Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1988, 5 - STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT AREA. Illry�lYlll^,IIII�^��AI�III VJ f MEETING DATE: Cio san tins oB�spo 8-2-88 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director By: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Study session to review the concept land use plan for the airport area. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Review the concept plan and planning principles and schedule a public hearing to formulate recommendations to be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND The Airport Area Planning Team (city and county planning staff and consultants representing the property owners) has prepared a concept land use plan and a set of planning principles for the airport area. These materials were given to the Planning Commission and City Council in March 1988. In April, a more comprehensive report prepared by Willdan and Associates and entitled Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan was distributed. On May 31, 1988 members of the Planning Commission, City Council and others went on a field trip to the airport area. Staff identified the basic land use concepts envisioned for the airport area. On July 6, 1988 the Planning Commission met to (1) review sketch plans for the airport area that they had individually prepared, and (2) to discuss the concept plan and principles with staff. The city and county have received letters from property owners within and adjacent to the planning area. Other significant issues have been raised by the County Airport Land Use Commission and County Planning Commission. The planning team has prepared the attached "Major Issues" report (Exhibit 2) which summarizes each concern, presents alternatives responses, and makes team recommendations. On July 27, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the "Major Issues" report. The commission's recommendations will be presented the City Council at a future meeting. The County Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission are also reviewing the concept plan and planning principles. Both commissions have met and are forwarding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The board is tentatively scheduled to begin its review on August. The city staff will be prepared to verbally summarize the recommendations of these groups. PREPARING THE CONCEPT PLAN The concept plan and planning principles should not be considered as the specific plan for the airport area. The concept plan is the planning team's first effort to present a broad development concept for the area. The planning team hopes that the feedback it receives from this initial review by the city, county and property owners will help focus comprehensive environmental and technical studies and direct the preparation of the specific plan and EIR. This focused work will be done as part of "Phase II" of the planning process. The draft specific plan and EIR should be completed in the spring of 1989. "'��°►�I��III�I1°i91IIlU city of San Luis OBISPO WMIGA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 -- Airport Area Concept Plan In addition to the technical and environmental information produced by Wildan Associates, the planning team's work on the concept plan was influenced by a number of key factors. These factors are listed on Exhibit 2 and should be reviewed by the City Council. Throughout Phase I of the work, team members have been in contact with various property owners concerning land use designations and other related development topics. Members the planning team have met with owners of the Garcia Ranch (land south of South Street Hill with frontage on Broad Street) to discuss land use alternatives. Team members have met with Terry Conners representing "Friends of San Luis Parks" to discuss the feasibility of developing a sports complex on the eastern portions of the Garcia Ranch. Team members have talked with Union Oil Company about its development of a golf course on vacant land south of Tank Farm Road. Union Oil is interested in using treated effluent from the city's wastewater treatment plant to irrigate the proposed golf course. City staff has talked with owners of land east of Margarita Avenue concerning the preparation of a specific plan for residential development. IMPORTANT NEXT STEPS After the council's study session of August 2, a public hearing should be scheduled to consider the Planning Commission's forthcoming recommendations and to take public testimony. After the public hearing, the council should formulate recommendations concerning the planning and future use of the airport area. The council's recommendations should: 1. Address the basic land use and service questions relevant to planning the airport area -- How should this area be used? The council's response should take the form of suggested amendments to the concept plan map or the proposed planning principles. 2. Address the specific land use issues identified in the "Major Issues" report -- Exhibit 2 and make specific recommendations to the Board for each issue. After the Board of Supervisors receives recommendations from the City Council, County Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission, it will do its own analysis of the concept plan, authorize Phase II of the work, and provide specific direction. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1: Factors That Influence Land Use Planning in the Airport Area Exhibit 2: 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 (to be reviewed at a future council hearing) S EXHIBIT 1 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE LAND USE PLANNING IN THE AIRPORT AREA The following factors influenced the type, intensity and extent of proposed land uses within the airport area suggested by the Airport Planning Team: 1. Areas Committed to Develooment. Substantial development has occurred along Broad Street (between Capitolio Way and Aero Loop Drive), along Sante Fe Road and along Suburban Road east of South Higuera Street. (See Figure 11 attached.) This development is consistent with county manufacturing and service commercial zoning of the area and is continuing under County jurisdiction. Development within the Gas Company annexation area may be resolved as part of the pre zoning/annexation proceedings before the City Council. The planning team was sensitive to the level of non-conformity that would be created once a land use scheme is adopted. The team was also pragmatic in evaluating the ability to reverse or change land use trends in areas where the lot are small and have been developed with service commercial/industrial uses. 2. Residential Expansion Area. The city's General Plan earmarks land north and east of Margarita Avenue for housing. The planning team felt that housing should be allowed in sufficient quantity to support increases in employment envisioned in the airport area. 3. Hillside Open Area. The city's general plan designates South Street Hills as open space. The limit of development on the north and south sides of the hill was set as part of the city's Hillside Planning Program (1984). 4. Edna-Islav Specific Plan (1983) The FISP includes land use proposal for property fronting the east side of Broad Street between Industrial Way and the city's urban reserve line. 5. City Urban Reserve Line. The line excludes agricultural areas fronting Buckley Road City Water Management Policies state that San Luis Obispo will provide services within its urban reserve. While some owners of property adjoining the urban reserve may wish to be included in the airport plan, the planning team felt that it was appropriate to pursue an "infill" policy rather than a sprawl policy. 6. Union Oil Tank Farm. Union Oil Company does not plan to abandon or relocate its tank farm on the north side of Tank Farm Road within the foreseeable future. 7. Golf Course Proposal. Union Oil Company has tentatively proposed to develop a golf course on two hundred acres south of Tank Farm Road and west of Sante Fe Road. Union Oil is interested in using effluent from the city's sewage treatment plant to irrigate the facility. As a part of this concept, Union Oil wants to develop a "business park" on the north side of Tank Farm Road near the Sante Fe Road intersection. 8. Airport Compatibility. The Union Oil property and land generally south of Prado Road (extended) is in the flight path of the county airport. Airport noise and safety concerns generally preclude residential development south of the Prado Road alignment. Z= 3 9. Circulation Planning. The city's Circulation Element proposes a connection of Prado Road eastward to Broad Street. Circulation planning is not complete. Areas not significantly influenced by these factors where substantial planning discretion is available include the following: 1. The Garcia Ranch: an open area east of the "Margarita Expansion Area" including flatland areas and slopes of South Street Hill. 2. Agricultural Islands: parcels of land east of Higuera Commerce Park along Tank Farm and Prado Road. Also, land forming the southeast quadrant of the Tank Farm - Higuera Street intersection. J all LAI i Exhibit 2 s 1 .4 - Proposed Planning Principles Nr The AASP team, consisting of staff from the County, City and a land use planning firm acting as liaison with the owners of property within the AASP boundary, met many times to review the draft report prepared by Willdan Associates and to ensure that the interests of the County, 'City and property owners were considered in the reports. In addition to many other revisions to this summary report, the AASP team prepared several basic planning principles to guide the implementation of the plan contained in the following section. It is important to note that preparation of this specific plan occurs within an overall planning framework for the entire urban fringe. A primary principle which should guide planning efforts around the City is that more intensive development should occur within urban and village reserve lines, and that land outside such areas should retain a rural character. The recommended planning principles for the specific plan area, which is within the urban reserve line, follow from that basic guideline. The overall distinction between land uses of urban scale and intensity within the urban reserve and rural character beyond, together with the detailed planning principles which follow, represent a commitment by the City to accommodate phased urban-intensity development within its urban reserve line, contingent on availability of services and with annexation and concurrent commitment from the County to retain the rural character outside the urban reserve line. The County and City staffs propose that this approach be incorporated into the specific plans and general plan land use designations and policies of both jurisdictions and that the County and City should continue to explore addi- tional ways of formalizing this concept, which could include a memorandum of understanding between the two jurisdictions. Planning Principles 1 . Intent A. The City will annex the specific plan area in phases, provide municipal services and implement the planned land uses in an order- ly manner. B. The County will coordinate with the City and property owners to assure orderly implementation of the phased specific plan and transition from County to City jurisdiction during implementation. C. The property owners will participate in a fair-share allocation of the costs of providing municipal services and the mitigation of environ- mental impacts associated with the orderly and phased implementa- tion of the specific plan. D. The City and County will adopt the specific plan and amend their general plans accordingly. 1-15 �_ n 2. Definitions A. Urban Housing: more than one dwelling per ten acres. B. Rural Housing one or fewer dwellings per ten acres. If clus- Te-RF,79ei overall density of rural housing shall not exceed one dwelling per 2.5 acres until the year 1993. If municipal services < are not available after 1993, rural housing may be clustered at an overall density of one dwelling per acre. C. Urban Commercial Development: development of 30 percent or more of the allowable w ing coverage within each Business Park or Commercial Visitor-Serving area. D. Rural Commercial Development: development of less than 30 percent of the allowable ui ing coverage within each Business Park or Commercial Visitor-Serving area. E. Municipal Services: water supply, sewage treatment and fire and police pro a Von provided by the .City of San Luis Obispo. F. On-site Services: water supply from wells for domestic use and ire suppression; septic systems. G. Community Service System: Interim water supply or sewage treat- ment facilities manage y County government that serve clustered- rural housing and rural commercial development. 