Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/00/1990, 4 - STATUS REPORT ON SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (AASP) MEETING AGENDA DATE t 27) ITEM # Department of Planning and Building San Luis Obispo County I County Government Center San Luis Obispo California 93408 (805)549-5600 F Paul C.Crawford,AICP [ Director APRIL 301 1990 TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANA C. LILLEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER VIA: BRYCE TINGLE, ACTING DIRECTOR, COUNTY PLANNING BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUB.TECT: STATUS REPORT ON SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (AASP)' SUMMARY This report summarizes the progress and current status of work on the AASP as an informational item. No specific action is requested at this time. Although the county, city and property owners have worked cooperatively on this project literally for years, the major policy issues relating to the intensity and timing of development in the airport area remain unresolved. Other planning efforts now appear to be moving toward resolution of some of those issues, possibly through reducing the potential intensity of development from that reflected in the AASP concept land use plan prepared as part of the AASP Phase I work. The planning team has been discussing options for completing the plan in a faster and less costly manner than the original approach would permit, and input from the airport area property owners has been obtained. The team will soon present a proposal to the Board of Supervisors for a modified approach reflecting a simplified plan and the assumption that city services are unlikely to be available to most of the project area during the twenty-year time frame of the plan. RECOMMENDATION No action is requested at this time other than to receive this status report. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 301 1990 SIA AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 2 DISCUSSION The approximately 1,700 acres located roughly between the San Luis Obispo County Airport and the City of San Luis Obispo has been zoned and/or planned by the county for industrial and manufacturing land uses for many years, although this has conflicted with the city's plans and policies for the area since the early 19701s. The county designated the area for such uses because residential uses were considered to conflict with the airport operations and because the property owners opposed limiting uses to agriculture. Gradual development of the area resulted in physical problems with surface drainage, traffic circulation, water supply and sewage disposal. In 1981, special standards were incorporated into the county Land Use Element (LUE) as a temporary measure to avoid hindering or increasing the cost of solutions to the physical problems until a specific plan could be prepared to address those problems and determine the appropriate level of development. The standards limited land uses to those involving relatively low intensities of employee numbers and water consumption. In 1983, the property owners, the city and county agreed on' the approach and scope of work for preparation of the plan, based on all three groups working toward consensus on policy issues and strategies for solving the problems associated with development in the airport area. In order to help pay for preparation of the plan accompanying and environmental impact report (EIR) , County Service Area No. 22 (CSA-22) was set up in 1985. Thus, the property owners have been paying for all consultant costs through CSA-22, and the county and city have been contributing the cost of their staff time devoted to the project. The majority of the work was to be performed by consultants, coordinated by county staff and RRM Design Group (the land use planning firm under contract with the county to act as liaison with the property owners) . The goal of the process was to build consensus among the city, county and property owners, culminating in adoption of the plan by both the city and the county. A team was formed of planning staffs from the county, city and RRM Design Group to collaborate on the plan. In 1986, the county contracted with Willdan Associates to prepare the Phase I base studies, and possibly also to prepare the plan and EIR (in Phase II) . The Phase I work moved slowly, due to the difficulty of reaching consensus among groups having substantially different goals, a project management framework requiring reviews of work products and correspondence by numerous parties, delays by consultants preparing work products and responding to comments, and competing work programs which reduced the amount of county, city and property owners' liaison consultant staff time available to work on the AASP. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 30, 1990 SLD AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PIAN PAGE 3 Phase I of the AASP work culminated with completion of a summary report of base studies and a concept land use plan based on planning principles reflecting the assumption that ultimate development intensity would require city water supply and sewage disposal service. A copy of the map showing land uses proposed in the concept land use plan is attached. While all affected agencies, including the city, reviewed and gave their tentative blessings to the AASP concept land use plan, their blessings were conditioned on certain issues and impacts being addressed to their satisfaction. For example, the level and rate of commercial growth was left to be resolved in Phase II. As a result, the Phase II scope of work prepared by the team in 1989 included detailed analyses of needed improvements, environmental and fiscal impacts of substantially different development scenarios. One scenario included phased annexation into the city and the provision of city services. Another scenario included provision of services through on-site or community systems ,operated by private or public entities other than the city. Other planning efforts now appear to pose significant conflicts with the AASP land use concept plan, including the city and county land use element updates, the draft Airport Land Use Plan and the two growth management initiatives set for the June ballot. The city and county land use element (LUE) updates have raised the issue of where the future employees within the airport area would live. Since the supply of housing in the City of San Luis Obispo is inadequate and too expensive for most of the proposed future local employees, they would be forced to live in other communities and commute to work, adding to future traffic congestion and air pollution. Another significant issue, which has been emphasized by the recent extended drought, is whether the water supply necessary to support development in the airport area can be provided within the twenty-year horizon of the AASP. The city Planning Commission has responded to these issues by recommending to the City Council a draft LUE that designates the airport area for substantially lower intensity land uses than the AASP concept land use plan would permit. Additionally, residents of the city recently voted in favor of an advisory measure calling for limited commercial development in the city, since the demand for housing is affected by local employment. It should be noted here that the City Council has not yet indicated whether they will continue to support the AASP concept land use plan, in light of the recommendations .from their staff and Planning Commission. The county LUE update has not yet progressed to the point of a Planning Commission recommended draft plan. However, staff and Planning Commission work on the "jobs/housing" issue in the nearby Salinas River LUE planning area update have suggested that the j le i COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 30, 1990 SLD AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 4 balance of housing and employment in the San Luis Obispo planning area should be improved, which would require either major new housing areas around the city or a reduction in the intensity of potential development reflected in the RASP concept land use plan and city LUE (for land within the city) . The Airport Land Use Commission recently issued a draft Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) which would seriously limit the potential for new housing in the airport area and other fringe areas of the city. This would further exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance in the San Luis Obispo area. The draft ALUP is currently being revised in response to public testimony, and a second draft may be released for public review sometime this summer. Finally, two growth management initiatives have been placed on the June 1990 ballot which could significantly affect the level of development intensity and phasing for the AASP. In sum, an emerging theme from these plans is that 'the overall intensity of development envisioned in the AASP concept land use plan may substantially higher than that which may be permitted by the final versions of these other plans. Phase II work by the planning team has resulted in an outline of the plan's contents which identifies who should prepare each - element. Also, the county requested a proposal from Willdan Associates for assistance in completing Phase II (including the environmental impact report) . The planning team reviewed Willdan's proposal and has been working on formulating a strategy for completing the plan within a reasonable time frame and in a cost effective manner. On February 21, 1990, the team conducted a workshop for the property owners to brief them on the status of the AASP planning process, the apparent conflicts with other planning efforts, and options available for completion of the plan. Options described at that workshop included the following: 1) proceed as originally planned with detailed, time-consuming and costly plan preparation; 2) proceed with a simplified plan, assuming no city annexation or services; 3) wait for- the city and county LUE draft plans, the second draft of the ALUP, and the vote on the growth management initiatives before proceeding; and 4) stop work on the AASP until the LUE updates actually are completed and adopted. The owners then conducted their own survey to determine which of three generalized options they preferred, and the majority chose an option similar to number 2 described above. The technical advisory committee of the AASP property owners met April 26 to review the results of that survey and prepare recommendations to the county on how to proceed with Phase II. Staff will then bring a proposal to the Board of Supervisors on how to proceed with this project. e-•,e�\\w ��- _ �� �\\\ \\ '���ILS ��\��: