HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/1989, 3 - CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT AREA. 111911jell city of san tus osispo 89
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT mm
FROM.Michael Multari, Community Development Dir. BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Continued review of 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 (as amended) 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.
(If the City Council determines that it cannot, at this time, provide direction on
property-specific issues listed in Exhibit B, it should so indicate.)
THE SITUATION
On January 3, 1988, the City Council held a public hearing to review the concept plan for
the airport area. The public was invited to testify and the public input portion of the
hearing was closed.
Staff's presentation ',)cused on how the city should respond to various issues raised at
the council's September 1988 meeting. After reviewing these issues, the council
continued to January 17 making recommendations on various questions listed in the "Major
Issues" paper (attached as Exhibit "B"). The council also asked staff to bring back for
the next meetinb; more information on the following:
1. The puryose of the council's review of the concept plan for the airport area;
2. The City Planning Commission's rationale for recommending a specific alternative
for dealing with property owner proposals;
3. The status of the county's work on a new Agricultural and Open Space Element; and
4. The county's policy for allowing the conversion of areas with Class I and II soils
to urban development.
EVALUATION
1. The Purpose of Council Action on the Concept Plan.
The airport area planning team felt it important that the City Council, area property
owners and the Board of Supervisors be involved in the early stages of planning. Prior
to preparing a comprehensive EIR and undertaking detailed implementation studies, the
team felt council aad board support of a concept will help focus work during Phase II
and ensure that the team is on the right track.
Council action to support the concept plan is not a commitment to the plan proposals. It
is anticipated that changes to the concept plan will result from in-depth analysis during
Phase II. The extent of potential changes is unknown. The concept plan will become the
"project" that will be the focus of EIR preparation along with the consideration of
alternatives.
—/
��i�llpplA� l city of SM tuis OBlspo -
WftCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2 -- Airport Area Concept Plan
2. The City Planning Commission's rationale for recommending specific alternatives
On August 24, 1988, the City Planning Commission reviewed the property-specific issues
and alternatives presented in Exhibit B. The minutes of that public hearing are
attached.
Prior to action of these items, the commission's discussion focused on the preservation
of agricultural land, prevention of urban sprawl outside the urban reserve, the impact of
community service districts on future annexations, the creation of a green belt, concerns
for balancing employment growth with housing production, and circulation concerns.
After this general discussion, the committee briefly considered each of the items
presented in Exhibit "B" and indicated a preference for a specific alternative or
formulated their own preferred alternative. Their rational for choosing an alternative
was not always evident from the brief discussions. However, the concern for the
intensity of residential development and airport compatibility, preserving prime
agricultural land, preventing urban sprawl, and controlling services to interim
development guided the commission's actions on many of the items.
In staffs view, these concerns directed the commission's discussion of and action on the
following items.
Concern Recommendation on Maior Issue Item
Preservation of agricultural land I.C. Cook Property
I.B. Strasbaugh Property
5. Conversion of productive farmland
6. Agriculture as an Interim Designation
Control of urban sprawl 2. Expansion of the planning area
I.B. Strasbaugh Property
Intensity of development and airport 1. Damon-Garcia Ranch
compatibility 6. Residential development in the
specific plan
Services to interim development 4. Intensities of development prior to
city annexation
3. County Prenaration of an Agricultural and Open Space Element
The county is in the process of preparing a combined Agricultural and Open Space
Element. An Agricultural Liaison Committee has been created county staff and
representatives of the agricultural community. The committee is working on the second
draft of the element and anticipates that a public review draft of the element will be
published in spring 1989. Cities throughout the county will have the opportunity to
review the draft element and submit comments during the public review period. Since San
Luis Obispo has recently initiated a program to update its -own Open Space Element, city
input into the county's process will be important.
A key objective of the Agricultural and Open Space Element is to establish specific
V
criteria for the conversion of agricultural land with the overall goal of preserving
viable agricultural holdings.
1
1►►1111111111l=111 city of san tins oBispo
MIM COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Page 3 -- Airport Area Concept Plan
The policies and programs of the county's element will most likely have the greatest
impact on designated agricultural land outside community urban reserve line. The Ag
Liaison Committee ig continues to discuss policies that might affect the preservation of
prime agricultural land with community urban reserve lines.
4. County Policy on Conversion of Class I and II Prime Ae Lands
The county's conversion policies will be a key feature of the Agricultural and Open Space
Element now being prepared. Currently, the presence of Class I and II soils is given
significant consideration when the county is reviewing proposals to convert a
designated agricultural area to urban use.
It should be noted that most areas within the community urban reserve lines are
designated for some type of urban use. Within the airport area, areas with Class I and
II soils are designated by the county LUE for "Manufacturing." 7,Z land use
designation has existed for some time. Thus, conversion of much of these areas, which
are not designated as agriculture, has not been discouraged by the county.
S. Changes to the Draft Council Resolution
The council should note that the draft resolution and exhibit "A" has been modified in
response to council comments. The resolution now explicitly states that the concept plan
is only a starting point for more detailed studies. Exhibit "A" now •:xplicitly
references the various issues highlighted by county staff which should be addressed in
Phase II (circulation, water, employment growth and housing, etc.). It also calls out
that the effect of interim services on eventual annexation and connections to city
utility systems must be analyzed in Phase II.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should adopt and forward to the Board of Supervisors a resolution (as
amended) that:
1. 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.
(If the City Council determines that it cannot, at this time, provide direction on
property-specific issues listed in Exhibit B, it should so indicate.)
Attachments
Resolution forwarding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
Minutes of the August 24, 1988 City Planning Commission Meeting.
Memos from citizens re Airport Area Concept Plan
J�
CRESOLUTION 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 pian
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
issues 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.
The concept plan should be considered a starting point for conducting detailed
environmental and implementation studies. These studies will test the fiscal and
environmental feasibility of the concept plan and will consider planning alternatives
that avoid significant environmental impacts and better meet community needs..
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.
Page 2 — Resolution No. (1988 Series)
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.
On motion of Councilperson 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:
CIOtunn
DMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
CI/TY TORNEY
Robe icquet
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Michael Multari
t
EXHIBIT A — RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
The following principle should be added to the concept plan for the Airport Area:
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:
2. It is essential that the planning team address the major issues listed on pages 3
and 4 of attached Exhibit B. The resolution of these issues may lead to changes in
the concept plan's land use designations and planning principles.
3. 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.
4. The EIR for the specific plan should evaluate the individual and cumulative
effects of serving development in the airport area with septic systems.
5. The Planning Team should further analyze the impacts of establishing community
service systems on future annexations in the airport area and develop appropriate
service strategies. A specific strategy should be developed that defines how the
management of sewer and water.systems will transition from county to city
jurisdiction.
6. The Planning Team should evaluate the feasibility of locating a "fraternity row"
within the airport planning area.
7. 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).
8. 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.
1
V � �
'- k L3kr
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 \J
(EIR) .
The report is organized into four sectionss
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.
Section IV is an itemized summary of all correspondence received,
again with brief analyses and recommendations, or reference to on@ or
more major issues.
i
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE : Major Issues Paae 2
RECOMMENDATION
Review this report, discuss each of the issues presented in Sections I1.I
and IV, and provide specific recommendations to the county Board of
Supervisors.
SECTION is 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 Oecember 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 city, the county, and RRM Design Group (on behalf of the property
owners) , prepared a conceptual land use plan and planning principles for
� l the area. The concept land use pian 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 Air@art
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 drepare
this report to identify major issues and individuai requests by property
owners and other interested persons regarding the concept land use pian.
County staff prepared a rough draft of the report, which was then revlewad
and revised by the planning team. The report is untended 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 constraints, when formulating 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
13_
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 9001
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 example• designating areas
under extensions of airport runways or adjacent to the airport property
for uses which should not threaten the continued operation of the air .rt.
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 tend 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 tape ,
potential development, due to quality and quantity limitations. Only by
extension of city systems and imported surface water (possibly combined
with groundwater) , can uitimate' build-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 It : 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 ate
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.
I . How can potential conflicts between airport operations and land uses
within the plan be avoided?
Z. 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. Wi11 it be feasible (physically and economically) to build an adequate
road system?
5. How should areawide improvements and services be financed?
6. In what sequence shouid 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 1.11 : 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"i with locations of
individual requests for changes to the concept land use plan noted by
number (where appropriate) .
Lssues List:
1 . Requests to chance land use categories shown in the concept land use
plan.
A. Damon/Garcia Ranch property.
B. Strasbaugh Property.
C. Cook, et al Business Park.
2. Expansion of the. specific plan boundary.
�3 -/o
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 (
RE: Major Issues Page 5 -
3. Residential development in the specific plan.
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 mator roadways.
