan, and a limited supply of SP land. Alternativest I. Modify the concept land use plan by converting this entire 40-acre Business Park area to Commercial Service. .3 -ao SLO County Airport Area Specific Pian. July 15. 1988 RE : Major Issues Page 10 2. Convert only the 20 acres of this Business Park area fronting on Tank Farm Road to Commercial Service, .whiie requiring a master plan for the entire 40 acres to coordinate infrastructure with the adjacent business park located in the city. 3. Do not change the concept land use plan. Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2 Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2 City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2 City Recommendation: 2. Expansion of the specific pian boundary (see correspondence items 2, Frank and Manuel Avila; and 4, Ben Maddalena). Should the specific plan boundary be expanded to include properties where the owners have requested inclusion? Analysis: The proposed concept land use pian would promote development within defined areas where adequate services could be provided in a cost-effective manner. Scattered development patterns result in either inadequate or costly services, due to the larger distances over which the services must be extended. This is true not only for water and sewer service, but for police and fire as well. The owners requesting inclusion. in the plan have indicated that they would prefer some type of industrial classification for their properties. However, the market study conducted as part of the phase one studies concluded that the present concept land use plan designates ample land for industrial and commercial uses. It may be more appropriate to consider adding these properties in the future, once a substantial portion of the plan is developed, since expanding it now could lead to more scattered development. The present boundary of the proposed specific plan was established by the county Board of Supervisors in 1983 after years of negotiations between the area property owners, the county, and the city. It corresponds to the city limits to the north and the city's urban reserve line to the south, an area of sufficient size to accommodate urban growth for about twenty years. Expanding the boundary beyond the urban reserve line at this time appears premature. 3 '� l SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 Page ll RE: Major Issues _ Expanding the boundary aiso could further complicate efforts to avoid inequities regarding the amounts individual property owners are paying for preparation of the plan, since many owners have already paid for work completed to-date. Alternatives: 1 . Expand the boundary of the concept land use plan where requested by the individual property owners. 2. Establish a planning principle in the concept land use plan stating that additional properties may be added in the future once the specific plan area is largely developed, and the need for additional land in specific land use categories is demonstrated. 3. Do not expand the boundary of the concept land use plan. Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2 Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2, for commercial/industrial City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 ^\ City Recommendation: 3. Residential development in the .specific plan. (See correspondence item no. A4, RRM Design Group) Does the present concept land use plan propose too much housing, due to potential airport conflicts, or is more housing needed, due to an existing shortage of housing in the area? Analysis: Ccvwercial developments within the specific pian will require many new employees, who will need housing. There is an existing undersupply of housing for employees working in and around the city of San Luis Obispo. In 1980, the city was the location of 40 percent of all the jobs In the county, but only 20 percent of the housing. Consequently, many employees must find housing in other communities and commute to work. This causes increased traffic, air pollution, consumption of gasoline, and cost to the employees in terms of fuel and maintenance for their vehicles. ideally, there should be housing available and affordable for employees within a short distance of work, perhaps even close enough for them to walk or ride a bicycle. I SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 159 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 12 Howevert locating housing near airports can cause conflicts. Aircraft operations subject nearby lands to high levels of noise and potential for accidents. Accordingly, state law requires local governments to adopt airport land use plans to minimize such conflicts, principally by identifying geographic areas around airports where housing or other land uses involving human occupancy of buildings should not be established or should be subject to special construction standards for reducing noise levels inside buildings. The existing San Luts Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) establishes six different ALUP zones for this purpose. ALUP zones 1 and 2 correspond .to the airport itself, where housing should not be located. ALUP zone 3, "Approach and CIImbout Extensions", covers a broad area within the. AASP9 including the area designated for a future golf course. The ALUP allows hones in zone 3 if they are at a density of one dwelling per