HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1988, 3 -mtE ING AGENDA /1
DATE ITEM # J
et. GDUrCA1
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Je DurNQ
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 543-1323 R. P cglj Vl
David E. Garth • Executive Manager M WWI
January 5, 1988
Mayor and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce asks for continuance
of final passage of Ordinance No. 1106 scheduled on your
agenda this evening.
A number of Chamber members have asked for our involvement
in this issue of density calculations in multi included in
residential zones. Unfortunately, came to our
your list of contacts Jonuthe 4temltaappearsnthat the
attention on Monday, opportunity
proposed changes are aatrgreaterelengthst the opp
to review the proposal
We appreciate your consideration on this matter, aincluded in
ask that the SLO Chamber of Commerce be regularly
notification on items of interest to the business community.
Best regards,
Maggie Cox
Assistant Manager / Director of Government Affairs
RECEIVED(�:tSP
JAN - 5 1985
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS O91SP0. C•
pCCREDITE
OM�MB[0 O. �.OYK[P
e�• w co +""
99 ""'""npltYill
`^- N-^w AGM
8 lea
LATE sm-6 -as ITEM 0
RKE LC: Coune;I.
January 5, 1988 f D4 n r'
ROSSI KING A . M2 jam;
ENTERPRISES R E c El V R D
414 Higuera Street Mayor Ron Dunin T.400 %P — 5
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo IM
18051541 -4204 P.O. Box 8100 Cry CLERK
Telex 658538 RKE SLID San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 SAN LUIS n&SPO CA
Re: Amendment of Zoning Regulation 17.16.010 - Density
Dear Mayor Dunin:
Assuming that the proposed change would primarily affect
rental units, I believe an .injustice may be created.
Numerous award - winning projects have been built that
could not now qualify because of the new criteria. It's
been my experience that if one wanted to increase the.
occupancy, one did it - regardless of the size of the
unit. Maintaining a comfortably sized unit, whether a
condo or rental, is an important aspect relating to
quality of life and this should not be substituted for
by
policing problem. Please leave the footages approved
the Planning Commission intact:
a. Studio apartment, no greater than 450 square feet,
0.50 unit; greater than 600 quare
b. One- bedroom dwelling, and no g
feet, 0.66 unit; and no greater than 1,000
C. Two- bedroom dwelling,
square feet, 1.00 unit: and no greater than 1,600
d. Three - bedroom dwelling,
square feet, 1.50 units; greater
e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, or
than 1,600 square feet, 2.00 units;
or restudy this issue -it's too important.
very ruly yours,
t
John E. King
P.S. I'm ureciateoant
I would app opportunity to
this with you.
JEKIde
meeting, otherwise
personally review
December 21, 1987
Mayor Ron Dunin
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA.
-TING AGENBA
DATE J"" ° re8 ITEM #
P /-2
Architecun-al Offices of
Barry Lorenz Williams
Associates. AlA
,cc: Cov ,7U /
Qunn
R
Rlmc��:r
DEC 2 4 1987
CITY CI_[Rx
SAN:.UISCg15Po C4
Re: Amendments to the zoning ordinance text regarding density
Dear Ron:
In a casual meeting with the planning staff on Wednesday I
was made aware of the proposed "text" change in the City's
density regulations. I would like to go on record as being
against this ordinance. I believe the ordinance, as written,
will be detrimental to the character and further conscious
development within the City. I =
_-
believe the City has
probable cause to try to keep unit sizes. i.e., the number of
ly Provided for in
bedrooms, to the limits that are current
the current zoning ordinance. I do not,_however, believe the-__- -
City has found an adequate solution to the problem.
is written to stop the
It appears this text change
proliferation of
additional to units are
dditional spaces add
lofts, studies, etc.
easily converted into bedrooms, i.e.,
There are many
The subject is much deeper than this• that are beyond
projects my firm has been commsiBbsolutely no way of being
the Proposed limits but have An example of this would be
converted into more bedrooms. Using the proposed changes
the Rustic Garden Condominiums. square feet, thus
theSe units would be considered to be 1675
density would have
by the new standard bottom line is that there
pour bedrooms The on that
to have been cut in halfgn out of business nursery
still be not an easy solution, and
would Probably Proposal'
corner. My point is that there into the current P
I think more thought has to be Put
talking to the
I have spent much of today
about this Proposed
In closing. with, only
architectural and development community
the fourteen people I have talked only
change. Out of change and that he item
one was aware of the Proposed for another
because he was at the last council meeting
Al -0997
lifornia Boulevard Suite E
Obispo, California 93401
mayor Dunin
December 21, 1987
Page 2
and overheard the topic being discussed. I believe an
ordinance change with the potential magnitude of this one
should have the open dialogue of the professional community.