8. Allowable 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; S. Althea Cook; 6, Rob Strong; 10, Bert Forbes)
Should 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 Vfsitor-Serving
(CVS). and Business Park (BP). The ranch property acreages in each
land use category are shown belowe 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 destgnatlon In itself would convey or Imply publtc 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 hiil as a scenic
viewshed.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page 6
Table 1
Approximate Acreages of Existing and Proposed Land Use Cateeorias
for the Dames/g4rclaRangh P2DJ�er$X
(APN 76-391-04 & 05)
Category ' Present LUE. AASP Owners Proposal
Open Space (05) -0- 57 ac 8
Agriculture (Ag) 7.3 ac -0- 49 ac
Recreation (Rec) -a- 74 4
Residential Rural (RR) 74 -0- -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
Co-.=ercial Retail (CR) -0- -0- 3
Commercial Visitor-Serving (CVS) -0- -0- 6
The concept land use plan designates the hili 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, roadsi
above-ground utilities. significant grading, or removal of
vegetation not be allowed on the hill . The team is concerned
that, without thage praeauttong, the Seim IC VO NO Of the hill
could be damaged and soli erosion (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
IR§t@ad d@@ignat@d a mfxtur@ Of ®Rr GR, RMF9 C§v and CV§s 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 Plan July 15. 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 pian for the
new jobs created. but not necessarily within every property
ownership. Same areas of lend are appropriate for commercial
development, but not for residential . Apparently, the owners of
the ranch property have proposed that developments on their
property be balancedo 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 (accoimadating a variety of private and
public recreation uses) led to the present concept land use plan
layout. For exampleg 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 b RMF) and
commercial areas (8P).
Replacing nearly all 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 specific plan for the 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 SP 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 or the Recreation area to
Business Park or Commercial Service if. after a specified
period of time (perhaps 15 years) , it has 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 8/acre).
� -l3
SLO County .Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page 8
4. Changs 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 plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 3
County Plannina Commission Recoemendatlon: Alternative 3
Airport Land Use Commission: Do not increase residential areas
Cf ty P l ann i ng Comm i s s.l on _Recomiendati on: Alternative 3
City Recommendation:
B. Strasbauah 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 (0$700870) 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
Development 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 entre 20-acre site
be designated CS. Thfs will 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
i the county approval to Commercial Service.
3. Do not change the concept land use pian.
1 -/y
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15. 1988 J
RE: Major Issues Page 9`
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative I
County Planning Commission Recommendationt Alternative l
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 land use plan. They
requested this change because some of the land uses being
established on Althea Cook's 5-acre site under Development Pian
D870099D would become nonconforming in the SP category. Similar to
the previous Strasbaugh case, the planning team designated the
site BP 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 SP area, the planning team agreed upon a
preferred alternative configuration of land use categories.
Rather than converting the entire 40-acre SP area to CS, the team
supports converting only the 20 acres which front on Tank Farm
Road to CS. The other 20 acres Mould 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 pian
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 BP land.
Alternativest
1 . Modify the concept land use plan by converting this entire _
40-acre Business Park area to Commercials Service.
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, while requiring a
master plan for the entire 40 acres to coordinate
infrastructure with the adjacent business park located in the
city.
3. 0o not change the concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2
County Planning Cortmfssfon_Recommendatfon: Alternative 2
Airport. Land Use Commission: Alternative 2
City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2.
City Recommendation:
2. Expansion of the specific plan boundary (see correspondence items 2,
Frank and Manuel Avila; and 4, Ben Maddalena) .
Shouid the specific plan boundary be expanded to include properties
`There the owners have requested inclusion?
Analysis:
The proposed concept tend use plan 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
commerc!al uses. It may be more appropriate to consider adding these
propert.fes in the future, once a substantial portion of the plan is
developed, since expanding it now could lead to more scattered
development.
The prese::t boundary of the proposed specific plan was_ estabiished 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 tine at this time appears premature.
, C
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page I1`
Expanding the boundary also could further complicate efforts to avoid
inequities regarding the amounts individual property owners are paying
for preparation of the pian. 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 Commissions Alternative 2. for coemeralal/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:
Commercial developments within the specific plan 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.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15. 1988
�.
RE: Major Issues Page 12
However, 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 Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Pian (ALUP) establishes six different ALUP
zones for this purpose. ALUP zones l and 2 correspond to the airport
itself, where housing should not be located. ALUP zone 3, "Approach
and Cilmbout Extensions", covers a broad area within the AASP,
Including the area designated for a future golf course. The ALUP
allows homes in zone 3 1f 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 plan does not
appear to conflict with the ALUP.
