Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/1989, 4 - ADVISORY BALLOT MEASURE ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT -- MEETING AGENDA DATE . REM # �ill��lll�lullll�lll����������I���IIIIIIilllll cityO SanlollS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 10 VED1: *�emotes action ay'Lead Person �' Respond by: July 14, 19a9 - IVCo "cil JUL 1 71989 VC'A0 4:C0 P9 , VV Atty. CITY CLERK To: City Council Clerk- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 11�A�( Via: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic T-7-. From: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Subject: Advisory ballot measure on growth management At the request of Councilmember Rappa, the Council will consider placing on the November ballot an advisory measure asking whether or not the city should extend its growth management ordinance to cover all development. The current growth management ordinance applies only to certain multiple family residential projects. All non-residential development is exempt, as are single family homes and duplexes, as well as the subdivisions in the Edna-Islay specific plan area. Furthermore, the City has granted exemptions for certain student housing projects and developments with an affordable housing component in the past. While the ordinance seemed to address a concern at the time about accelerating multi-family development, it has not been effective as a comprehensive growth management tool. Staff has recognized this lack of a comprehensive growth management program in the work so far on the General Plan update. A recurring issue during the update has been how a number of the growth-related impacts cited by people as undesirable (eg: congestion, air pollution) are significantly affected not only by residential development but also by growth in employment in the City. The LUE "Work book" includes draft policies which would extend our growth management program to the non-residential sector. We have also included a brief discussion which notes some of the difficulties in taking such a course. Some of the more interesting discussions during the General Plan update work so far among the Planning Commission, ad hoc committee, and at public workshops have been about the idea of applying growth management measures to the non-residential sector. An advisory measure that asks this question of the public may be helpful in guiding the Commission and Council during later review and adoption of the updated General Plan. One concern about the suitability of an advisory measure on this topic is the complexity of the issue. We need to acknowledge that in the implementation of a comprehensive growth management program, we will encounter several complications. For example, the city can not directly regulate growth of other public agencies, such as the university, community college, school district, county or state offices (such as Cal Trans, Highway Patrol, DMV, etc.) These constitute the largest growth-inducing portion of our local economy. Further, expansion of existing businesses is another large component of non-residential growth, which would be difficult, and probably undesirable, to strictly regulate. Other kinds of non-residential growth provide goods and services which citizens desire and need, provide jobs, and allow for entrepreneurship and innovation in our community. *4 Growth Management Measure Page 2 In sum, the most difficult issue facing the community with regard to regulating non-residential development will probably not lie so much on whether a more comprehensive growth management approach is worthwhile, but in the specifics of the implementation. If the Council decides to place this measure on the ballot, we would expect that the various arguments for and against it will help explain to the public some of these different facets of the issue. Furthermore, staff would recommend, although it is not.. required for advisory measures, that the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for inclusion with the ballot arguments. Lastly, staff recommends that the measure be advisory and directive to the Council, rather than mandatory. This will provide the Council with useful guidance on the issue, while maintaining flexibility to assemble a workable implementation program. Attached for your consideration is a draft resolution which would place this on the ballot in November and which would direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis as well. Attachments: Memorandum Draft Resolution Excerpt from the LUE "Work book" mm/general plan/growth Excerpt from LUE "Work book" CSee especially* GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY The Growth Management section is, in many ways, the heart of the new general plan. In preparing the policies, the staff tried to look out as far as 30 years into the future -- a highly speculative endeavor, we would note. We considered the results of the public opinion survey and public workshops, which indicated that the community treasures its clean air, surrounding hillsides and the open countryside next to the city. People seemed to strongly support growth limits, expressing most interest in controlling the rate of growth (as different from setting "ultimate" size or population limits). Our ad hoc committee also envisioned a city surrounded by open spaces ("community separators") and felt regulating the pace of development was critical. Some people also felt land around the city could be reserved for future housing needs, perhaps allowing some concentrated development in certain locations if large open areas were preserved in others. The policies try to do the following: Set forth a strategy for creating a wide 'green belt" around the city, which would extend over the ridge lines of the hills and out several miles into the Los Osos, Edna and Chorro valleys. A combination of means to do this are suggested including regulation, clustering (such as: allowing some development on a small portion of a �y large parcel in conjunction with extensive open space preservation), and increasing the sales tax to raise money to purchase land. Keep certain special areas open for all time, including the hilltops, streams and forests, and prime farm lands. Propose ways to encourage a more comprehensive, regional approach to planning for our future. Require preparation of a good air quality model and begin implementation of ways to offset the air pollution expected from growth. Retain some "expansion areas" where needed housing can be built. Allow major expansions to occur only when there are resources to serve them. Manage growth not only of residential development, which the city has done for some time, but also commercial and industrial development. The reason is that a significant part of the growth-related impacts (traffic, air pollution, changes to the community character) seems to come from the rapid expansion of the nonresidential sector. This is a difficult subject area and is worth going into further. r. CCcr f'rr .