five acres and are soundproofed. The concept land use plan shows a corner of the Residential Single Family (RSF) category In this zone, ' which probably should be changed before the phase two work is authorized. This area may be appropriate for the Recreation category, to accommodate a potential park serving nearby residential areas. Other than this site, the present concept land use pian does not appear to conflict with the ALUP. The ALUP is in the process of being updated, which could result in changes to the areas restricted by the ALUP. Once the ALUP is updated, more revisions to the AASP may be appropriate. It should be noted, however, that the planning team used updated noise information developed by PRC Engineering In 1986 (see Figure 22 in the summary report) to help locate residential areas. This noise information would have to significantly change before planned residentiai areas are affected by adverse noise levels. Nevertheless, special construction standards for homes in the entire specific plan area could be appropriate to minimize airport noise concerns, based on the ultimate projected airport noise levels. The planning team attempted to designate an amount of land for residential development which could accommodate roughly the number of new employees generated by commercial development in the plan. If the concept land use plan is modified prior to phase two by increasing the area designated for commercial development, then it may also be appropriate to increase the potential for residential deve.lopment. Simply increasing the allowable density of areas already designated RSF is probably the best solution, since current market conditions do not appear to favor much more high density housing (RMF) and since increasing the. area designated for residential development would cause potential conflicts with either the airport or proposed commercial developments. 3 - aaq SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 1.5, 1988 ' RE- Major Issues Page 13 ._! The planning team would support increasing the net residential density for areas already designated RSF in the concept land use plan, perhaps from about 5 units/acre (the present RSF density shown in the concept land use pian) to 8 units per acre, allowing a mixture of single-family and multi-family housing as established by the required "Master Development Plans." This corresponds to the team recommendation under major issue number IA (for the Damon/Garcia Rench property). The team also would support special construction standards in the plan to reduce noise problems within dwellings. Alternatives: 1. Increase the area proposed in the concept land use plan for residential development. 2. Convert some of the Residential Single Family areas to Residential Multi-Family. 3. Increase the overall net density for areas designated Residential Single Family in the concept land use plan to 8 units/acre. 4. Change the port Ion, of the Residential Single Family category in Airport Land Use Pian zone 3 to Recreation. 5. Require special construction standards for residential development in the concept land use plan to mitigate the effects of the ultimate projected noise levels. 6. Do not change the proposed residential development from what is shown in the present concept land use plan. 7. Reduce the potential residential development shown in the concept land use plan. 8. Eliminate residential development from the plan. Planning Team Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 Airport Land Use Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 4, 5, and 71 place residential farther away from- airport City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. City Recommendation: 4. Permitted intensities of development prior to city annexation. Should the permitted intensities of development under county jurisdiction be increased if the city is unable to annex and serve such areas within a settime frame? ��� i SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 159 1988 �^ RE: Major Issues Page 14 Awn .lysis# The- concept land use plan proposes that residential development be permitted prior to annexation by the city at a relatively low density. If not annexed and served by the city by 1993, the permitted density would increase, still using on-site services. A similar concept could be applied to the SP and CVS areas. The present concept plan proposes that development of a portion of the ultimate potential of these areas be permitted prior to annexation. It might be appropriate_ to consider increasing this limit if the city is unable to annex and serve these areas within a set time frame. The specific plan could include a schedule, or phasing plan, for certain areas to be annexed and served by the city. After annexation, the permitted intensity of development would increase, as proposed in the present concept land use plan. If the city is unable to annex and serve an area within the time frame specified in the phasing plan, then the permitted development intensity could increase, but not to the level permitted after annexation. This concept has already been proposed in the concept land use plan for the RSF areas. Community water supply and sewage disposal systems may be necessary to support increased development. intensity prior to annexation, since �j on-site systems require larger areas of land to operate properly. If such community systems are permitted, the team recommends that they be operated by public entities to minimize resistance to' future annexation. They also should be designed to facilitate future connection to city systems. One potential problem in this concept is that once an area Is Largely developed, the owners may not want to be annexed if they are not yet interested In using their remaining development potential . Another problem could result if available groundwater is not adequate for areawide needs, leading to quantity or quality deficiencies with water supply. In light of these potential probiems, the planning team recommends that the precise levels of increased interim development, as well as the scheduled dates for annexations, be established during the phase two work on the specific plan and EIR. Alternatives: 1 . Change the planning principles in the concept land use plan to increase permitted intensity for rural commercial development if the city is unable to annex and serve an area according to e phasing plan established as part of the specific plan. 2. Permit community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be established to serve rural commercial development, operated by public or private entities. C SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1986= RE: Major Issues Page 1 =' 3. Permit community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be established to serve rural commercial development, but only if operated by public entities. 4. Do not change the present concept land use plan. Planning Team Recommendation: Alternatives I and 3 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternatives I and 3 Airport Land Use. Commission: No position City Planning Commission Recommendation: support Alternative 3 as amended to read, "Permit community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be established to serve rural commercial development, but only if operated by public entities and only if phased out upon annexation or when a new city water source is available." City Recommendation: S. Conversion of productive farmland. The concept land use plan designates a few properties Business Park - which are currently in crop production. Should these properties be designated for urban commercial development, or should they be designated for continued agricultural use? Analysis: Two property ownerships designated in the concept land use plan as Business Parks are currently producing row crops. In a county with relatively little prime agricultural soils not already encroached upon by development, It may be appropriate to preserve this remaining resource. One approach might be to designate properties without substantial amounts of Class I or II soils for urban development, while retaining Class i or It soils in the Agriculture category. However, adjacent developments tend to undermine the economic viability of agriculture. Adjacent development can interfere with normal agricultural practices, since dust and pesticides can be hazardous and disturbing to people living or working nearby. Nearby residents may cause problems by removing or damaging crops or equipment. Even moving farm equipment between fields can be difficult on roads with high levels of traffic. The county Land Use Element designates these properties as Industrfalq which is similar to the Business Park category proposed in the concept land use pian. Surrounding properties are also designated for commerefal/Industrial development, either by the city or the county general plans. These existing general plan designations reflect previous decisions by the city and the county to promote non-agricultural land uses in this area. In sum, these properties within the interior of the specific plan '3 ��S comprise "islands" of agricultural land surrounded by developing J' SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan, July 15, 1988 -' RE: Major Issues Page 16 urban areas. Their development with urban uses can be prevented by restrictive land use policies, but their continued agricultural use cannot be assured. Alternatives: 1. Change the concept land use plan to designate all Class I or II soils as Agriculture. 2. Designate only Class I soils as Agriculture. 3. Do not change the concept land use plan. PIannino Team Recommendation: Alternative 3 County Planning Commission Recommendation: New alternative IA - retain vacant class I and II soils in the Agriculture land use category Airport Land Use Commission: No position City Planning Commission Recommendation: support Alternative 1 as amended to read, "Change the concept land use plan to designate all undeveloped or vacant Class I or it soils as agriculture." City Recommendation: 6. Agriculture as an interim designation. (See correspondence item A3b) Should areas presently designated Agriculture in the concept land use plan be redesignated to some other inter fm.category? Analysis: Properties designated Agriculture in the concept land use plan are intended for conversion to other land use categories after other areas in the plan have developed. They do not contain Class I or II soils. and are not currently producing crops. It has been pointed out that some other interim designation may be appropriate, particularly since it is possible that a future county growth ordinance may prevent conversion of the Agriculture category (until annexed into the city). An alternative to the Agriculture category could be established, such as a new category called "Interim Agriculture". These areas also could be designated for their ultimate uses, with restrictions applied preventing their development until the other areas in the plan are developed. The team supports an "Interim Agriculture" designation which would allow conversion to categories found to be needed in the future. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988, RE: Major Issues Page 1 . j Alternatives: 1 , Change the concept land use plan by redesignating properties from Agriculture to other categories, with restrictions preventing their development until the other areas are largely developed. 2. Change the Agricultura designation to Interim Agriculture, to be converted to other categories once the other areas are largely developed. 3. Do not change the Agriculture designation. Plannina Team Recommendations Alternative 2 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2 City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 City Recommendation: 7. Protecting visual aspects of ma3or roadways. (See correspondence items nos. Al , IBI, iB2, 10, 1G, RRM Design Group) How should the visual aspects of major roadways be protected? Analysis The present concept land use plan suggests that visual aspects of major roadways should be protected through a combination of special development standards and limits on the types of uses permitted. Some property owners have commented that they would prefer uses not be restricted, but instead that special development standards be. applied. They contend that such standards could be effective in preventing unattractive development along roadways without limiting the owners' options for developing their properties. While there is some merit to the owners' request, the pianning team is concerned that some land uses have unattractive qualities which do not lend themselves welt to screening. For exampia, concrete batch plants ar@ oft@n ta11 @nough to lnt@rig@r@ with an oth@rw1o@ @@@nle Vi@w from a roadway, in spite of any screening or setback standards. Auto salvage yards also are not easily screened, as wrecked vehicles are stacked and screening or walls deteriorate over time. An alternative suggested by the owners is to designate some areas where uses with visual problems might be permitted. Such areas could be designated Industrial , so that it would be apparent where those J 3 -A7 1 ( SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 18 uses would be permitted. If thie Qltern@tive 19 @hoWe th@i O appropriate areas to be designated Industrial would be along portions of Santa Fe. Road and Suburban Road. Alternatives: 1 . Employ special development standards, rather than prohibtting uses.. 2. Designate adequate portions of the CS areas along Santa Fe Road and Suburban Road as "Industrial ," where the less attractive uses would be permitted under the plan, with proper development standards, while retaining the design standards along the major roadways. 3. Prohibit the less attractive uses and employ special development standards along the major roadways, as caIIed. for in the present concept land use plan. Planning Team Recoemendationt Alternative 2 County Planning Commission Recommendations Alternative 2 Airport Land Use Commission: No position City Planning Commission Recortmendationt Alternative 2 City Recommendations ®. Allowable uses t®1212. (See correspondence Item» nae, 1®t IC, 5) Should the allowable uses table in the concept land use plan be changed to allow the following: A. "Amusements 8 recreational facilities" in SP areas? B. "Churches" in SP areas? C. "Participant sports & active recreation" in SP areas? D. "Chemical products" in BP areas? E. "Eating 8 drinking Places" in CS areas? F. "Business support services" In CVS areas? G. "Public safety facilities" (including ambulances) in C5. BP, and Public Facilities (PF) areas? SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE : Major Issues Page 1S- Analysis: A. "Amusements and recreational fact hies" In SP ®real. This use includes a variety of indoor recreational facilities such as arcades. card rooms, pool halls• bowling alleys, skating rinks, dance halls, and health and athletic clubs. The present concept land use plan lists the use as allowable in the Rec, CS, CVS. and PF areas, but not BP. The use was excluded from the BP areas in order to reserve the limited 8P areas for other uses, since there is an abundant supply of CS areas for this use. The planning team does not support adding this use to the BP category on an unlimited basis. Howeverf the team does support permitting only health and athletic clubs in the SP areas, since they could serve the employees of the firms located in these areas. B. "Churches" in BP areas. The concept land use plan lists "churches" as allowable in the Ag, RSF, RMF, and CS areas. The use was not proposed for the ®P areas because most of the BP areas lie within Airport Land Use Plan zone 3, which discourages large concentrations of people due to potential aircraft accidents and high levels of airport related _ noise. However, a portion of the SP areas Ile outside of the restrictive ALUP zones, and churches are typically most busy outside of normal working hours (Sundays and evenings). Thus, potential conflicts with other SP uses for vehicle parking and traffic would be minimal . Churches