3. Growth Management A. Urban housing and urban commercial development shall not be developed until affected territory is annexed to the City of San Luis Obispo. B. The City will annex an area only when such action is consistent with the adopted City general plan. C. Rural uses may be developed under County jurisdiction. 4. Land Use Principles A. Residential Areas: 1. All urban and rural housing shall be consistent with Master Development Plans prepared and adopted for Residential Single Family areas or with the adopted Edna-Islay Specific Plan (1983). 2. Residential areas on the south side of South Street Hill shall exclude land with slopes areater than 15 percent. A precise boundary between residentlal and open space areas shall be established by the Master Development Plan for this area. 9 1-16 3. Neighborhood park facilities will be established to serve resi- dential development enabled by the Airport Area Specific Plan. B. Business Park Areas: 1. The four designated Business Park areas will accommodate a mixture of service and light industrial uses with associated office, warehouse and enclosed storage area. 2. Prior to subdivision and further development of each designat- ed Business Park area, a Master Development Plan shall be prepared and adopted. 3. Both urban and rural commercial development must be consis- tent with the adopted Master Development Plan for each Busi- ness Park area. C. Commercial Service Areas: 1 . Commercial Service areas include a broad range of commercial and associated office uses that serve City and regional popula- tions. 2. Along the Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, Prado Road and South Higuera Street corridors, the. following uses shall not be permitted: farm equipment and supplies sales; sales lots; vehicle storage; auto and vehicle repair and service; recycling and scrap; chemical manufacturing and processing; collection stations; concrete, qypsum and plaster products; metal indus- tries; transportation equipment; petroleum refining and related industries; auto, mobilehome, vehicles dealers and supplies; contract construction services; truck stops; and drive-in theaters. D. Commercial Retail Areas: 1. Development of the Commercial Retail areas with urban commer- cial uses is contingent upon annexation to the City and/or the provision of municipal services. E. Open Space Areas: 1 . Hillside open space areas shall be protected by perpetual open space easements or public dedications consistent with the scale of development proposed. Structures, roads, above-ground utilities, significant grading, or removal of vegetation should not be allowed. Controlled public pedestrian access provisions shall be incorporated into the open space easements. At a minimum, public access easements shall be offered for dedica- tion and maintenance purposes to responsible public agencies. 1-17 2. Creek corridors shall be protected in open space easements for flood control, riparian habitat protection and enhancement, and controlled public access: F. Recreation Areas: 1 . The Recreation area south of Tank Farm Road and west of Santa Fe Road is reserved for a golf course and associated facilities and open space. 2. Recreation areas north of the Prado Road extension and west of Broad Street may be developed with public and private recreational uses. G. Agriculture Areas: 1 . Agricultural areas shall not be converted to residential or commercial designations unless more than 70 percent of the parcels within Business Park or Residential Single Family areas are developed. H. Public Facilities Areas: 1. The County airport should serve the region in a manner compatible with existing and planned land uses. 2. The Airport Area Specific Plan will not foster development that Is incompatible with existing or planned airport operations.. 3. The County, through its plan adoption process, should coordi- nate land use planning and airport operations for areas sur- rounding the airport. S. Services A. Municipal services shall be required to support urban uses within the specific plan area. B. Upon annexation, the City of San Luis Obispo will provide municipal services to territory within the specific plan areas. Benefitting property owners (including those with on-site or community systems serving rural development) will pay for these services. C. The schematic design of municipal service systems shall be included In the Master Development Plans for residential areas and for each Business Park area. D. Water supply and sewage disposal services from on-site or communi- ty systems may support rural housing and rural commercial develop- ment, and development within Commercial Service, Recreation and Agriculture areas. The ability of these systems to provide long-term service shall be demonstrated prior to or concurrent with development approval. s,,0 ,_1$ r i S g E. Individual property owners will be responsible for the development f and management of on-site services. Community service systems, managed by the County, may be established to support clustered rural housing or rural commercial development. F. Municipal, on-site or community water and sewer services shall not be made available to the South Street Hills open space areas. G. Municipal services to the County airport will continue to be provid- ed consistent with the provisions of the 1977 services agreement between the City and the 'County. Any changes in services to this area will require amendment of the agreement. H. Municipal fire protection will be provided to all territory annexed to the City. Areas not annexed to the City will be served primarily by the County Fire Department and secondarily by the City through existing mutual aid agreements. 6. Circulation Principles A. Roadways: 1 . Roadways will be designated and constructed to meet standards adopted as part of the Airport Area Specific Plan. 2. Design principles should be developed for the Prado Road (extension) , Tank Farm Road, Broad Street and South Higuera Street corridors that establish standards for signs, lighting, landscape setbacks, building setbacks and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3. Prado Road should be connected to Broad Street at the Indus- trial Way intersection. Margarita Avenue should be extended eastward to serve the Residential Single Family areas. (The alignment of the • north end of Santa Fe Road should be changed, and 'improvements to the Prado Road freeway connec- tion should be evaluated). 4. Additional local streets and collectors should be designed as part of the Business Park and residential areas' Master Devel- opment Plans, or subdivisions proposed in the Commercial Service areas. B. Transit and Transportation Management Programs: 1. City transit service should be extended to serve the specific plan area including the County airport. If this occurs under County jurisdiction, the County should help financially support the extension of the City system. 2. Area employers should be encouraged to participate in the full range of transportation management programs. 1-19 � �� Department of Planning and Building -� San Luis Obispo County s.. County Government Center San Luis Obispo California 93408 (805)549-5600 Paul C.Crawford.°JCP Director JULY 159 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 1• SUMK&RY 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 (EIR). The report is organized into four sections: 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 one or more major issues. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Review this report, discuss each of the issues presented in Sections II and IV, and provide specific recommendations to the county Board of Supervisors. SECTION I: 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 December 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 the area. The concept land use plan 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 Airport Area Specific Plan Aril 19889 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 prepare this report to identify major issues and individual requests by property owners and other interested persons regarding the concept land use plan. County staff prepared a rough draft of the report, which was then reviewed and revised by the planning team. The report is intended 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 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 goal 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 airport, 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 land 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 the potential development, due to quality and quantity limitations. Only by extension of city systems and imported surface water (possibly combined with groundwater), can ultimate 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 II: MAJOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIBONIl�NTAL 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 are 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. 1. How can potential conflicts between airport operations and land uses within the plan be avoided? 2. 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 systema? b. Expanding the city plant or.creating new community systems? c. Combination of a. and b.? 4. Will 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 should areas be scheduled for annexation and development? 7. How will full development within the plan affect area air quality? 8. Now will full development within the plan affect the local and regional jobs-housing balance? SECTION III: MAJOR ISSUES READY FOR PRELIl4II4ARY 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 EIB may lead to more changes during phase two. A map of the project area is attached as Exhibit "A", with locations of individual requests for changes to the concept land use plan noted by number (where appropriate). Issues List: 1. Requests to change 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 bounds 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 major 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; 5, 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 Hill 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 Visitor-Serving (CVS), and Business Park (BP). The ranch property acreages in each land use category are shown below, 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 designation in itself would convey or imply public 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 hill 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 Categories for the Damon/Garcia Ranch Property (APN 76-391-04 & 05) Category Present LDE AASP Owners Proposal Open Space (OS) -0- 57 ac 8 Agriculture (Ag) 73 ac -0- 49 ac Recreation (Rec) -0- 74 4 Residential Rural MR) 74 -0- -0- Residential Single Family (RSF) 48 62 32 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) -0- 3 31 Business Park (BP) -0- -0- 49 Commercial Service (CS) -0- -0- 11 Commercial Retail (CR) -0- -0- 3 Commercial Visitor-Serving (CVS) -0- -0- 6 The concept land use plan designates the hill 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, roads, above-ground utilities, significant grading, or removal of vegetation not be allowed on the hill. The team is concerned that, without these precautions, the scenic value of the hill could be damaged and soil 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 instead designated a mixture of BP, CR, RMF, CS, and CVS. The 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 J� 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 plan for the new jobs created, but not necessarily within every property ownership. Some areas of land are appropriate for commercial development, but not for residential. Apparently, the owners of the ranch property have proposed that developments on their property be balanced, 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 (accommodating a variety of private and public recreation uses) led to the present concept land use plan layout. For example, 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 6 RMF) and commercial areas (BP). 