I feel there is input we can provide that will make this a
workable and desirable change for everyone.
I would be more than glad to meet with You or any of the
other council members to discuss this.
sincerely,
Barry
I„ Williams, A.I.A.
BLW,/ lw
densitY -cot
MEETING AGENDA a
R C a ® DATE JAN 5 as ITEM # J
�:,...'.: DEC 2 8 1987 V Donn
December. 23 ,1987 CITY CLERK �'•
SAN LUi50BLSPp C•1 fiv
To: Mike Multari, City Planning VV
City Council Members
Re: Ordinance to limit 1 bedreom units to 6i0 square feet
Dear Mike and City Council Members:
It was brought to my attention today that there is a pending
ordinance to limit 1 bedreom units in San Luis Obispo to 650
f: sq. ft, maximum. While I feel that this is rather aroitrary
s and undersized for today's lifestyles, I was even more amazed
to hear that this potential ordinance plight even apply to a
project that is under consideration currentl. by ARC and was
submitted on December 7, 1587.
It is my understanding that an individual has the legal right
to rely on existing law.
We began negotiations to purchase a property at 46y Buchon last
September, 4 months ago. After extended negotiations and a
court approval process, we were able to open an escrow which
closes February 1, 1988. The projections and purchase price
were based on the city ordinance that has been in existance for
years and the 1- single unit and 2 -one bedreom units that we plan
to build are designed for a need we see in S.L.O. We plan to
build large 1 bedroom units with the high income professional
tenant in mind. We have designed amenities such as a study
with a built -in computer area and the unit is a spacious 870
'.'sq.ft. unit. We believe that a need exists in S.L.Q. for
such units and we have spent substantial money and time in
dur development plan, to say nothint- ar)out the ,,,11,000.00
(that has been released to the seller outside of escrow) that
we will lose should we not be able to proceed with our plan
and must cancel the escrow.
Again, I assume we have the right to rely on the existing law
and that any changes you make would not be retroactive to projects
that are already in the submission process. There would be
severe financial ramifications.
During our escrow and design stapes, we met with numerous
city officials regarding, our specific plans, and were never told
of any potential problem until this week. Our planner, Greg
Smith, said we might have to "start over ", to accommodate a
new ordinance that has not even passed vet. Unfortunately,
there's more to just "starting* over" than a new design'. Future
values and .rents have already been based on the exi.stina
requirements.
I don't believe that a 650 sq. ft. limit on size allows for
anything much more than a typical "studerit" housing facility
and that enacting this change is are injustice to S.L.O. renters.
Some projects allow for individual washer/dryer facilities in each
unit, study's, computer areas, and spacious bedroom and bath
accommodations. You can't design that in a 650 sq. ft. area, and
S.L.O. has a definite user demand for this tyne of unit.
In conclusion, I would like a clarification for our specific project
at 469 Buchon as to our abilit;:, to proceed, and I I,,.,rish to voice for
the record my disapproval of this potential ordinance. Thank you
for your time and I will look forward to hearin, from you soon.
Sincerely,
DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
January 5, 1988
MEETING AGENDA
DATE +"" 5 se M # AL
CC: &ncl I
'I. Dunn,
R. PiC 44-
D. R.oWD
C6. Haves
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Ft E C E IV E D
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100 JAN - 5 1988 5,6't
San Luis Obispo, California 93403 -8100 C,Ty CLERK
SAN LU*009po CA
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
A goal toward which the Business Improvement Association has
been pressing since its inception in 1975, is development of
more parking in the downtown.