are often accompanied by schools, which operate during normal working hours and could conflict with the other SP uses. Therefore, the planning team recommends that "churches" be added as allowable in BP areas (where not conflicting with the Airport Land Use Plan) , but without schools. C. "Participant sports & active recreation" in SP areas. This use consists of a variety of outdoor recreational activities, which would conflict with the intended character of the SP areas. Uses in BP areas should be enclosed within buildings designed and landscaped for an attractive appearance. This use is more appropriate in the Rec, OS, and CS areas, where the concept land use plan currently allows them. D. "Chemical products" in SP areas. This use involves the manufacture of basic chemicals or other products by chemical processes. It was not proposed for the SP areas because it may produce odors, fumes or gases which would be -C;IL9 `V CSLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 20 hazardous or unplossant for the OffolOyaes of athar firms lacatad in the SP areas. However, some of the smaller scale manufacture of chemical products would not produce such conflicts, and would be related functionally to other uses located in the SP areas. Therefore, the planning team recommends that "chemical products" be added as allowable in the BP areas, but with size,. type, or performance limitations drafted during the phase two work on the specific plan to avoid potential problems. E. "Eating & drinking Places" in CS areas. This use is listed in the concept land use plan as allowable in the Rec, Commercial Retail (CR), CVS, and SP areas, but not in the CS areas. This is due to the concern that a number of the uses allowable in the .CS category would cause conflicts with nearby restaurants, due to heavy truck traffic, noise, vibration, dust, smoke, or odors. However, CS areas along major roadways would probably be protected from uses that would cause most of those potential problems, so restaurants may be appropriate in these CS areas. F. "Business support services" In CVS areas. As the name implies, Commercial Visitor-Serving areas are Intended for uses which directly serve the traveling public, either by the airport or Highway 227. The limited amount of CVS areas designated in the concept land use plan are not intended for uses providing support services for firms located in the CS or SP areas, although some offices for airport-related businesses would be allowed. Accordingly, the team recommends that this use not be added to the CVS areas. 0. "Public safety services" (including ambulances) in CS, BP., ander areas. This use was inadvertently omitted from the concept land use plan. The planning team fully supports adding it to the CS, BP, and PF areas. H. "Public assembly and entertainment" in CS areas. This includes facilities for indoor public assembly and group entertainment such as auditoriums, theaters, and meeting halls. Hours of operation would iargely occur outside of normal business hours for most commercial operations in the CS areas, so traffic and noise conflicts should be minimal . However, this use would not be appropriate in some CS areas, for example, under airport runway extensions. The planning teem supports adding the use for CS areas, where not conflicting with safe operation of the airport. 113 -30 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 198e 1 RE: Major Issues Page Z.1/ Alternatives: -LL -EA- jl� -H.A. Planning Team Recommendations yes yes no yes yes no yes yes County Planning Commission Recommendation: yes yes me yes yes no yes yes Airport Land Use Commission Recommendation: (yes, if consistent with new ALUP) City Planning Commission Recommendation: support planning team's recommendation except for item "B:" churches with day care faciiities should be allowed in 8P areas as "conditional" uses. MY Recommendation: SECTION IV. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 1 . Victor Montgomery, A. I.A. , RRM Design Group, May 4, 1988-. RRM Design Group, acting as liaison with the area property owners under contract with the county, submitted this request for numerous changes to the concept land use plan. Items from their letter which Involve major issues are addressed in the major issues discussions referenced, and minor issues are briefly discussed under each of the items listed below: A. Concept land use plan (map). 1 . Design standards along major roadways: See major issue no. 7 2. Building coverage standards: The 20% limit for BP areas refers to building footprint, not total building area, so the team recommends that this limit not be raised. 3. Land use designationss a. BP area on north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera Street (Althea Cook, at al) : See major !slue no. 1C b. Interim Agriculture designation: See major issue no. 6 4, Amount of residential development in concept land use plans See major issue no. 3 S, Extension of Suburban Road eastward to Santa Fe Road: The `) planning team does not support this proposal because It would pass through the area proposed for a full size golf course. SLO County Airport Area Specific Pian July 15, 1988 RE : Major Issues Page 22 An @IIgnment not. dlvlding tape i=utur@ calf caure@ .eit@ 10 possible, but that would promote intensification of additional Agriculture lands presently outside the plan boundary. 6. Additional north-south connection between Prado Road and Tank Farm Road: A possible connection seems appropriate, but this and other future roadways are expected to be proposed in the actual specific plan and EIR: The team recommends that the present concept land useplan map not be changed yet, but that dlrectlon be g(ven to t;h@ land Ug@ planning firm pr@pcPing th@ plan to consider this potential roadway. 7. Redesignate the 20-acre Agriculture parcel on Buckley Road with an approved Development Plan for industrial development to CS: The team supports this request, as indicated in the discussion under major issues nos. 18. B. Permitted uses table: See major. issue no. 8 for items 2-A through 2-E, 2-H, and 2-I . 1. (RRM item 2-F) Underline "Stone and cut stone products": This was intended to have been underlined, which means the use %- should not be located along major roadways. (Also see major issue no. 7) 2. (RRM item 2-G) Underline "Structural clay and pottery products": Same as 2-F above. C. Allow "Public safety facilities" ( including ambulances) in the CS and BP areas: See major issue no: 8G. D. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways: See major issue no. 7. E. Water needs for. irrigating Agriculture areas: The team agrees that the concept land use plan incorrectly assumes that. Agriculture areas would be irrigated pasture or row crops. This sentence should be stricken, and the water consumption estimates should be reevaivated. F. Planning principles: 1. Clarify that CS areas can be fu_;lly developed prior to city annexation: The team concurs. 2. Add "irrigation" and "storm water detention" to the definition of "on-site services": The team concurs. i SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15. 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 2S 3. Appropriate entities for operation of cortmunity service systems: See major issue no. 4. G. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways: See major issue no. 7. H. Clarify the term "urban uses" to mean "urban commercial and urban residential developments" (see definitions) : The team concurs. 2. Manuel F Avila, Jr. and Frank W. Avila. May 10, 1988: This is a request to expand the AASP boundary to include the Avila ranch property, with an industrial land use designation. The planning team does not support the request. See. major issue no. 2: 3. Terry Simons, Complete Development Services, Inc. . May 10, 1.988: Mr. Simons submitted this request on behalf of the Damon/Garcia ranch property owners. The request involves major intensification of land uses on the ranch property; therefore, it is discussed as major issue no. 1A. 4. Ben Maddalena. Central Coast Enalneerina, March 22, 1988: Mr. Maddalene requests that the concept land use plan be modffled to redesignate a 20-acre parcel on Buckley Road from Agriculture to an industrial classification, since a Development Plan is being processed for the site which would allow industrial uses. The teem supports the request, as indicated in the discussion under major issue no. 1B. However, the team does not support Mr. Maddalena's request to expand the specific plan boundary to include additional properties south of the airport, as discussed in major issue no. 2. 5. Althea Cook, March 25, 1988: Ms. Cook requests that the BP area on the north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera Street be redesignated to CS. This is because a Development Plan has been approved for the site which would allow uses not permitted in the SP category under the present concept land use plan. The team supports the request, but only for the 20 acres fronting on Tank Farm Road, as indicated in the discussion. under major issues no. IC. Ms. Cook also requests that ambulances, truck terminals, and farm supply be allowed at her site. The team supports these requests, which would be accommodated by changing the land use category to CS. (See also major issues no. 8G. ) i SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 24 6. Rob 5 ran® A..I .C.P. , The Plennina Mii1 . Aaril 27, 19881 Mr. Strong requests that the 20-acre parcel on Buckley Road (same parcel as cited in correspondence item no. 4) be. redesignated in the concept land use plan from Ag to CS. The. team supports the request, as discussed under major issues no. 18. 7. Grant P Gridiron Pastor House of Prayer. February 25, 1988: Mr. Gridiron asks that the plan permit "churches" at the the present location of the House of Prayer. It is now a nonconforming use under the county Land Use Element. The concept land use plan designates the site Commercial Retail (CR), in which "churches" would not be allowed. Staff recommends that the permitted uses table for the concept land use plan be changed to permit "churches" in the CR category, rather than changing the category applicable to the site. S. Mike Sparrow Assistant Pastor Agape Christian Fellowship, May 19, 1988: Mr. Sparrow requests that "churches" be allowed in the plan; even in areas affected by Airport Land Use Plan tone 3. The concept land use pian already would allow "churches" in the CS category, which applies to the site in which he is interested. Approval of such a use In ALUP C` zone 3 is no direct issue for this specific plan, it pertains more to the ALUP. 9. Marshal Rothman, July 31, 1986: Mr. Rothman requests that "offices" be permitted on his property at 4211 Broad Street. The present concept land use plan would permit this without any changes. 10, H W Muehlenbeck, May 4. 1-988: Mr. Muehlenbeck requests that the concept land use plan be revised so that the northwesterly edge of his property (east of South Broad Street) is not shown as a roadway or "linear park". The planning team concurs with this requested change. 11. Bert E Forbes Ziatech Corporation June 16, 1988: Mr. Forbes requests a number of changes to the concept land use plan, some of which have already been incorporated into it. He proposes that, in general , land designated for CS or SP development not be limited, in order to keep the price of such land down. The planning team does not agree with this request. The discussion In major issue no. I seems to address this issue adequately. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988' RE: Major Issues Page Mr. Forbes also requests that electronic equipment manufacturing be allowed. This request is already accommodated under the concept land use plan (for BP and CS areas) . He suggests that residential uses should be located away from the airport. In this regard, residential uses have been located outside of any restrictive ALUP zones. Major issue no. 3 addresses this issu@. He also suggests that determining how costs of areawide improvements will be allocated should .include consideration of potential use of area roadways by traffic merely passing through the area, and should be subject to careful public scrutiny. Determining a "fair share" allocation system for costs of areawide improvements will occur after the draft EIR is prepared. The allocation framework will than be reviewed publicly before being adopted. Mr. Forbes suggests that large employers should not be asked to help mitigate housing impacts caused by their employees. He also believes that new jobs should not be limited in order to avoid aggravating the existing undersupply of housing. The existing city and county policies regarding housing will be evaluated during preparation of the specific plan and EIR to determine how they may be relevant to the plan. At this time, no changes to the concept land use plan appear to be called for by this comment. He states that the golf course and parks should be eliminated in order to free up water supply for commercial development. However, the concept land use plan proposes that these areas would be irrigated iargely with groundwater and treated effluent from the city sewage treatment plant, allowing the higher quality city water to serve other needs in the plan. The planning team does not support any changes in the concept land use plan in response to this request. Mr. Forbes questions the traffic generation factors used in the concept land use plan for offices. The phase one studies used generally accepted factors for projecting traffic loads, but better information will be available for the traffic analysis prepared as part of the subsequent EIR. He notes that the Prado Road extension to South Broad Street should be redrawn to avoid passing through an existing hill . This needed change hag b@@n not@dl til@ ro@@w@y 1@y@ut w@§ int@nd@d only to §how approximate locations. County staff will alert the firm chosen to pr@par@ the plan and EIR of this issue. The need for the Orcutt Road railroad crossing was questioned by Mr. Forbes, since very few freight trains pass through the area now. However. it is possible that train traffic may increase in the i� SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 26 future. Also, even occasional blockage of this. crossing could have serious implications if a city fire department crew is prevented from responding to a major emergency somewhere in the area. The need for a grade separation at this crossing should be programmed in the plan, the timing for which can be addressed through the phase two work on the plan and EIR. Mr. Forbes also notes that a traffic light and turn lanes are needed at Capitolio Way and South Broad Street. These Improvements have already been identified and programmed by the city. 12. Arnold-N. Applebaum, June 28, 1988: Mr. Applebaum requests that his 5.36 acre property (APN 76-511-15) 9 located on the east side of Highway 227 across from Buckley Roade be redesignated in the. concept plan for industrial or commercial uses. The site is presently designated in the concept plan as "Agriculture." The planning team does not support this requested change because the concept plan already includes an apparent oversupply of land for future industrial or commercial uses (CS) . DL/cl/8403-1/153 7-14-88 0 Arnold A. Rpplebaum 14830 VALLEY VIEW AVE. P.O. BOX 577 LA MIRADA, CA. 90637 (714) 522-8924 June 28, 1988 AIRPORT AREA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 843 Via Esteban San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Parcel 6 76-511-15-000, 5.36 acres Dear Sirs: I am in receipt of the "Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan." I have had a chance to review and would like to find out the procedure for including my parcel in the re-zoning to light industrial or commercial. i If you would please, direct me to the correct person in this regard, as this zoning change could have a great impact on my property and its future use. Thank you for your help in this matter. Your quick response to this would be greatly appreciated. J Most Sincerely, Arnold N. Applebaum 3 -3 .7