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 BP 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 of 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). /_ I p SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 198E RE: Major Issues Page 8 4. Change 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 Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: B. Strasbau h property. (APN 76-061-046; see correspondence items 1A7, 49 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 (D870087D) 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 entire 20-acre site be designated CS. This will prevent the approved development from becoming a nonconforming use. Alternatives: 1. 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 the county approval to Commercial Service. 3. Do not change the concept land use plan. S�� SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 9 Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 1 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: C. Cook, et al, Business Park. (See correspondence items Was 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 Earm 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 Plan D870099D would become nonconforming in the BP 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 BP area, the planning team agreed upon a preferred alternative configuration of land use categories. Rather than converting the entire 40-acre BP area to CS, the team supports converting only the 20 acres which front on Tank Farm Road to CS. The other 20 acres would remain in the BP category, allowing for better irate- gration with the adjacent business park located in the city. Also, the team recommends that a master plan 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. Alternatives: 1. Modify the concept land use plan by converting this entire 40-acre Business Park area to Commercial Service. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan 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. Do not change the concept land use plan. Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2 County Planning Commission 'Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: 2. Expansion of the specific plan boundary, (see correspondence items 2, 'Frank and Manuel Avila; and 4, Ben Maddalena). Should the specific plan boundary be expanded to include properties where the owners have requested inclusion? Analysis: The proposed concept land 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 commercial uses. It may be more' appropriate to consider adding these properties in the future, once a substantial portion of the plan is developed, since expanding it now could lead to more scattered development. The present boundary of the proposed specific plan was established 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 line{ now appears unnecessary and could delay the Phase II work while many properties outside the pmsent boundary are considered for mssi] inclusion. S�� SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 11 Expanding the boundary also could further complicate efforts to avoid inequities regarding the amounts individual property owners are paying for preparation of the plan, 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: Airport Land Use Commission: 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. STA 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 Plan (ALUP) establishes six different ALUP zones for this purpose. ALUP zones 1 and 2 correspond to the airport itself, where housing should . not be located. ALUP zone 3, 'Approach and Climbout Extensions, covers a broad area within the RASP, including the area designated for a future golf course. The ALUP allows homes in zone 3 if 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 in 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 RASP may be appropriate. It should be noted, however, that the planning team used updated noise information developed by PRC Engineering in 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 plan 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 plan 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 development would cause potential conflicts with either the airport or proposed commercial developments. s� 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 lA (for the Damon/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 Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission Recommendation: City Recommendation: 4. Permitted intensities of development prior to city annexation. 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 Analysis: 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 BP 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 increased 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 public entities to minimize resistance to future annexation. They also should be designed to facilitate future connection to city systems. One potential problem in this concept is that once 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 light 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 community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be established to serve rural commercial development, operated by public or private entities. S-� 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: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: 5. 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 II soils for urban development, while retaining Class I or II soils in the Agriculture category. However, adjacent 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 commercial/industrial development, either 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 comprise "islands" of agricultural land surrounded by developing t7=p 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 I or II 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 Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: 6. Agriculture as an interim designation. (See correspondence item A3b) Should areas presently designated Agriculture in the concept land use 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 is the plan have developed. They do not -contain Class I or II soils, and are not currently producing crops. It has been pointed out that some other interim designation may be appropriate, particularly since it 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 categories found to be needed in the future. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 17 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 Recommendation: Alternative 2 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: 7. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways. (See correspondence items nos. Al, 1B1, 1B29 09 1G9 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 applied. 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' request, the planning team is concerned that some land uses have unattractive qualities which do not lend themselves well to screening. For example, concrete batch plants are often tall enough to interfere with an otherwise scenic view 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 walls deteriorate over time. An alternative suggested by the owners is 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 SIA County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 18 uses would be permitted. If this alternative is chosen, the most 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 Recommendation: Alternative 2 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: City Recommendation: 8. Allowable uses table. (See correspondence items nos. 1B, 1C, 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 BP areas? C. "Participant sports & active recreation" in BP areas? D. "Chemical products" in BP areas? E. "Eating 6 drinking places" in CS areas? F. "Business support services" in CVS areas? G. "Public safety facilities" (including ambulances) in CS, BP, and Public Facilities (PF) areas? SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 19 Analysis: A. "Amusements and recreational facilities" in BP areas. This use includes a variety of indoor recreational facilities such as arcades, card rooms, pool halls, bowling alleys, skating rinks, dance halls, and health and athletic clubs. The present concept land use plan 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 the employees of the firms located in these areas. B. "Churches" in BP 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 BP 'areas because most of the BP 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 BP uses for vehicle parking and traffic would be minimal. Churches are often accompanied by schools, which operate during normal working hours and could conflict with the other BP uses. Therefore, the planning team 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 & active recreation". This use consists of a variety of outdoor recreational activities, which would conflict with the intended character of the BP areas. Uses in BP 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 plan currently allows them. D. "Chemical products" in BP areas. This use involves the manufacture of basic chemicals or other products by chemical processes. It was not proposed for the BP areas because it may produce odors, fumes or gases which would be SIA County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 20 hazardous or unpleasant for the employees of other firms located 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 tesm 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. "Eating & drinking places" in CS areas. This use is listed in the concept land use plan as allowable in the Ree, Commercial Retail (CR), CVS, and BP 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. P. "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 plan 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. "Public safety services" (including ambulances) in CS, BP, and PF areas. This use was inadvertently 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? This includes facilities for indoor public assembly and group entertainment such as auditoriums, theaters, and meeting halls. Hours of operation would largely 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 S-3/ airport. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 21 Alternatives: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. — fie— —es — ,r Planning Team Recommendation: yes 9 yn¢9 yt�s yes � � p� yea County Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission Recommendation: City Recommendation: — — 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 20% 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 designations: a. BP area on north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera Street (Althea Cook, et al): See major issue no. 1C b. Interim Agriculture designation: See major issue no. 6 4. Amount of residential development in concept land use plan: See major issue no. 3 5. 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. * Corrections made because of a typing error. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15,1988 RE: Major Issues Page 22 An alignment not dividing the future golf course site 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 direction be given to the land use planning firm preparing the plan to consider this potential roadway. 7. Redesignate the 20-acre Agriculture parcel on Buckley Road with an approved Development Plan for industrial development to CS: The team supports this request, as indicated in the discussion under major issues nos. 1B. B. Permitted uses table: See major Issue no. 8 for items 2-A through 2-E, 2-9, and 2-I. I. (ERM item 2-F) Underline "Stone and cut stone products": This was intended to have been underlined, which means the use should not be located along major roadways. (Also see major issue no. 7) 2. (BRM 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. SG. 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. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 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 RASP 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. 1A. 4. Ben Maddalena, Central Coast Engineering, March 22, 1988: Mr. Maddalena requests that the concept land use plan be modified to redesignate a 20—acre parcel on Buckley Road from Agriculture to an industrial classification, since a Development Plan is- being processed for the site which would allow industrial uses. The team supports the request, as indicated in the discussion under major issue no. 1B. 