The ALUP is ;n 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
deveIope%= by' PRC Engineering 1n 1986 (see Figure 22 In the summary
report) to help locate residential areas. This noise information
would have to significantly change before planned residential areas
are affected by adverse noise levels. Nevertheless, special
construction standards for homes in the entire specific pian 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 pian 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 development.
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 developmont mould cause
potential conflicts with either the airport or proposed commercial
developments.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15. 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 plan) 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 Demon/Garcia Ranch
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 portion of the Residential Single Family category in
Airport Land Use Plan 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 Recommendations 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 39 4. and 5.
City Recommendation:
4. Permitted intensities of development Prior to city annexation. 1
Should the permitted intensities of development under county /
jurisdiction be increased if the city is unable to annex and serve
such areas within a set time frame? ��
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page 14
Ana<lxa I as
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 ijP 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 incre.sed development intensity prior to annexation, since
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 pub iic. entities to minimize resistance to future
annexation. '!,::y also should be designed to facilitate future
connection to city systems.
On• potentlai problem in this concept is thatonce 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 ifght of these potential problems, 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 a
phasing plan established as part of the specific plan.
2. Permit cc4munity water .supply and sewage disposal systems to be
_ established to serve rural commercial development, operated by
public or private entitles.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988'
RE: Major Issues Page 15
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 1 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 Recortmendation:
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 11 soils for urban development,
while retaining Class i or If soils in the Agriculture category.
However, adiacent 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 Industrial ,
which is similar to the Business Park category proposed in the concept
land use plan. Surrounding properties are also designated for
commerclal/industrial development, alther 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 2 ��
comprise "islands" of agricultural land surrounded by developing J r
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 1 or 11
soils as Agriculture.
2. Designate only Class I soils as Agriculture.
3. Do not change the concept land use plan.
Planning Team .Recommendation: Alternative 3
County Planning Commission Recommendations 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 I as
amended to read. "Change the concept land use plan to designate all
undeveloped or vacant class i or II soils as agriculture."
City Recommendation:
6. Agriculture as an interim designation. (See correspondence item A3b)
Should areas prasantiy_ deolgnatod Agriculture In the concept land uo@
plan be redesignated to some other interim 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 it 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 categorlas found to be needed In the
future.
r
�I
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE : Major Issues Page li
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 Agriculture designation to Interim Agriculture, to be
converted to other categories once the other areas are largely
developed.
3. Do not change the Agriculture designation.
Planning Team Recommendations Alternative 2
Ginty Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3
Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2
City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3
City Recommendation:
7. Protecting visual aspects of mator roadways. (See correspondence items J�
nos. Al , IBI, iB2, 10, iG, 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
appiled. 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' requestv the planning team is
concerned that some land uses have unattractive qualities which do not
lend themselves well to screening. For examplet concrete batch plants
ar@ vizt@n tall @nough to Int@rf@r@ with an oth@rwlc@ 9mic vl@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 wails deteriorate over time.
An alternative suggested by the owners 1s 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
�-a 3
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
RE: Major Issues July 159 1988
Page 18
U869 would be permltt@d. If this @It@rnatfv@ 10 @has@n, th@ ma@t;
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 prohibiting
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 called for in the present
concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendatfone. Alternative 2
County Planning Commission Recommendatiens Alternative 2
Airport Lan Use Comnissior: No position
City Planning COemiesion RecMmands.tionj Alternative 2
City Recommendation:
®. Allowable u■®o shit. (See correopondence It@mo noo. iS, 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 BP areas?
B. "Churches" in SP areas?
C. "Participant sports 3 active recreation" in BP areas?
D. "Chemical products" In BP areas?
E. "Eating & drinking places" in CS areas?
F. "Business support services" in CVS areas?
G. "Public safety facilities" (inciuding ambulances) in CS, BP, and
Public Facilities (PF) areas?
3 -a �
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988,.
RE: Major Issues Page 19�
Analvsist
A. "Amusements and recreational facilities" In SP areas.
This use includes a variety of indoor recreational facilities such
as arcades. card rooms, pool halls, bowling alleys, skating rinks,
dance hails, and health and athletic clubs. The present concept
land use pian 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 BP 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. However, the team does support permitting only
health and athletic clubs in the BP areas, since they could serve
t:-,.e employees of the firms located in these areas.
8. "Churches" in SP 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 SP 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 BP areas lie 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
!chools, which operate during normal working hours and could
conflict with the other BP uses. Therefore, the planning teem
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 b active recreation" in SP areas.
This use consists of a variety of outdoor recreational activities,
which would conflict with the intended character of the BP areas.
Uses in SP 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 :flan currently allows them.
0. "Chemical products" in 8P areas.
This use involves the manufacture of basic chaeiaals 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 -
3 a�
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page 20
hazardous or unpleasant for the employees of other firma 1600ted
in the BP 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 BP 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. "Eatind b 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 .pan are not intended for uses providing
support services for firms located in the CS or BP 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.
G. "Pub.lic safety services" (includlno ambulances) in CS, BP. and PF
areas.
This usewasinadvertently 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 audItor;ums, theaters, and meeting hails.'
Hours of operation would largeiv 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 team supports adding the use for
CS areas, where not conflicting with safe operation of the
airport.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page 21-
A I ternat i yes s ,L L .1L -E'- JL -'-
Planning. Team Recommendation: yes yes no yes yes no yes yes
County Planning
Cortmieeion Recommendations yes yes no yes yes no you yes
Airport Land Use
Commission Recommendations (yes, if consistent with now ALUP)
City Planning Commission Recommendatione support planning team's
recommendation except for item "80 churches with day care
facilities should be allowed in 8P areas as "conditional" uses..
City Recommendatfons
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 ZO% 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
e. BP area on north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera
Street (Althea Cook, at al)s See major !ssue 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.
-a 07
July 15. 1988
i SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan Page 22
RE: Major issues
An alignment not dividing th@ futur@ golf eourva @it@ is
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 use plan map not be changed yet, but that
dfrectlon be given to th@ land us@ planning firm preparing th@
plan to consider this potential roadway.
7. Redesignate. the 20-acre Agriculture parcel on Buckley Road
with an approved Development Pian 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 2-1.
1. (RRM Item 2-F) Underline "Stone and cut stone products"t This
was intended to have been underlined, which means the use
should not be located along c jor 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
reevaluated.
F. Planning principles:
1. Clarify that CS areas can be fully 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.
,r
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 ;, 1
RE : Major issues Page 23 --
3. Appropriate entities for operation of community 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, 1988:
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. IA.
4. Ben Maddalena. Central Coast Enaineerina March 22._ 1988:
Mr. Maddalena requests that the concept land u®e plan be modlfled to
redesignate ? ?!,-acre parcel on Buckley Road from Agriculture to an
industrial classification, since a Development Plan is being processed
for the site w`lich would allow industrial uses. The team supports the
request, as 'nd:cated in the discussion under major issue no. 18.
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 BP 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. 1C. Ms. _=+ok also requests that ambulances, truck
terminals. and farm supply be allowed at her site. The team supports
these requestso which would be accommodated by changing the land use
category to CS. (See also major Issues no. 8G.)
1
GSLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988
RE: Major Issues Page 24
6. Rob Strona. A. I .C.P. , The Plannlna M111 , April 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 pian 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.
8. 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 zone 3. The concept land use
-plan already would aIlow "churches" In the CS category, which applies
to the site in which he is interested. Apprr•val of such a use in ALUP
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 pian would permit this
without any changes..
10. H.W. Muehlenbeck, May 4. 1988:
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 V atech Corporation, June 16, 1988:
Mr. Forbes requests a number of changes to the concept land use plan,
some of which have a!ready 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. 1 seems .to address this issue adequately.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15. 1988``'
RE: Major Issues Page 2S-
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 regard9 residential uses have been located outside of
any restrictive ALUP zones. Major issue no. 3 addresses this Issue.
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 areaq 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 befc-�t 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 ,.o the concept land use pian 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
largely 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
has been not@dl the roadway layout was intended only to show
approximate locations. County staff will alert the firm chosen to
prepare the plan and €iR 45f 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
Cj 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 Cap Itolio Way and South Broad Street. These improvements have
already been (dent IfIad and programmed by the c1ty.
12. Arnold N. Applebaum, June 28, 1988:
Mr. Applebaum requests that his 5.36 acre property (APN 76-511-15),
located on the east side of Highway 227 across from Buckley Road, 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) .
OL/cl/8403-1/153
7-14-88
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
August 2.4 , 1988 Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Commrs . Charles Crotser , Donna Duerk , Patrick Gerety , Linda
Hainline, William Roalman , Richard Schmidt , and Chairperson
Janet Kourakis .
OTHERS
PRESENT: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner ; Michael Multari , Community
Development -Director ; Dave Moran , Assistant Planner ; Wayne
Peterson , Engineering , and Lisa Woske , Recording Secretary .
There were no changes to the agenda or public comments .
----------------------------------------
Item 1 . Airport Area. Review and discuss planning concerns in the airport
area. (7onfinued from Augu-7t 10 , 1988) .
Terry Sanville presented the staff report and asked the commission to
forward comments and recommendations on to council regarding the concept
plan and any specific concerns . )
Chairperson Kourakis was concerned because the plan does not extend to
cover the Edna Valley. She felt *l%,* southern boundary already
presented in the Planning Principles should be the limit for any urban
uses . She was not
certain that the agricultural uses :could be preserved within the Specific
Plan. She felt the hillsides were important and suggested an open
space/preservation principle within Edna Valley to protect agricultural
land should be included in the Principles. She felt urban intensive uses
should stay within the city and that rural uses should be in the county .
She was concerned about the community service districts not having an
incentive for annexation . Staff responded that the Principles intended
that interim development would be limited to make annexation desirable.
Commr . Duerk was concerned that the basic intention behind greenbelts be
expressed and felt a larger view was important. Michael Multari stated
that there needed to be boundaries for urban intensity in Edna Valley and a
community separator. Commr. Duerk was concered with balancing housing and
employment issues and felt circulation options needed to be addressed in
the specific plan and EIR. Terry Sanviile agreed .
Commr . Roalman cited his submitted memo regarding concerns about urban
sprawl , tot splits south of the Specific Plan area , a city/county Memo of
Understanding, preservation of prime agricultural land , balanced jobs and
housing, and consideration of a major annexation of area when water was so
critical .
J
G'
P .C . Minutes
August 24 , 1988
Page 2 .
Chairperson Kourakis felt the Principles could be acceptable, if modified to
address urban boundaries , greenbelt issues and concerns about service
districts not encouraging annexation . She felt that there were many .
questions that still needed to be answered in the Specific Plan and EIR.
Commr . Roalman was not convinced the city had explored all options .
Commr . Crotser felt the Specific Plan was a good tool and felt that some
intensive use in this area would help alleviate growth pressures in the
Edna Valley . He wanted to see a well -defined urban/rural boundary .
Commr . Hainline agreed with Commr. Crotser.
Michael Multari discussed some of the aspects of the Memo of Understanding
agreement.
Commr . Hainline moved approval of the Planning Principles with
modifications to address a clear urban/rural boundary , a MOU to prevent
C )an uses in the Edna Valley , clarifying that interim Berl'ices should
,t discourage eventual annexations , and that the EIR and Specific Plan
should resolve issues concerning circulation , water, prime agricultural
land protection , greenbelt boundaries , jobs/housing balance , with an
additional focus on a larger regional picture.
Chairperson Kourakis seconded the motion .
Commr . Schmidt stated he was against the motion because he felt the plan
was flawed and would not prevent urban sprawl .
Commr . Gerety reiterated his concerns cited at the last meeting and asked
that they be specifically forwarded to the council .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Hainline, Kourakis , Crotser , and Duerk .
NOES - Commrs. Gerety, Roalman and Schmidt .
ABSENT None.
The motion passes .
The commission accepted the staff report recommendations and alternatives
presented , with the exceptions as follows :
a ) Commr. Roalman moved to recommend Alternative 5 (no change to concept
plan) for Issue 1A (Damon Garcia property ) .
Chairperson Kourakis seconded the motion .
i
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Roalman , Kourakis , and Schmidt.
NOES - Commrs . Crotser, Duerk , Gerety ; and Hainline .
The motion fails. (Planning Team recommendation stands ) l
v � C!
J�
P.C . Minutes
August 24 , 1988
Page 3 .
b) Commr . Roalman moved to recommend no change to concept plan and accept
Alternative 2 for Issue 1C ( Cook property ) .
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Duerk , Crotser , Hainline and
Kourakis .
NOES - Commrs . Gerety and Schmidt.
The motion passes.
c) Commr. Roalman moved to accept Alternative 3 ( do not expand boundary )
regarding Issue 2.
Commr. Crotser seconded the motion .
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Roalman, Crotser, Duerk , and Schmidt.
NOES - Commrs . Gerety , Hainline, and Kourakis .
The motion passes .
d) Commr. Roalman moved to recommend A' ternatives 1 and 5 ( increase
residential uses ) regarding Issue 3 (the extent of residential area ) .
There was no second.
Chairperson Kourakis moved to recommend Alternative 6 (do not change
concept plan) .
Commr . Hainline seconded the mor.ion .
VOTING: AYES Commrs. Kourakis and Hainline.
NOES - Commrs . Crotser , Duerk , Gerety, Roalman and Schmidt .
The motion fails ; Planning Team recommendation stands .
e) Commr. Roalman moved to recommend that all undeveloped or vacant Class
I or II soils be designated agricultural .
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Duerk , Crotser , Gerety , Schmidt ,
and Kourakis .
NOES - Commr . Hainline.
The motion passes .
f) Commr. Roalman moved to accept Alternative 3 (do not change
agricultural designation) regarding Issue 6.
Commr. Crotser seconded the motion .
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Crotser, Duerk , Gerety , Hainline,
Schmidt, and Kourakis .
NOES - None .
The motion passes. —��
P .C . Minutes
August 24 , 1988
Page 4.
g) Chairperson Kourakis moved to allow daycare in commercial zones with a
conditional use permit.
Commr . Duerk seconded the motion .
VOTING : AYES - Commrs. Kourakis ,
Duerk Crotser, Hainline , and
Roalman.
NOES - Commrs . Gerety and Schmidt.
The motion passes .
h ) Chairperson Kourakis moved to recommend a modification to Alternative
3 regarding interim service districts ( Issue 4) to require the
community service districts to phase it out when the development is
annexed and a new city water service is available.
Commr . Roalman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES _ Commrs . Crotser , Gerety , and uSchmidt.
erk , and Hainline.
NOES
C\! Chairperson Kourakis moved to forward the Planning Team ' s major issue
recommendations to the council , excepting those as outline-� above-
Commr. Hainline seconded the motion .
VOTING : AYES - Commrs .
dm Schmidt.
s . Krakis , Hainline , Crotser , 4 _rk , Roalman ,
NOES - Commr . Gerety .
The motion passes .
Item 2. Public Hearin Use Permit U1396 . Request to allow an addition to
renc al
ospita� ; Mi o nson venue; 0-SFreContnch Hnuedtfrom
Medical Center , Inc. (William Adams ) , applicant .
August 10, 1988. --------------
Mike Multari presented the staff report and recommended continuance .
Chairperson Kourakis determined there was no public testimony .
Commr . Duerk moved to continue the item.
Commr. Hainline seconded the motion .
l07ING: AYES - Commrs. Duerk , Hainline, Crotser , Gerety, Roalman ,
Schmidt, and Kourakis .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - None.
The motion passes . 3
Arnold R. Applebaum
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 # 76-511-15-000, 5.36 acr
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.
If you would please, direct me to the correct person in this
regard, as this zoning change coulO have a great impact on my
property and its future use.
Thank you for your help in this mattar_ Your quick response to
this would be greatly appreciated.
Most Sincerely,
Arnold N. Applebaum
\V
100 Grand Avenue
San Luis Obispo , Ca.
93401
May 10,1988
Paul Crawford, Planning Director
Planning Department
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93408
RE: Avila Family Santa Fe Ranch
A.P.N. 76-361-03
Dear Mr. Crawford,
After reading the Preliminary Specific Plan analysis for the San
Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan, we note our Ranch's
exclusion from consideration as Industrial Rural or some other
suitable zoning compatible with our adjacent neighbors to the north.
Since they have been providing the recent changing environment for
the Ranch that is detrimental to the property,and in the long run,
will continue to have a deleterious effect upon it making them the
final arbiters of its future unless controvening action is taken
by the government and/ or- itqagencies. Since it may be too late
to redress the deletereoUsness , we have agreed that it is best to
join them, and to ask that the Ranch be zoned Iftdnstrial Rural
and the Parcel size be of the equivalent as the neighbcrs o the
north. Coupled with the above, we believe that there is adequate
justification for our request since it meets many of t'-,e - criteria
established for such.
As to the objections that too much property is already designated
as industrial and the demand for such is modest, some of the northerl
neighbors contiguous to Lots 18,23 , and 27 have evidenced a desir4
in acquiring an interest in these adjoining parcels. �-je feel that
the demand is, here, and we would lilre these lots be designated
Industrial Rural and be arproximately of the same size as the
lots to the—north. We are willing to wait until an interest
develops in the other Lots 19,22 , and 28 and an appropriate
develoument can be presented for approval.
The Preliminary discussion draft of the Land Use Element showed
these northerly lots in the Industrial Category only to be later
changed to Agriculture and the Urban Reserve Line was moved, to the
northern property bounday in the Hearing Draft Land Use Element(Reasc
We would like the Urban Reserve Line be returned to its former
position.
RECEIVED
JAN- 6 99
sAftum CA
2
The possible acquisition of an interest in these parcels by the
adjoining property owners may hell- resolve many of the present
and future problems.Drainaf,-e could be planned and directed as
the increasing runoff continues . Access to Vachell Lane , Buckley
Road , and also on through to Suburban Road can be developed.
The activities on Suburban Road will increase its congestion.
There is water, a well of 600 gals per minute exists , and others
may be found. The water has been tested. A main gas main runs
along the property fronting on Vachell Lane and Buckley Road.
Electricity is available , and there is plenty of space for the
development of facilities to handle waste water.
A
We are enclosing maps of the Union Oil Spill of 1926 and comments
thereto pertinent to providing a better background for a decision.
We invite ,your attention to the absence of a creek in the westerly
part of the Ranch until its development after the Oil Spill.
The shallowness and limits of the flooded area are apparent and
reveal the flow of oil and its impact upon the soil (once the
better land of the Ranch) .
Other enclosures,C are presented for ,your information and to remind
you of the background of this area. Our concerns have been present—
ed orally and in writing to the various governmental entities con—
cerned during recent history.
Therefore the Avila Family requests that lots 18,23,and 27 of the
Santa Fe Ranch be zoned Industrial Hurst and the parcel size be
of the equivalent as the neighbors to the north.
We further request that lots 19,22,and 28 remain in agriculture
as interim use until the demand for a large area for development
arises. This should be compatible .dith the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Manuel A /la Jr.
Aa'n0k 4d. Avila
Managing Partners
Enclosures :
A,B,C and
attachments thereto.
S -37
A a
" Enclosure
Union Oil Spill of 1926 and comments of subsequent flooding
since then.
Impact on Avila Ranch.
The Union Oil Spill of 1926 covered about QO acres of the then
240 acres of the Ranch. Sixty+ acres were sold in 1971 leaving
the present 180 acres of which roughly 50 acres were covered by
oil. This oil burned in some places leaving a slag, similar to
fire box slag from oil burning plants; the remainder of the area
had a residue from the oil. Union Oil paid our father for crop
damage , and some monies to compensate for damage to land.
The family then extracted much of the sludge and some of the slag.
Some was hauled away,and scme was piled along a drainage ditch
across the property.Union Oil built dikes to prevent any future
runoff from reservoirs. A large gate valve was used as an outlet
to control flow from retained rainwater shed from the covered
reservoirs. The natural drainage from the remainder of the Union
Oil properties flowed across the various properties, but it did
not have much impact on our property. in this way, when too much
water was shed from the covered reservoirs , the valve was closed
and later reopened to release this water. Later, as the property
was developed along Tank Farm Road and Prado Road, the water
drained across Union Oil and onto our property. We then had to
deepen the drainage ditch and widen it. As more development
occurred ,more water came onto the property. In 1960' x , Frank
Avila talked to County Senior Engineer Campbell about the .worsening
problem. He also talked to David Romero . Some action was taken
by concerned governmental agencies but runoff continued. The
drainage ditch was deepened and widened as further development
increased onthe industrial property between the Ranch and Suburban
Road. Runoff from Tank Farm Road caused such a problem that
farming became almost -impractical during the wet season. A drainage
swale was put in _Vo help drain our land (see location on profile
map in enclosure ) .
During the past 62 years (since 1926) , we- have had to care for
our northerly neighbors , part of these costs are being borne by
the Avila Family. Litigation is expensive and the alternative
is to grumble to the forces about us, obtain cooperation- and
bear theaosts. In all fairness , many of our northerly neighbors
have expressed a willingness to acquire and pay for drainage
easements. So there are still. good-:neighbors. We have not
re46nded hoping that the Airport Specific Plan would address the
problem, but it does not look like it does.
Review: The Union Oil. Spill was a one time affair resolved
between few parties concerned, but the increased intrusion of
water onto the ranch is a continuing problem when there are many
principals involved and that complicates solutions. As develop-
ment increases its impact on the farming, value of the land decrease:
due . to factors beyond our control. This fact increases the desire
of the family to 'find alternate uses than agriculture and receive
a better return from the Ranch.
,S - yo