That goal will be partially realized when the Palm Street
structure is completed and operational in early February,
however, the BIA board and Parking Committee feel strongly
that the second structure must now progress in a timely
manner. The Marsh Street project was originally scheduled
for completion prior to the holiday season of 1988, but with
delays and with a construction schedule of more than a year,
it now will not be completed until sometime in 1989.
The present rectangular configuration of the Marsh Street
structure is very efficient in terms of circulation and
cost. While expanding the structure and gaining additional
parking would be appealing, further delays in the project
would be detrimental to the economic well -being of the
existing downtown businesses. Also, expansion would result
in an L- shaped structure, which was felt to be inefficient
from the outset, and would run the project over budget with
added acquisition and construction costs.
The Business Improvement Association recommends retention of
the current strategy and configuration for the Marsh Street
parking structure. It also supports immediate acquisition
of property south of Nipomo Street for a third structure to
serve etthe ..needs f, that fast - growing area.
Sinder�ly.
Dodie Williams
Administrator
P.O. Box 1402, Son Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541 -0286
i
City Of s
K TING AGENDA /
DATE *0 ITEM # (O
WIS OBSPO
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -81
77 0VM7
1987 �•
TO: Mike Multari, C==ity Development Director
FROM: Dave Romero, public Works Director
SU&=: Circulation Study
The following items are of particular concern to me and I would like the
Consultant to Cover them in some detail within the report.
1. Address future traffic needs in the corridor between downtown and the
southeast. This involves Broad, Chorro, Santa Barbara -0 sos.
2. Address future traffic needs between the west Foothill area and
downtown. This involves Brad, Chorro, and perhaps Santa Rosa Street.
3. Address future traffic needs between the downtown and the northeast.
nis involves Mill, palm, and Monterey Streets.
4. Address future traffic needs between downtown and outer Johnson
Avenue. This involves possible grade separation structure
improvements at Johnson underpass, South Street, and/or Orcutt Road.
5. .guess future traffic needs to handle Santa Rosa Street and
Highway 1. Specifically, should Santa Rosa Street be widened, should
a grade separation be installed at Foothill Boulevard, should the
connection with 101 be improved. Cr would it be better to develop a
Highway 1 bypass of this quadrant of the City?
6. Should Route 227 continue to follow the alignment along Broad Street
or should it be rerouted to South Street or some other cross town
arterial?
7. Address current and future traffic needs between the South Higuera
area and inner Johnson Avenue. Specifically how should we treat the
Pismo and Buchon Street corridor.
Items
Page Two
8. Should we provide an inner bypass loop of the downtown core? At one
time, this loop consisted of Pismo- Buchon, Johnson, Palm and Nipomo.
Would it be worthwhile to reactivate this loop?
9. Should we provide a perimeter or outer loop of the City, possibly
Foothill, Los Osos Valley Road, Buckley or Tank Farm Road, and
Johnson -San Luis Drive - California Boulevard.
10. idnat improvements should be made to 101 through the City? Should
there be more weaving lanes and improved interchanges?
11. Make recommendations regarding whether certain streets should correct
through. I am thinking specifically of a) Calle Joaquin (or Zozobra)
between Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road; b) Prado Road between
Higuera and Broad; c) Los Osos Valley Road connection to Vachell Iane
or Buckley Road; d) extension of Santa Margarita to some intersection
with Prado Road or Broad Street.
If all of these issues are addressed, I am certain we will have a very
useful circulation element. If they are not addressed, we will continue
to flounder as we have for the past several years.
c: Wayne Peterson
M
items /dfr#9
pr
I-//-fl.-
Il1 l�4�lJl Xf l city o f sari JAS OBISPO MEETING OATS:
uWdlr C . A . O . SPEC 1 A L REPORT ITS"' NUMBER:
FROM: David F. Romero, Public Works Director Q�(
SUBJECT:
Wilbur Smith Report 44-� � 0-
RECOMMENDATION: CC • 091*7CI
�•• �Unn�f. � 8 .� AGENDA
I♦ JO. r. ATE
ITEM # 46
BACKGROUND:
The, Wilbur Smith report entitled "Traffic Circulation Study" was
presented to the City in May 1979. Its purpose was "...to quantify
and carefully evaluate the recommendations of the Draft Circulation
Element and to consider the numerous alternative traffic strategies
which have recently been proposed by various City and County
agencies."