�.?i �- 3 Growth Management Commentary Page 2 We know that the demand for housing exceeds the supply. The reasons are complex, but it is clear that growth at the community college, at Cal Poly and in employment has out paced the construction of new homes. A current goal of the city is to try to improve this "jobs-housing imbalance". The policies suggest that one way we can try to do this is by slowing commercial and industrial growth to better match the rate of housing growth. i There are several potential problems with this. First of all, a lot of the new jobs are with government agencies and the city does not have any legal control over such agencies. Second, many new jobs are created by the expansion of existing business. A policy which might be seen as limiting the success of existing businesses would seem inappropriate. That leaves only new private commercial and industrial growth which could be realistically managed. Sometimes, the new jobs created by commercial or industrial growth are better(such as: more interesting, higher paying) than many of those typically found in this area which are relatively low-paying. Also, sometimes, new commercial outlets bring more choice and better prices to our citizens. Thus, the following questions can be raised: If all we can realistically control is new commercial and industrial expansion anyway, is this kind of growth management worth doing? How much would it really help the jobs-housing balance? How much will it help reduce impacts from commuting (like congestion and dirty air)? These are questions which do not have clear answers yet. Notwithstanding this ambivalence, we think some kind of commercial/industrial growth management is a reasonable component of the general plan. - The draft policies also suggest creating more housing at a somewhat faster pace than our current general plan foresees. The draft also suggests looking at ways to increase the amount of land in the city (and urban reserve) that could be used for housing and reducing the capacity for commercial or industrial uses. (This last approach may be especially helpful because it goes beyond rates of development toward projected "end states".) In combination, these may help hold the line on the jobs-housing imbalance. Other approaches, however, have been and should be discussed. These could include: Simply forsaking a better jobs-housing balance as a goal and concentrating instead on better transit between San Luis Obispo (the jobs center) and the outlying "bedroom" communities (notably Los Osos, South County and Atascadero). Creating even more housing, faster. More thought and discussion will be necessary before the best answer for the community is chosen. C) MM commenta I[ 1 ►������iafli��►►�Ill�lllll���'""°��i III city osAn hues oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 July 18, 1989 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Pam ge , City Clerk SUBJ: Reso on Placing Advisory Measure at the November Election As directed by the City Council at its meeting of July 12, the attached draft resolution incorporates the ballot wording language suggested by Councilwoman Rappa regarding a Growth Management advisory measure. The wording shown on Exhibit "A" is the language proposed for the sample ballot. 1 PV:klc l RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLACING AN ADVISORY MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR O THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 7, 1989 (Election Code Section 5353) WHEREAS, California Elections Code, Sec. 5353 authorizes cities to hold an advisory election in consolidation with any regular or special election for the purpose of allowing voters to voice their opinions on substantive issues, with the understanding that the results of any such advisory election will not be binding on the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: . SECTION 1. There is hereby called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, an advisory election on Tuesday, November 7, 1989, in consolidation with the General Municipal Election that date and for the purpose of voting on one advisory measure. SECTION 2. The wording of the measure, and the letter �J designation of this measure, shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The heading immediately above the advisory measure on the ballot shall be plainly marked with only the following description: "Advisory Vote Only." SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution to be published once in the San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation printed, published and circulated in the City of San Luis Obispo, within fifteen (15) days of the date hereof and not more than 120 days prior to the 7th day of November, 1989 (this requires two different publications) . C ��V Resolution No. (1989 Series) Con motion of , second and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1989. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk Pam Voges Approved City inistrative officer Acting CitVAttorney Ci Clerk 1 � CEXHIBIT "A" Should the City of San Luis Obispo amend its YESC-7 Growth Management ordinance to apply to all NOCI development in our community?