Loading...
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