The report makes a number of recommendations for modifications of
the circulation system, each of which is listed and discussed
below.
1. Monterey Street Widening (Santa Rosa to US 101)
In 1987 the city council failed to adopt a plan line which is a
necessary first step to a widening.
2. New U.S. 101 interchange at Santa Rosa Street
No action.
3. U.S. 101 interchange modifications at Los Osos Valley Road,
Madonna Road bridge. Marsh - Higuera Street
In 1987 the state modified both the Los Osos Valley Road and
Madonna Road northbound ramps in conjunction with the city projects
which extended Los Osos Valley Road and which provided for two
lanes to turn left from Madonna Road to the freeway northbound.
The state also provided an additional lane on U.S. 101 between
Madonna Road and Marsh Street. This has been a significant help in
relieving traffic congestion on Higuera Street. The Marsh - Higuera
interchange may be changed with a major development now in
preliminary design for property west of U.S. 101.
4. Widen Johnson Avenue - Monterey to S.P.R.R.
Partial widening has taken place, without benefit of plan
line. Staff is now investigating the possibility of providing four
(4) travel lanes in a critical area between Pacific and Monterey.
Much parking has been removed in the Buchon Street area.
5. Santa Barbara Street Extension (Broad to Santa Rosa)
This was part of the city's master plan for many years, but was
not adopted with the 1980 Streets Master Plan. The route would
have followed Santa Barbara, passed easterly of Railroad Square and
�II�IIIIIIIIIII���I � F� A OSPEC AL REPORT
page 2
Wilbur Smith Report
and through the Amtrak parking lot to meet Santa Rosa Street near
the depot. With the recent major expenditure to improve the Amtrak
parking lot and the dependence of the businesses which have
developed near Railroad Square in recent years it would appear that
this route is no longer a viable option. The city has not adopted
a plan line on Santa Barbara /Osos although studies have been
completed for over 20 years.
6. Widen California Blvd. - Palm to Marsh
Although a plan line was adopted in 1965, all required
dedications have not been obtained. A number of new buildings have
been set back, but traffic needs have not made this widening
critical.
7. Los Osos Valley Road Extension
Completed in 1987.
8. Tank Farm Road Extension - Broad to Johnson (Orcutt)
Tank Farm Road is being extended as the property is being
developed. Through connection should be completed to_Orcutt Road
in 1988.
9. South Street Extension over S.P.R.R.
This was removed by city council action approximately four (4)
years ago and is no longer shown on the circulation element plan.
10. Broad - High -South Street Connection
This modification was to be considered after Santa Barbara
Street was widened. Not yet appropriate.
11. Highway 1 By pass
The consultant recommended that right -of -way for a future
Highway 1 bypass be preserved. This route has since been dropped
from the circulation element.
12. Downtown Street Improvements
a. Chorro Street - removal of parking and installation of
turn lanes between 101 and Buchon Street
Little has been done regarding this recommendation
because the parking need has been greater than the circulation
need. We may eliminate parking in the most critical block
(Higuera to Marsh) with the opening of parking structure #2.
b. Install mast arm mounted sicinals at various locations
downtown
Many of the intersections recommended by the consultant
will be included in the proposed signal upgrade project which
will be presented for council approval of plans and
specifications within the next month.
aiii�IIpII IIIIII�II�b���� Acity �O. SPEC AFL REPORT
page 3
Wilbur Smith Report
C. UURgrade Nipomo- Palm -Osos Streets by widening curb
returns and prohibiting narking on right hand approaches
Most of the curb return enlargements would require
expensive property acquisitions downtown and therefore have not
been pursued. Parking restrictions to permit right turns have
been installed at several downtown locations but have been used
sparingly because the parking need has been greater than the
traffic circulation need.
d. Widen Santa Rosa to six lanes between Marsh and Foothill
Boulevard
No action. Current level of service is high with the
widenings conducted in the past 10 -15 years. No new plan line
adopted since widening will be affected by possible Highway 1
bypass if that is approved.
e. Retain Pismo - Buchon as one -way couplet to serve as
secondary arterial; redesign High Street traffic
operations to provide better operation of the couplet,
adopt plan line on Pismo
In recent years Buchon has reverted.to two -way
..operation, two stop signs have been placed along its length,
and the Johnson - Buchon intersection has been designed to
restrict turning movements from Johnson. Traffic on the
couplet continues to increase, despite the actions taken.
f. Traffic signalization improvements
A computer study was made to determine most efficient
signal settings for traffic progression in downtown. Minor
adjustments were made, however, little improvement was
possible.
The greatest problem with the report is that the consultant did not
conduct new field studies, but used work done in 1969 (see Wayne's
memo of 12- 14 -87). The consultant simply did not consider (perhaps
could not) the huge growth which would occur in Los Osos and in the
southern portions of the city. Consequently, many projections of
traffic are grossly in error, with 2015 projections already
exceeded on almost half of the streets studied (see Exhibit B).
The worst case is Los Osos Valley Road where traffic is already
almost double the projected 2015 volume. Staff simply can't rely
on this information for future planning.
In my opinion, a major updating of the circulation element is
extremely important. The city has not adopted a new plan line
since 1969, though traffic continues to increase at approximately
5% per year. Several long range plans for future street extensions
or widening have been dropped. It is vitally important that the
city conduct a comprehensive study of the implications of the
current policy and of alternative traffic strategies.
city of son Luis oBispo
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
DATE: December 14, 1987
TO: David F. Romero
FROM: 'Wayne Peterson)
SUBJECT: Wilber Smith Circulation Study -1979
:The most significant problem with the Wilber Smith Traffic Study completed
9 years ago is that it used data from three previous studies which based
their work on field studies done about 1969. A minor amount of field work
was conducted, i.e. new machine counts and some new census data. Cordon
counts, 0 and D surveys and other more comprehensive data collection
systems were not used. Significant data collection other than machine
traffic counts have not been done since the late 601s. Such studies may
not make a difference in the actual final report recommendations, but as
an analytical I would find them most appropriate in that they would
provide independent verification of what we all think is happening.
;Another serious problem with the Wilber Smith report is it took almost two
pears to complete and lost much of its validity as a result. In dealing
with the engineer writing the report I didn't feel he really understood
the problems and that he was recommending his best solutions to them. It
seemed that he was parroting back to us the problems we saw and the
solutions we wanted to hear.
The report recommended street width standards and suggested that with
parking removed bike lanes could be added. The problem with this is the
N
width standards did not provide for parking.
My bottom line comment is that the report did not seem very comprehensive
and in the end many of the recommendations were not followed thru with.
wp5D /wilber77
M
TRAFFIC COUNTS AND PROJECTIONS
* in thousands of cars
+ Wilbur Smith projection made in 1979
EXHIBIT B -1
PROJECTED
EXCEEDED
LOCATION 1985 -87
COUNT*
2015 COUNT+
2015 COUNT
Broad - SE of Buchon
11.7
9.5
California - N of 101
16.0
19.5
California - N of Monterey
11.3
14.5
Foothill - W of Broad
16.0
24.0
Grand - S of 101
13.9
6.0
Higuera - W of Nipomo
12.4
11.0
Higuera - N of South
25.2
23.0
Higuera - S of Prado
16.3
8.5
Johnson - N of Li22ie
22.5
22.0
Laurel Lane
9.6
11.5
LOUR - N of Laguna
22.6
11.5
Madonna - W of 101
31.0
31.5
Madonna - W of Oceanaire
22.7
24.0
Marsh - E of Carmel
14.1
14.0
Monterey - W of California
16.1
18.0
Orcutt - W of Laurel
14.0
14.5
Pismo - E of Chorro
4.2
6.0
Santa Barbara - S of Osos
14.9
16.0
Santa Rosa - N of Palm
22.0
24.5
South - E of Beebee
13.5
10.0
Tank Farm - E of Higuera
7.7
6.5
* in thousands of cars
+ Wilbur Smith projection made in 1979
EXHIBIT B -1
'A - � .
o
z c
uj
OIrn
LL
co
*A
44
EXHIBIT B-2
Cl)
W
>Q.
OIrn
LL
co
*A
44
EXHIBIT B-2