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. Cook also requests that ambulances, truck terminals, and farm supply be allowed at her site. The team supports these requests, which would be accommodated by changing the land use category to CS. (See also major issues no. 8G.) �3 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan RE: Major Issues July 15, 1988 Page 24 6. Rob Strong, A.I.C.P. The Planning, Millq Aril 27, 1988: Mr. Strong requests that the 20-acre parcel on Buckley Road ( parcel as cited in correspondence item no. 4) be redesignated insame he concept land use plan from Ag to CS. The team supports the request, as discussed under major issues no. 1B. 7• Grant P. Gridiron Pastor. House of Pra er 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 plan 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 SParrowy Assistant PastorA.M. 98 e 1Christian Fellowship, May 19 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 allow "churches' in the CS category, which applies to the site in which he is interested. Approval 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 plan 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. U. Bert E. Forbes Ziatech Co oration June 16 1988: Mr. Forbes requests a number of changes to the concept land use plan, some of which have already been incorporated into it. He proposes that, in general, land designated for CS development not be limited, in order to keepgthe or BP down. The Planning team does not price of such land discussion in major issue no. 1 seems to th address request.this hisissue adequately. S3� . SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 25 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 regard, 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 area, 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 then be reviewed publicly before 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 EIS to determine how they may be relevant to the plan. At this time, no changes to the concept land use plan 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 noted; the roadway layout was intended only to show approximate locations. County staff will alert the firm chosen to prepare the plan and EIR of 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 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 Capitolio. Way and South Broad Street. These improvements have already been identified and programmed by the city. DL/cl/8403-1/153 7-14-88 -3� 9 '�',��-✓�`�.'�'---yam ea �' \\�\ J (�2 i �z r. T-.ale,M-�`,_l i {f � V•�' �� rTf }CMN} �... l f:i-� '•" _ { t'!F- �/t'•� l '](.fes \ iLt fro \ R RM DESIGN GROUP ...^ar•hu:•i'!.tmun�•Lq¢in.r•r:r•1•:L•r:... May 4, 1988 �'-CEEIVED Mr. Paul Crawford, Planning Director County of San Luis Obispo MAY 9 - 1988 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 SIO. COUNly Re: Airport Area Specific Plan GLAkKINIyG DEPT. Dear Paul: I am writing as the Airport Area Property Owners' liaison in conjunction with the Airport Area Specific Plan Phase I Technical Document. Subsequent to the Airport Area Property Owners' workshop held on April 27, 1988, a special meeting of interested property owners was set up to formulate a single response from the property owners to the Phase I Specific Plan document. That meeting was held on May 3, 1988 and the comments that resulted from that meeting are contained herein for your consideration and distribution to the Board of Supervisors during the study session of May 10, 1988. I have also attached a copy of a letter dated March 24, 1988 which was sent to your department representing the final comments of the Technical Review Committee. Many of those comments are reiterated in some form in this correspondence. The committee met together and discussed page by page Chapter 1 of the Phase I document. The following comments correspond to Chapter 1 and are referenced accordingly. 1. Page 1-5, Figure 3 -- Airport Area Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Pan A. Special Design Standards Designation The concept of creating special design criteria for the traffic corridors as noted was generally acceptable. However, the property owners are concerned over what specifically these design criteria will consist of. Understanding that it is premature to get into the details of these design standards, the property owners would like to note, for the record, that there should be adequate time and input allowed on the part of the property owners in the development of these design criteria during Phase II of the Airport Area Specific Plan. pun}wb I figum slft-m tin I un(1Fi:ry..('rhlrvntr.t 4'•t +t�:4YtTM A a'.Yw.•..wry • �� 9 Correspondence item ] 45 •F •l Mr. Paul Crawford Page 2 May 4, 1988 The special design standards should be physical improve- ment requirements to enhance the visual aspects of the noted traffic corridors. The property owners feel that rather than prohibiting uses the majority should be permitted subject to the special design standards along these frontages (see comment for page 1-11 and 1-17 below). Alternatively, the plan could contain an area(s) focused upon accommodation of uses which have tough visual prob- lems (batch plants, etc.). This area could be designated "industrial" and located near the existing terminus of Suburban Road. B. Building Coverage The building coverage assumptions for commercial service and commercial visitors serving appear to be o.k. The business park designation seems unreasonably low partic- ularly in light of the °rural" versus "urban" phasing concept where only 30% of the ultimate 202 can be con- structed prior to annexation and extension of municipal services. 30% is a more reasonable urban building coverage number. C. Land Uses (1) All or a portion of the 40 acres designated Business Park and located on the north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera Street should be designated Commercial Service because the 40 acres are not under single ownership. There are actually four owners involved in this 40 acres, and development applica- tions are pending on one 5-acre site. (2) The property designated agriculture and located east of Highway 227 in the southeast corner of the project area should be specifically noted as "Interim Agri- culture" with a modification to the land use principles which would clarify the intent that at such time that "70% of the Residential or Business Park properties in the Airport Area are built out the agricultural property shall be allowed to convert to residential or commerciaF. The concern is that this agricultural designation not become a defacto open space zone. Correspondence item 1 Mr. Paul Crawford Page 3 May 4, 1988 Also, it was noted that the southeast Project Area Boundary does 'not relate to property lines, but actually divides several parcels. There is a con- cern as to how the portion of the property within the Specific Plan area would relate to the portion of property outside the Specific Plan area. As the Specific Plan moves forward, perhaps a boundary line adjustment should be made. D. Provide a greater amount of residential use in the Specific Plan Project Area or the overall residential density should be increased. The allocation of this density, in terms of location, is not an issue. E. Provide an extension of Suburban Road to Santa Fe Road. F. Provide a north-south road between Prado Road arnd Tank Farm Road (intersecting Tank Farm Road in the vicinity of the auto salvage yard on the south side of Tank Farm Road). G. Redesignate the 20-acre triangular shaped parcel located along Buckley Road from agriculture to commercial service. This property is currently designated industrial and there is a pending development plan application (Madalena property) 2. Page 1-8 -- Permitted Land Use Table A. Farm equipment and supplies when contained within a building should be allowed in Business Park category. The definition for farm equipment and supplies as currently defined in the County's LUE does not include tractor sales. - This should be amended in conjunction with the Specific Plan to allow for the sale of tractors as a farm equipment item. B. Amusements and recreation services should be added to the Business Park definition, perhaps with a. square footage limitation. C. Churches should be allowed within the Business Park category. D. Participant sports and active recreation facilities should be allowed in the business park category when enclosed entirely within a building. Large scale spectator facili- ties should be prohibited in airport hazard areas. � 1 Correspondence item Mr. Paul Crawford Page 4 May 4, 1988 E. Chemical products should perhaps be conditionally permitted in the BP designation. F. Stone and cut stone products should be underlined in the CS designation. &. Structural clay and pottery products should be underlined in the CS designation. H. Eating and drinking places should be permitted in the CS designation (or conditionally permitted). I. Business support services should be permitted in the CVS designation. 3. Page 1-10 It doesn't appear that an ambulance service is a permitted use anywhere in the proposed list of uses. Public safety uses such as this should be included in the Commercial Service and Business Park categories. 4. Page 1-11 The footnote at the bottom of the page regarding the underlined uses in the CS category should be modified to read "CS uses underlined in table shall be permitted along roadways with the special design standards designation sub'ect to compliance with the special design criteria. Prohibition of land uses appears to make the special design standards designation a zone rather than design criteria. S. Page 1-13 The last sentence in the third paragraph referencing the assumption that agricultural land use would include irrigated pasture lands or row crops should be stricken. These lands are not presently irrigated. Water usage calculations should also be adjusted. S yla; rorresnondence ite\ NNN y Mr. Paul Crawford Page 5 May 4, 1988 6. Page 1-16 A. The definitions and the growth management principles need to be modified to clarify the fact that the Commercial Service areas can develop in advance of annexation and are not tied to the principles that refer to °Urban" Commercial Development. Although the definition for Urban Commercial Development specifies reference to Business Park and Commercial Visitors Serving designations, in reading through the balance of the text it is not clear that the commercial service areas are not subject to the same requirements of "Urban Commercial Development". The terminology is still somewhat problematic and should be simplified. B. Definition F -- On site services -- Add irrigation and on site storm water detention. C. Definition 6 -- Community Service System -- Delete the word "clustered". "Managed by County Government" should be changed to "Managed by County Government or other approved agency". 7. Page 1-17 Principal C-2 should be modified to read "along the Broad Street.- Tank treet;Tank Farm Road, Prado Road, and South Higuera Street corridors the following uses shall be permitted subject_ to compliance with the special design standards established for those corridors: Farm equipment and supplies... 8. Page 1-18 Principle 5-A -- Language of this principle should be modified to clarify the use of the term "urban" as being in reference to the specific definition set forth in the principles. For example, "municipal services shall be required to support urban commercial and urban residential uses (see definitions) within the Specific Plan area". �� Correspondence item Mr. Paul Crawford Page 6 May 4, 1988 Assuming that the City of San Luis Obispo will support the proposed land use principles and Phase I Specific Plan docu- ment, the property owners would also like to see a provision in the document that indicates that the City will pursue supple- mental water supply resources to meet the ultimate demands of the City of San Luis Obispo and its urban reserve area. Without a statement of commitment to do this in a timely manner, the City's intent to annex subject to the ability to provide services is too vague. A program with a committed date (similar to the 1993 housing date) is necessary. In conclusion, the property owners generally can support the proposed land use concept, and principals of the plan and first phase document subject to the changes and clarifications recommended above. The property owners are committed to planning for the Airport Area and to implementing the plan in a logical and timely manner. The principles of planning in this Phase I document focus heavily upon the City to provide services for implementation as the prime alternative. If the City is unable to provide those services, the property owners urge the staff and Board of Supervisors not to delay the planning process, but instead to continue planning based upon the other alternatives for provision of services which are available. This and the attached letter from the Technical Review Committee conclude the comments on behalf of the property owners for the Phase I Specific Plan technical document. We respectfully request that these be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners as they consider this matter. Please feel free to contact John Wilbanks or myself, if you have any questions. Sincerely, RRM DES N GROUP 74- Victor M ry .A. Chie a tive 0 fi er closu cc: Mr n lbanks Mr a Multari V5/JW-Crawford S=l�l1 Correspondence item 1 R R M DES I G N' GROUP March 24, 1988 County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 94308 Attn: Dana Lilley Re: Airport Area Specific Plan Dear Dana: The Technical Review Committee has met and discussed the final revisions to the Conceptual Land Use Plan and the Planning Principles developed by the Specific Plan team. In our Presentation to the Technical Committee we conveyed to them that the Land use concept map and the principles would both appear in this form in the final draft of the Phase I technical document. However, we did not rule out that further changes could occur through the public hearing process on that document. Therefore, the following comments, being representative of a concurrence of the Technical Review Committee, are submitted for consideration prior to and during the public hearing process. The comments are referenced in the same format as the materials reviewed by the committee. Planning Principles: I Intent: The Committee felt the intent statements were acceptable. II Definitions: The rural commercial development should have a similar time frame contingency as the rural housing definition that would allow an increased level of development in the event that annexation did not occur within a specific period of time. The Commercial Development definitions, both urban and rural need to be written to provide more clarity as to the land use categories to which they do and do not apply (i.e. Business Parks, Visitor Serving Commercial and not the Commercial Service Categories). T T S Correspondence item Dana Lilley Page 2 March 24, 1988 iI Definitions: (continued) The Commercial Development definition should .also clarify further what "30% or more of the allowable building coverage" means. (Note: As an aside to this comment the Committee also discussed that 30% seemed too low as an initial level of development when taking into account what the ultimate building coverage percentages are, i.e. 30% of 20% for Business Parks). Definition of "On-site Services" should also include drainage systems and facilities. III Growth Management: Principle A• Rephrase principle to make it more understandable by stating specifically the applicability of the principle to The Business Park and Commercial Visitor.Serving Categories and by restating the definition of "urban" development as it relates to the phased annexation of properties (i.e. that Commercial Services Categories are not included). 1V Land Use Principles: Principle C2: The limitation on uses along Special Design Standard Corridors is too extensive. Some should definitely be prohibited, others could be permitted with development plan approval and specific screening requirements or if completely enclosed within a service. The Committee favored a two-level approach such as this to deal with the visual aspects of uses along designated corridors. Principle D1: Principle Dl uses the term urban commercial "uses" rather than commercial "development". This language should be changed to be consistent with definitions. Also if there is not provision for a "rural level" of Commercial Retail Development, what are the permitted uses for the Commercial Retail Categories prior to annexation? t3 Correspondence item 1 Dana Lilley Page 3 March 24, 1988 Principle E1• Based upon Public response to the County Parks Plan proposal, the term "controlled public access" may create some concern among affected property owners. Principle E2: The question how wide will the creek corridors be was asked and again the comment regarding the "controlled public access" applies. Principle 61- The Technical Review Committee questions the appropriateness of the agricultural designation on the parcel located along the curve of Santa Fe Road (directly adjacent to the property designated Commercial Service) and the triangular parcel located off of Buckley Road to the east of Thread Lane. The committee concurred that both these parcels should be designated Commercial Service. Y Services` Principle A• The term "urban uses" should probably be "urban development", consistent with the definitions. Otherwise the term "urban" needs further clarification. Land Use Map. The following comments pertain to the Conceptual Land Use Plan 1. If the limitation on land uses adjacent the roadways with the Special Design Standards creates a situation where existing uses in the Airport Area become non-conforming, an Industrial Category should be created somewhere in the area. The preferable location for this category is in the vicinity of the extension of Suburban Road that would allow for all the "heavy" industrial uses that are otherwise not permitted. Once the special design standards and corridor definitions are created, if the Commercial Service (CS) Category has the flexibility to allow the heavier industrial users consistent with certain conditions it would also be appropriate to extend the CS Designation eastward, at the Suburban Road extension, to allow. for a greater amount of acreage that is not subject to the special design standard limitations. (See comment on Principle C2 above). Correspondence item Dana Lilley Page 4 March 24, 1988 Land Use Map (continued) 2. There should be more multi-family residential designated property in 'the Specific Plan Area. The Technical Review Committee recommends designating the northwest corner of Prado Road and Highway 227 (up to the creek corridor that extends along the backside of that property) Multi-family residential . A second area for expanded multi-family use, recognizing it has already been approved as a part of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, is the property located east of the Highway 227 corridor commercial uses, south of Tank Farm Road. This would involve expanding the existing designated Multi-family Category further south into what is now shown as Low Density Residential. 4. In the future there should be language in the Phase II document that addresses the idea of local north/south circulation connections between Prado Road and Buckley Road and also. a potential extension of Suburban Road or other local street through the recreation (golf course) Category to a west side entrance to the airport from Santa Fe Road. Allowable Use Chart: 1. Eating and drinking establishments should be allowed in the commercial service designation. 2. °Stone and cut stone products", °Structural clay pottery products" and "Textile mills" should be underlined as uses that have potentially negative visual impacts. 1 Dana, this summarizes the comments of the Technical Review Committee. There certainly will be additional comments that come forth from individual property owners as we move through the hearing process. Sincerely, ESIGN GROUP ohn B. Wilbanks ice President lanning Division cc: V. Montgomery Ova M. Multari Technical Review Committee Members A6/JW-A-AREA. Correspondence item 1 e 100 Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 May 10,1988 Paul Crawford, Planning DirectorEI;t n Planning Department �MUL-a �u County Government Center San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93408 MAY 1 6 :988 RE: Avila Family Santa Fe Ranch A.P.N. 76-361-03 S' /Lo. CG%JNI TY P�N*t"� '~ COT 1CINIG 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 th final arbiters of its future unless controvening action is taken by the g overnment and/ o&Jtip agencies. Since it may be too late to redress the deletereobsness, we have agreed that -it is best to join them, and to ask that the Ranch be zoned Industrial Rural and the Parcel size be of the equivalent as the neighbors to the north. Coupled with the above, we believe that there is adequat6 justification for our request since it meets many of the 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 desire in acquiring an interest in these adjoining parcels. We feel that the demand is here, and we would lice these lots be designated Industrial Rural and be approximately of the same size as the rots 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(Reaso We would like the Urban Reserve Line be returned to its former position. Correspondence item 2: �9 _. Manuel.F. Avila, Jr az 2 The possible acquisition of an interest in these parcels by the adjoining property owners may help resolve many of the present and- future problems.Drainare 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 Rural and the parcel size be of the equivalent as the neighbors to the north. Wefurtherrequest 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 .with the neighborhood. Sincerely, Manuel Avila Jr. �/ � . ank Avila Managing Partners Enclosures: A,B,C and attachments thereto. S- ;5�o Correspondence item-2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr and I-'nclosure A , Union Oil Spill of 1926 and comments of subsequent flooding since t en. Impact on Avila Ranch. The Union Oil Spill of 1926 covered about 90 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 trom"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 mach 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 19601s, Frank Avila. talked to County senior Engineer Campbell about the worse g 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 on the 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 to 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 the costs. In all fairness, many of our northerly neighbors have expressed a willingness to acquire and pay for drainage -easements. So there are still• good:-neikhbors. We have not ren6nded 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 receio a better return from the Ranch. - ` 'o';`- __ Correspondence item 2: �S� Manuel F. Avila, Jr an 1 � .. I I iI. Y.✓�,�j/.rli�Sw . . _ _.: 1 I r i i _!.1 --�- _� r 1 � � � .�. ,/ase) r.• I r ...... __ __.�T � ( � ' 1 -� -•�I —t'--�. _I ..� l__ .. .j - �'1%� st�IiC�s�r•"�f . i71 4T 911 - 8A e rjP3q I k•��( ver', . .� .es L ;00- I I I tor?-O IAst laL�BrJ r - -- - .7 - Correspondence item 2: w i I t r 1 I , Manuel• F. Avila, Jr and �t e -- r 0 m • c K •te O tY' r COy11ft ROAD 04!4 L.• t0 SOV 1M 1310 r m - 1~'1 _ p s 9 ' .� . o Z a "° e . m N - a+-0 Gf O O fe N Ni 0' ^ ^ W I � _ /e eP„••¢t r a � v C N O ' eN C w ` • � e s � w Y • w 2 1 w m O I N -4 � C s 661) ' V 2 S y �t CA t , ' A N -4 • 1 � 0 � RO-fi A•/ , 7 301 e Ot O f 2 Ias J 1 C - 5 C Amp Correspondence item 2; m Manuel F. Avila Jr az Avila Family Santa Fe Ranch Manuel F. Avila Jr. Frank Avila, Managing Partners 100 Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 May 21,1986 San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission Courthouse Annex, Room 102 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93408 Dear Sir, We are the owners of the Avila Family Santa Fe Ranch Partnership; Parcel no. 76-361-03-000, Manuel F. Avila Jr. and Frank Avila managing partners. This land adjoins the industrial -area of Suburban Road and Vachell Lane. These 180 acres contained 3-20 acre and 3-40 'acre parcels at the time of' the Land Use Hearings. Prior to these Hearings, it was zoned A-10-AH, see Ord. 1284 of July 23,1973• The preliminary discussions Draft of the Land Use. Element showed these 3-20 acre parcels in an industrial category and the 3-40 acre parcels to remain in agriculture. Later on in the Hearings, the Urban Reserve Line was moved to the northern property boundary and the 3-20 acres changed to agriculture in the Hearings of the Draft Land Use Element despite Frank Avila's objections (see enclosure A and attachments thereto). Frank Avila approached the Planning Commission to ask that the entire ranch -be zoned industrial and gave the reasons for this request as outlined in enclosure A attach- ed hereto. He presented information saying that the lay of the Santa Fe Ranch was such that any pollution from air, water, and encroachment of water would come from the _ adjacent industrial area; and that the ranch should be zoned the same as the adjacent industrial area. At one time, he met with' Supervisor Supper to discuss this problem. Mr. $upper suggested that perhaps it could be put in an industrial reserve and in 10 years be eligible for recon- sideration as industrial. This idea came to naught. 'w enciem 2:Corres on Manuel F. Avila, Jr anc i • -2- Subsequently, during the numerous times that public hearings have been held on the development of the indust- rial area on Suburban Road adjacent to the Santa Fe Ranch, Prank Avila has spoken, using wordsla this effect;"We have no objection to this property being developed as long as it does no damage to our farm". Pertinent discussions followed, and you can refer to the recordings of these hearings. Some of the problems Frank Avila wee& fearful of have taken place. The County Engineer and the County Planning Commission attempted to solve the drainage problem by ponding, etc. This has not been. entirely successful, but we do appreciate their efforts in trying to help alleviate the problem; some developers have changed the elevation of their land so that water comes onto the ranch more free- ly;some ponds do not have adequate linings to hold the water, so percolation occurs and Yater comes onto the adjoining land, while others have been successful in controlling the problem (this we appreciate). Our father had a well dug, and it 4&.a good well,. but not artesianx k0eagry-eeI4 filowle chow, .g *Fe ZAGS '1 i3G + til __@ to #h ......124- n.. During the past 74 years that we have owned the Santa Fe Ranch and farmed it, we have seen the environmental base change from a nice farming area to one having many serious problems. After Union.Oil impacted us with its runoff of oil and water in the .20's, then the drainage from the Tank Farm area being diverted into a ditch running onto the property, and-later the development of the hot batch plant with its noxious fumes. To this list is added, the more recent development of the Kaiser Sand and Gravel Company with the effluent from its tracks and manufacturing process to the othar developers along Suburban-Road with their respective impacts onto this property. . We have had noxious fumes, spillwater, spilled oil, increasingly excess amounts of drainage which all have impacted this ranch. we have tried to solve these problems with adjacent property owners, with representations to the County Engineer, Planning commission, and finally to the Board of Supervisors during the Land Use Hearings. Although the County Government has taken some steps in protecting the environment , these have been inadequate to protect the property from the deleterious incursions upon it from the adjacent developaent. We request that the +;. correspondence item 2, r N Manuel F. Avila, it w 1 -3- County Governmental Agencies make provisions for a more beneficial atmosphere for this ranch to operate. Furthermore, we consider that conditions have deteriorated to the extent that this ranch finds it difficult to operate as a viable agricultural enterprise. We ask that the request of Frank Avila during the Land Use Hearings should be reconsidered without prejudice, in fact with sympathy, and the the County initiate the rezoning of the whole parcel. All of this ranch located between the industrial area, Buckley Road and Pachell bane should be zoned industrial as is the adjoining property with similar parcel sizes and zoning along Suburban Road. We understand that there is a study being conducted on the drainage and flooding problems attendant to this general area and this would help in the development of a more efficient system to handle the runoff coming from the industrial area,— a system beneficial to everyone concerned. For your information: several of the adjoining businesses have expressed interest in purchasing acreage to increase their holdings or plottage. Sincerely, Manuel F. Avila Jr. i Frank Avila Managing partners enclosure A and attachments thereto cc: Board of Supervisors County Engineer �o correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, it an( r f� -Jos _.viln Tru. ' L ;.nuel F. ::vi la Jr ... f .__p.:^ -s_. • ?r-r_k vila,Trustees FaY 30,1079 rr. . San Luis Obispo County Planning Department Courthouse Annex San Luis Obisno,Ca.93401 Dear Director: We own Tax Assessors Parcel 76-36r-03 which lies between Buckley Road and Suburban Road. This parcel is in the -San Luis Obispo Element of your Land Use Cntegories(1977) presently.under -consideration by Phe department for study ,planning and recommendation to The Comcissicn and The Board . Becently,after having attended sessions of the Planning Commission and the .Board of Supervisors, we realized that decisions were being made upon property that we had in 'gust for the various beneficiaries (ourfamil�r) without our providing inputs to the Fovernmental organizations doing the planning.' 1'his could be considered a derelr.etion of Trust on our part; b'hereupon we obtained a copy of your Preliminary Discussion Draft of the Land Use element of the San Luis Obispo Planning 1'.rea,some mpr..s of t:•e Area, and minutes of the Board -of Supervisors meetings relative to zoning.iTe studied these materials and arrived at conclusions on whact we considered to be the best use o' this raresl of land. Back-sound:0ur father purchased ti%is parcel of 1^.:. .long Buckley Rbad in 1911 from Stanford University. Since then . various members of the family have farmed portions or all the property with varying decrees of succes. Intimate contact with the soil and the attendant elemental forces imninZ:ing upon it during the past years have provided an enduring and specialized knowledce t'-at is invalu-ble(in ?n; decision— ankinf-! incident to develorwert of•?reo. We hive n1so acquired ew`rP.rience Correspondence item 2 �`w Manuel F. Avila, Jr ai - -2- p SR egRensive contacts and in r.-ost inst,.nces,cooperation with neighboring activities in resolving problems resulting from adjacent development. Examnles are: (1) union Oils fire and flooding frnm the burning oil in the. 1920's=Union. then b'lilt dikes mad installed fhodgates to cont:=n ?nd rond oil cnd ^ter;. (2)Southern P••cific Eillin.- Comma; Hot. latch Plant einission of noxious Paws which damaged adjoining .. '. crops and soils-lessened production and reduction of gases; "d. (3)Drainage from S.P. Milling Co and the 2lectric Notor -' forks despoiling 1'snd and crops=partial resolution .rafter discussion with City (Mr. Romero) and Counts (. r. Campbell) engineerson ronding of water,us_ge of a istins d_TainaFe- system and, in the future , a sharing of the maintenance expense (we rresently maintain it). This background knowledge encourages us to make the following . recommendation :That the Pzrcel # 76-?61-03 (see Enclosure) between Suburban Road and Buckley Road should be designated Industrial (xurall for the folloaling reasons: integrity of Drainage Area,direction of wind (downwind from pollutants, stability of soil, low percentage of slove, adequacy of water (600 gal./oin.well),access to roads,proximity to .services' as well as employees and customers,Buckles Road. action as: a _good buffer . between zones,.the Creek as it crosses Buckley Road serves as a confluence for the upstream land,the greater flexibility of land use under Industrial (Rural) permitting agricultural uses as long as the socio-economic environment justifies it, we consider that this is the best designation for its use. We realize •that you have n busy schedule with much work in progress '.znd understand some of its comr1exity,however we request that you keep us informed of your action upon the recommendation. 'Further , Dlease make this letter part of the record on rlonninr fnr the rroperty. �incerel> ?ours, Manuel F. Lvil-s jr o ,, f Josenhin' Correspondence item 2: :�. Manuel F. Avila, Jr am ioIs IV 3� 1riLNt�S M ei :Q 2t X33 a Quo - d I ca m - . .; O • ca W 61J��••• N 'r N in '• • •rte ~Y-l- .�, Con to A ca Cbj 17 ray K ��l O"�'~''• n ` 1� m ,- .00�•-• is gn 0- mm • p ` N i '. ell 0. IL MT . Of 01 � ��"11�� O r\ 10 J' N - R7 �. N :r.• iT 'Q Q m T N \rte • , rn O • ..• ''� . \ C)O, CO In PIS — CR '. Cb "L 0 �'•n y Correspondence item 2: II �� lB■ Manuel F. Avila. Jr as `COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO PLANNING COMMISSION ,�,Q-�"� ` 1 .: - WRITTEN TESTIMONY ��. . FORM For your convenience, this form may be used to submit written testimony to the Planning Commission b Board of Supervisors as part of the public hearing pro- cess on the Land Use Element/Land Use Ordinance. I.'hen you have completed this form, the planning staff will zeroz copies and furnish them to each Planing Commission and Board member for their review prior to the public hearing on your planning area. Please print your name and address. NAME: Josephine S. Avila frank Avila Trustee Ma,n„pl F �Md-T'jz.T tutee aArr.ING AnnREss: 100 Grand Avenue,San Luis Obispo,Ca 934.01 LOCATION OF PARCEL BEING DISCUSSED:Between Buckley Road and Suburban Road,South of San Luis Obispo ASSESSOR'S PARCEL HIRMER (if known) 76-361-03 C014�NT5: We have owned Tar AecPcsnr1c ParnPT 47A_;fjr_Q3 crone 1411 .Tn the past t&ic area (Bu .1r1Py Rnad to kria.._-hunt R,�},»rli-•-• Rnad) has Riad a mirtnrP of a�yri rnl tnrP anA inAnet d a.i tly tNg'ntter 1�ecnmine mnrP e"ZA1Pn* in ror•Pnt xPnrc _ ACCeT.e"Ztj e;4 '6 . 'gt two vParsl_ThP dPVPTnTmant of inAnct= ahn*,t Cnhn�.bya A�ua u_d—an '- s lmnaet nn thi a narnPl Q4"^a 4+- 4a 3 U..^.� A Qa;Ebbgi 4, gusu As that industry, and is effected to a greater or lesa .r e,rtent hv' the vollution generated thereon. Similiarity of toee�raphy,,wind direction.minimal Slone of land . access tn reads,rrn,rimity tn, services .suvvlT of aroundwater.climnte_3ll s„ennrt a similiar land Use Designation to that about Suburban Rnad(Tndnatrial R„rarl) Buckley Road acts as a good boundary wh .re drAjnAgA can hp Planned and directed into annronria . . channels_ We feel that the Planning Staff avm 4th1zed4Wennh a view as was recent1v illustrated m P- Continue on the rear of the page if necessary). - Co.sf'd era x< �...1. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DAZE RECEIVED: PLANNING AREA: RESPONSE- S f Y Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr an4 Cont'd . Elements' Preliminary Discussion Draft showed part of this parcel. being included in the Industrial $ural designation and behind the Urban Reserve bine. This was later changed in the Hearing Draft and is now shown as Agriculture. At that time we submitted a letter to the Department making certain recommen#tions and comments ancl(asking that these be made part of the record of these hearings. We continue in our tecommnendation .that this parcel be designated Industrial Rural since it meets the criteria established in theIaad Use Booklets. Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila. Jr anc Planning pDe art�ment County of San Luis Obispo April 4, 1980 Frank Avila 100 Grand Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Avila: Thank you for your interest in the Land Use Element/Land Use Ordinance hearing process. Your comments and our staff response have been forwarded • to the Planning Commission as part of• the testimony on the proposed plan. Your copy is enclosed. Although your comments are already entered into the hearing record, you may still want to attend the Planning. Commission public hearings to make additional comments or answer questions from the Planning Commission. The hearing for your area will be: San Luis Obispo, Los Padres and Las Pilitas Planning Areas Veterans Memorial Building San Luis Obispo, California Thursday, April 17, 1980 8:30 am to 12:00 noon You may want: to attend other hearings on the proposed plan so a copy of the hearing schedule is enclosed. If you have any questions please call our office. Sincerely-, BRYCE TINGLE, SUPERVISOR Land Use Element BT/ms Enclosure dA Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr and 8001[l0'Z AMMZ.3ANTMM#I .con PUBLIC HEARING NO'T'ICE LAND USE ELEMENT & LAND USE ORDINANCE >! Lei•re t'+•n, L w•r7 A.reA A••'•mA ON F MNOTa OOCOmOSOTae000 CNrm rw OMA tar F Arw ArngA r Aw r /Y>•• [w w tY.w• r er AAr.r fwr r.4 TIY wA.ar.r w.••O•rr+• •.r w.w rrA.A•-W AAAw, wrrr Car:.Aw rr ••Ar:mA Ara er O wAr ••OMA ar r r Lr rr Orr r Lw rw ew,- a... w r NAN r eeemm. rwma 4erl, L tare r.•r.N r r+rr M r.r Ow rr OrF 0%AA AS r r,hart OMA, I'MN rrA WAr r�e w..wr r W r Alr.rrm r a, AAAA0 ear+r- •r•, ,wr A•rAe.A.rwr r rrr e.r w PAON r rAONAAre I,Prr.� Tr awrAt AANIN r ar r r r r.nlmm r sAeAAO •• r F Ne.a•m sAetl. sAA.ArYm r r rm,sAmAAAAoAr r,ASN.= t warlr Y A AAImrAAr r ANAe.A.rr rr•AN w" t ti AAaA wAYr. Tr A.Arr Lw er O.w taaL Lr r AANAe+, r As Ar.r w r Ter.to•Armr r OrNA.a [LAmT. w tll.arYrY Pre CAA. cams war.r Arm r AA�e wm,lrle1. ler eW, • Ar r ArA'r r r r Arne r F.w AAArm, r AYem,r a,A.AIAa.Ar anra MON ARE TME NE•MIwOM OROY117:E0 7 r.rw F tit,CAA, . aPorTe nt♦egace waaoaa PL•ant Tr Aram, am 6.0. rw r r+r. .errs IM WHAT Mt THE LYE AND LOG T aM tr m rArNlr Ar.r.a IV AA.Atr Ae.AArm N *�•w�w a Ayw�i A�w•�•rr[•�w• �Ar• TAA tr F IIONw r w Ow OAYAO w eArY. C�mAr �ielwA, rte/ -AM VAN SWI. r1rT a�.0.IV r r•Yrr�Y1 tart e•�.a. AM Arte .. r w,ANAP Carr rr•. rrA AA•r Ir AeA,Ar Pee r A1. •.m,. ,Amro. t„a •rrr r r /errawo"tae w,alMtw A.Arr Ar�.As. • 200 96.w r tr r rrA .. • /r(id,axle ra fwr Pr "NA rArAraA Neer r F PAA w r r wart.rr AAA A . aA.e CAAN O..rA AVON -- - AN, ft.. TAY .mAe•Ar:.A A AA•r AN, Mae W CLOnaeT - A ANF Oar eWr ti a W r Otte'.•r.e,rr r sAAr r F ecw • OArAAAOOr Or r+e Awa are A.eA, r r a rmAl A.A.A. Ter Lr r [rr r r.a.�r rrr tar r • Ca,e S.Lrr ort Pre Rea ear w+•r r AA.N. r AAPr,. A�mA AY- ." AArA.arm Ar.r A AAA1.-FArq ars• A Crar N arra ANAs. AAP. a. r .Aar r NA ermel.A ri ON mea r wA AArr. H ANANNAN ar r.Aoer r • Tr •Ar Cera rr Art Y Arwt PAY rrr.r YrN. a.....�r W r Ar•Oerr.a r•wr AA Ar•r W • SAAAm Od err wr .rr r w ALS • CroNrr ar art rr r••-•w a A.r r sAr,A+w w t.:r.-rr awl.Awl • A Orr AAr Llano 40"OCOIanYQ r 4rwAN rM. LAA.AIr I...rA.w:•r CA•rAAN • eFrrlaeA Ammonm rm Orr wON . Tr art AAAYM Now r AAadAr F Lr w Ori• arae AmmOv w rwA.Aehr w TMA•NI A••M. Tr OArrtt+atm anrenmA w AAArrrr, r are Ar F er LAa w OArrll•A, Tb* PAA ONw a Pr�rr ter NASA Air r 0 Orrra rr•AWN w. r••e. m AAA d rAa s ANArrr Ater... .•N rSOON Arrw r w•Nr A aw/A:1 w> /reit r ere• AN F tr ler ar++ AA+m rr A...rA rrr mr Ater rA•r r r Ar:a- • tram,OAIr fo- ft Pr • Ca+A ae CTr.s aes rm fle wee tmAram mN es s r�rm Are AA.rrrr AAA9 AN, Tr Or AIA•[firm rrrr r er re F w • W R d bmr art Gera,wON r Aar r awt+s AIN,r Lw IIA, [IAP-wt L r. A.rNYm w F•AY wrr f•Me•A•A.tet/Am• • •✓r rwr beim Are AAAAAr or Ow Orrr r [A.A.AeN. Tee Ler s OrrY•rAe OM1 r w iAAr.ANAr, rete, r wriAA r r OAA,PAA S•Ar�.m r wrAr a•AAAr err i tree r r w ArarrrA r rw r W w aw r. NOW WILL THE PLAN AND OROINAINX AFFECT THE r •A.•Ar W •r aAA•,Arr TAN PAA ww rvr R COYN"7' aNr OmmarTAL OrOCT Own" wrest r.•e a Awa w'wrA.tN,w -•Ar ir.,rArr - a r r tees. .._ Tr ante r 4..N . .N~F Ant LArr,.r Pw• TWA Pr•+m°rrr Am rr rrrer ArNo N Oc - 0e t.N Atm r r NA.anr At ArA.Arar r AA.rA emfe Are ArAA.N+N Awt Aamb""odsmrR - _ rrAmm. ad arm r An rWa r r wMwrr r wart a F tr r Orr w errs w ALU, TPA Lr.i aw aArrr M MNrr".:.�rN•m r �r°rrr-.&Add;DO AN.."W�r,�Yw~r AN`r L r r.r a,r�r�PwNAA. er•rrJe r eAA•w,a A..,. TIARA,rrrra•.N�arra L Ar tnYwt r r Per.I rrr MMOPNs Ar r ARCO,r r res r m r ••A•i.t Ai,AA r ,Atm h.rAAH. F • ww r r r r r err war w ter'.t A .r NO Ar.A.r r err r As aNwe,r.we APrm aw Art rr AAsF COaw, •.A,m•w ti F tram r aaaermrrL PLOeaee tea•O • AL r rr r Mer rr rrr N eeAANm, r ear.d0 er r AarOAmq Y rr ar.•rrr F *HT E THEME A NEED FOM a NEW LAND OMS `N4' Am ems• a r a~ �mets reNAG PLAN AND OR.HANCE T - WK0 O TME FORFOEE OF TME ME11Mmos j r.... Tw..aP r r+w rt.ar a.r err..rte• ANN aSOON,r writ Ad AAAAYr r r r rrr OM A eAA•er ter AA•r ArAMY Me r Prmw, r Y e r rr r+ra Tr P.eer.r r Aar ft O A N Ora Tr �M �m ANrr r m•A.err r /A+a AAr.+w. res rr en, 4t r r rr r ws r OrAr CrAe r rrr ra,N A r r O.Ar r r r r+�N r SAer.r�CAAtrA r r e.rAAe wme aN ~W. 'IAA SIeNY.a•r•A rrrrr..N r AAAA r F Ara w� Off~ �r.klm" i AA.rO. ArrOm rr Ae00r• wAwwo,.�e.awNrA%.Wb p M�tMwA r ter• aAA1. r CAAAv•r w.rwNU1i.A Y r aA r Mtry tArer. MmSrOe aaaoraeaa OMwrr � b_NANNA rr17+ ir.mAOM WHERE TO GET MORE IMPORIYTION TOA•r r W rant NO,Awrrr r r AArm r r AAAAIrm r r AAwAAAmAA r•e•N,AN,rra awr1. •Ar r AN.r r.W r ON,A••Arr -N.rra• _ a."r F/fit Lrr am OTA. &,Aw uOA}i- +e r r.rm aAr.Arrr a+Ar ASS w A.Ne.AN Tr err w A F omrons.""or F rr..a Is R MXMSMV 70 ATTEND TME HEARINGS 7 r,e.e are.rma1. Crr w r..rrr r,r• AN riA6 rrr r APA Arr.A. w aAAA•r,wAaw.rA. Nr ti r•.w�w wrm eaAw.w. ANA r r�•A+A,. w.•.rr+lA w Aw.•Am Ar AArr tett ie r AenrP r Arrnt r w NO r tr N r LOON new PAtme PAiet OMAN a HIM!ar.a Y OMA. 70AAIrw. r IIAAa Y 401~1 rar,.A r••r r r,w AAr.Am is eAr a NO,trap. carr Are r Ar L res tit A•rA..Aa NO; . TAA•w�r AA•AA�.A Y r Aw�t F CON reA Orr,C"Am PrsO fArr1ON OAA,+At W AIA• Ore. NmAOC AwwOAr r Irr Y Oft LOCAAM Ntr elArAr r err w rArr w ArrA•r Wa 10 er are Ar.•r Amr.A w IV Ir r.OAN�.. fan Leet Otte CA. 00 4ENERAL HEARINGS PLANNING AREA HEARINGS FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING. ESTERO SAN LUIS BAY R SAN LUIS OBISPO. L.1 LAND USE ORDINANCE. areae°sane a-a r•••r+ HUA3NA/LOPEZ PADRES & LAS PILIT. DRAFT EI R raTA.wrata m1.Lm Oros a.N.S. Ares a.Otm O••+ art►St.Nr Sea•w-m e ArAAtr W•ei time NM r.L r d Amo•Ara.a fawr YT OLrO..Lao as" wY0 TRO OLM Or Lte YamAO ARO•LOO. ••,ee It wa..aeaf aOM.mtn NORTH COAST ""a•OMAN araaaTa Aran ST*W•/J•eaa A,C. r CreA r an ma.rrr,TO[[T "NIM K aft a-f A O O-•OM wCAm Carou SAW aes on"" Les°ara arrow vRs aLoe. ADELAIDA A NACMUENTO SAUNAS RIVER s mean■r_craw .ratIL swLa-r+ a.e a•at•trc BRANDON•GRRLZO It Setae ar tAraam taA..man •TASATANV e+ato.ars.Lao. EL POMAR/ESTRELLAar w ea•w�'Raw LLar s AVV.usT,ANLL e Anae Leow i-aa� • nNnaar SOUTH COUNTY aTOOt NOrwa,aL rm Oe m aro_Avage" a ANON aL TOM:a-f r O C-t CLU anra O.r.cu,aCogrear atom CamUANTar OLIO. r.AeAAa COMMAND duan ALANANNOO Carats CAST Pati OTOCOT.100e0" rAAwAAlm r a.rrm a r atom re.m..r wrA%CArm A+e ANN*A rr At+em,r mrr r w•.rim ler r . P.Aer.tett wArerm AN F ear r arr.Aer. far A+Or+r m r rleAN.P r e Aar Ar r r r e.lat rrrr. tti rAAAAe r r„AP N Serer er•r 4 OM.es A.A.r t Y r F OAw r 7.r•aeA HrAA. vert Are.OMAN OU.A.CAe LONA rlmq ar 4>•r s.Ita1.m>••a r O•a r F>•Lr Orr,tea.aA+Nm. � Ar art r ae.AN+r OON Aare erlAm AA4 rr a Nm,as v N t Y r r ares r fAeww Oar,.ewe � A•Aw,res aAr.M tr tract Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr an SST AAAA � .. e���L V •w1/ AVILA, Frank Planning Area: San Luis Obispo - Rural Location: North side of Buckley Road APN 76-361-03 Analysis: Mr. Avila requests that this property be designated Industrial instead of Agriculture, mentioning the historical impacts on the agricultural operation from nearby industrial uses. Current zoning is A-1-10-AH. The preliminary discussion draft Land Use Element showed the northern parcels of this property in thr Industrial category. These were changed to Agriculture and the Urban Reserve Line was moved to the northern property boundary in the hearing draft Land Use Element. These changes were made to orient the southerly industrial properties to Suburban Road and el'm+ -te access and off-site problems from occuring further south. Sufficient acreage remains in the industrial area to meet employment needs within the planning area. Further impacts on the property should be minimized by development requirements within the Industrial area and a proposed program to prepare a Specific Plan Recommendation: Retain the Agriculture designation. Additional testimony in Planning Commission Secretary's packet. JL 4/2/80 38I Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr and March 25, 1987 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: Frank Avila and Manuel F.. Avila, Jr, are currently farming the Santa Fe Ranch which consists of 180 acres adjacent to the industrial area of Suburban Road and Vachell Lane. The property has been actively farmed by the Avila family for over 74 years. Because of the industrial and commercial development of the area north of the property, the amount and rate of storm runoff onto the ranch has been steadily increasing. This increased runoff has adversely affected farming operations because of flooding along creeks and along adjacent boundaries. Although the county government has been informed from time to time about the increasing detri- mental impact of storm runoff upon farming operations, I have been told that there is currently an approved site plan for A.P.N. 76-352-21 which allows the construction of three new commercial buildings without any provision for retention of storm waters. Also, the existing commercial development on A.P.N. 76-352-44 does not have storm water retention facilities, even though such facilities are called for on the site plan filed with the county. Since approximately 1978 the county has enforced a requirement for retention of storm runoff from improved property so that the rate of flow onto adjacent property will not exceed the rate of runoff that existed before Improvement. The purpose of this letter is to object to the construction of projects adjacent to the Santa Fe Ranch that do not follow county guidelines for-storm water retention, and which therefore damage farming operations. The Avila Correspondence item 2: !Manuel F. Avila, Jr an Paul Crawford, Planning Director March 25 , 1987 Page. 2 family has traditionally maintained good relations with all of its neighbors. The county can help maintain those good relations through a fair and vigorous enforcement of its requirements which are designed for the mutual protection of property owners in the area. Very truly yours, Douglas Hilton DH:ejm CC: Frank Avila Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr and AASP CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN DAMON/GARCIA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSE TO THE PRELIMINARY SPECIFIC PLAN ANALYSIS FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN MAY 1988 Prepared for. Damon/Garcia Ranch Properties 606 Hopkins Lane San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Prepared by: Development Services-Planning Complete 'Development Services Inc. 672 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 correspondence item 3 �V Terry Simons 1 .0-INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 .1- Introduction This report is a preliminary' presentation of ideas, needs and desires of the owner of the Damon/Garcia Ranch Property as represented in the DAMON/GARCIA SPECIFIC PLAN, a conceptual land use plan. It also includes responses to the reports prepared in conjunction with the CSA-22 Airport Area Specific Plan. The property owners of the Damon/Garcia Ranch have retained Terry Simons of D©no0opman t 3@rvQ@®@-Planning to provide assistance in the preparation of this report; the development of the 1988 conceptual plan; and to aid in presenting the owners ideas during the hearing on the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Damon/Garcia Ranch Property encompasses approximately 218 acres of unincorporated territory immediately south and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo. The Ranch has been zoned and/or planned by the county for a variety of uses: Residential Rural; Residential Single Family; Industrial; Agricultural. The most recent change in land use planning occurred during the hearing for the adoption of the County LUO/LUE when the southerly portion of the ranch was designated Agriculture instead of Industrial, the historic zoning of that portion of the Ranch. The land use policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, as outlined in the City General Plan, have designated portions of the ranch for multiple uses: Medium Density Residential; Conservation/Open Space; Interim Conservation/Open Space; and Rural Industrial. The Ranch is the second largest parcel in the AASP under single private ownership and the focus of significantly different land use planning by the County LUO/LUE and City of SLO General Plan and Zoning ordinance. During the CSA-22 hearings in 1984, it was agreed by the property owners and BOS that the Damon/Garcia Ranch Property would be best served by an independent planning effort and that any environmental information gained by inclusion in the Specific Plan Study Area could be evaluated and a fair share of the cost of the EFR would be reimbursed by the property owners when and if they began development of the Ranch in lue of paying the assessments that would be due if the Ranch was included in CSA-22. The owners of the Ranch historically have had .no specific need nor desire to develop their property and are not proposing to do so now. However, the increasing erosion of their property development Correspondence item 3: Torry Cimnne -- / '..:.:u.�w• u.ruuw-....--..u..:.n.....�.............. ... rights and options as typified by the hillside planning line; reduced sphere of service; increasingly more restrictively annexation policy have made it necessary for the property owners to develop a ranch master plan. The Ranch property owners now request the City and County for specific commitments for the Ranch property- fair share of the resource allocations and development rights that are the subject of the .current hearings on the CSA-22 AASP. 1.2- Proposed land Use Concent The 1988 Damon/Garcia Ranch Specific Plan conceptual land use plan is illustrated in Figure 4. An analysis of the environment, planning considerations and constraints are presented in Section 2 of this report. In response to the June 1984 Hillside Planning Program Phase. II and the County CSA-22 hearings, the owners retained Terry Simons to prepare and present a conceptual land use 'plan for the Ranch (see Figure 5). This plan represented a preliminary attempt to project the long range growth trends of the community as well as address the City-County area problems. The problems addressed at that time were: inadequate storm drainage facilities, circulation systems; water supply and sewage disposal facilities; a lack of detailed overall planning for the continuing subdivision and development of properties in the area. In addition, the 1984 Ranch plan attempted to define a more appropriate boundary line for hillside residential development on the South Street Hill portions of the Ranch in the Margarita Expansion Area. The 1988 Damon/Garcia Ranch Plan proposed land use concept includes the following land use categories/areas: .and Use Net Area (acres) Agriculture 49.3 Recreation 4.1 Residential, Single-Family 32.5 Residential, Multi-Family 31.0 Commercial Service 11.3 Commercial-Retail . 3.0 Commercial-Visitor Serving 5.9 Business Park 49.0 Open Space_177.s _. __ 1 -2 Correspondence item 3 �.�� Terry Simons Total Area 194.0' 'Net .area less roadways Agriculture has been the historic land use for the ranch and will continue to be the predominant use until the development of the ranch. The Ranch conceptual plan defines the South Street Hill as Agriculture rather than Open Space. The AASP proposed public access easement and restrictive land uses of the Open Space designation are not acceptable to the owners of the ranch for the South Street Hill. It is not the intention of the Ranch plan to use agriculture as an interim land use converting to residential or commercial at the 70% development threshold as described in the AASP. As used in the Ranch. plan, Agriculture would be the ultimate use of the South Street Hill area. Recreation uses in the Ranch Plan are limited to neighborhood parks sized to provide recreational opportunities for the residential population added to the community as a part of the residential development on the Ranch. Some additional Recreational area could be developed to help the City meet its community wide needs. The City should demonstrate its need for additional land area and provide adequate compensation to the property owners in terms of additional . development opportunity, density, and/or planning considerations. Residential uses on the Ranch are planned to create a long range housing/employment balance on the Ranch and in the AASP area as a - whole. The Ranch residential areas are located primarily in the Margarita Expansion Area. The concept is to use the steeper sloped areas of the South Street Hill (below an acceptable Hill Side Planning tine to be determined) for large lot single family residential lots. The lower/flatter portions of the residential area are defined for a higher density residential use. The exact type of residential units, the number and specific site density will be a public policy issue the owners hope to discuss as a part of the AASP hearings and include in future Master plans for the ranch. These Revised plans will be developed upon completion of the hearings on the AASP. Commercial services uses would be as outlined in the AASP and are proposed at the south east comer of the Ranch at the intersection of the Prado road extension and Broad Street. The Ranch plan includes an additional special consideration for these primary corridors. There would be no direct access from Prado Road or Broad Street for Cho % .. . . 1 -3 Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons the parcels/businesses created as a part of the Ranch plan. Access would be gained from service roads only. This additional corridor condition might be considered for other areas in the AASP where it is practical to apply. Commercial Retail in the Ranch plan is limited to a small strip center proposed for the intersection of Prado Road (extended) and Santa Fe Road (extended). A much larger area shopping center was originally proposed in the 1984 conceptual Ranch plan. Subsequent off site development and proposed developments indicate that the smaller retail center now proposed is more appropriate to the Ranch plan and community needs. Visitor Serving Commercial uses are proposed at the site of the original ranch house on Broad street across for the Williams Brothers market Uses envisioned at this site include a western style restaurant, bed and breakfast,. riding stables/school. This location would be the terminus for the riding and hiking trails to be developed in the Open Space areas and on the South Street Hill agricultural area. Business Park designations have been applied to the portions of the Ranch south of the proposed alignment of Prado Road. This portion of the ranch is adjacent to areas of Business Park designation and Tank Farm interim (future Business park) in the AASP. This Business Park area would have the same limitation of access to Predo road corridor as the Commercial Service areas described above. Open Space areas in the Ranch Plan have been limited to areas of the Ranch where a literal and complete application of the definition found in the AASP can be applied without unfairly limiting the development rights and options of the property owners or creating a defacto condemnation of developable property by application of the land use designation. The owners are sympathetic with the planning desire to preserve the scenic South Street Hill viewshed. However, the use of a land use designation for the purpose of creating a public resource from private property without compensation to the property owner is not acceptable. 1.3 Environmental Constraints The technical studies used in preparation of the AASP have been reviewed for their application to the Ranch plan. In most cases these = 1 -4 Correspondence item P -� ._.. Terry Simons ..yiNyly�yi.WpMl.YYIJJ.r'..r.wrrw..r..rrrr..VVrrrr.ww.r...r.r.ww.(W r..i�'�•-� :iV::....r..rrVJJY .WY.O.MVYw�VM..\.. studies provide a reasonable analysis of the area situation with information generally applicable to the Ranch plan. Prior to a final Ranch Specific Plan a more detailed analysis will be required and supplemental environmental data and analysis specific to the Ranch will be presented. Environmental issues applicable to the Ranch plan as discussed in the AASP are: Air Quality The Ranch is upwind from the majority of the anticipated development in the AASP. Pollutant levels on the Ranch are expected to rise as development increases on the Ranch and in the RASP. The primary source of projected pollutants would stem from car and truck emissions moving in and out of the Ranch area and more significantly the through traffic on the Prado Road extension. It is important that this through traffic be allowed to travel across the ranch in -the most efficient and uninterrupted manner possible to minimize the amount of standing traffic emissions. The creation of Prado Road corridor standards that prohibit direct access for individual parcels created in the Ranch plan would help minimize the number of mid block turning maneuvers, stops and waits for on coming traffic to clear prior to turning in or out of specific project sites. Traffic and Circulation While the existing roadway network in the study area may meet the technical definition of handling the existing traffic conditions. on a subjective level, most regular users of the roads and intersections in the area would probably disagree. The off site and community conditions point .to less that satisfactory operating conditions and rapidly deteriorating conditions of areas that are now functioning adequately. The 1984 Ranch plan proposed a new arterial link between Broad Street at Industrial Way and the Extension of Prado Road. The current AASP plan has adopted this new artery but does not accept the alignment as proposed. The Ranch plan alignment of Prado Road Extensiori' recognizes the existing natural land feature of a 100' hill along the southern boundary of the Ranch and chooses to direct the roadway to the north leaving this land feature intact: The Ranch plan would include a non-access condition for parcels fronting the Prado road leaving access to be gained from the collector roads 74R 1 -5 Correspondence item 3: Terry $inions in the Ranch plan. The Prado road extension should be considered as an alternative to the continued use of Broad Street north of the Ranch as State Highway 227. We continue to support the development of off site improvements including: an interchange at State Highway 101 and Prado Road; an over/underpass at the easterly end of Industrial Way and the SP railroad; and a plan line extension of Industrial way across undeveloped land to Johnson Avenue. Development of these improvements would provide the southern portion of a Belt-way plan for San Luis Obispo as proposed in the 1984 Conceptual Ranch Plan. Water Supply. Water Quality and Wastewater Disposal The constraints on development related to the limits on water and waste water disposal can be divided into two levels; technical and political. While the technical limits on water supply, quality and disposal are not small nor simple they are possible to solve. The far greater constraint is the continued use of technical resource issues as devices for the social and political groups who wish to stop, limit or otherwise control development rates and types. This is a political issue that we expect to see substantial discussion on during the course of the AASP hearings and will adjust the Ranch plan accordingly. As noted in the AASP report: H reclaimed water is available for landscape irrigation, and agricultural consumption is limited to reclaimed water or dry farming, then existing groundwater supplies can meet the demand for the proposed land uses. Based on preliminary information available on the water quantity, quality and disposal options for the Ranch it appears that a modified but similar Master Ranch Plan could be implemented with a self contained water resource management plan. This would include the use of ground water currently available on the Ranch, a package sewage treatment plant for the Ranch and a program of reclaimed water usb in landscape maintenance and surplus reclaimed water dispersed on the agricultural and open space areas of the plan. This water management plan could be additionally designed to fully interface with future City services when and if the City elected to develop a service/annexation policy that was cost effective .and _ 1 -6 Correspondence item 3 `�/)� Terry Simons provided sufficient additional development incentives to encourage the owners to join the City. Land Use Policy Implications While in general the AASP proposes land uses significantly more intense for the study area, the AASP proposal does not appear to recognize the Damon/Garcia Ranch development potential, need and desires of the property owners and suitability of the Ranch Plan for incorporation in the AASP. The Ranch as designated in the AASP plan becomes the location for the majority of the Open Space, and a significant portion of the Recreation designation which the AASP refers to '...it should be noted that substantial areas have been designated for recreational uses to remain as primarily open space.' We will continue to protest the proposal of overly restrictive land use designations and policies that attempt to devalue Ranch property or create a no-annexation/no-development scenario. The proposed Damon/Garcia Ranch Specific Plan attempts to present a 'fair share' approach to the distribution of allowable uses in the AASP and the Ranch. Employment and Housing With four generations of the owners family currently housed on the Ranch and employed or retired from employment in the community, the owners of the Ranch are particularly sensitive to the need for new jobs and affordable housing in the community. As designated on the AASP plan, the Margarita expansion area on the Ranch is proposed to allow 300 new residential units. The Ranch plan as proposed will easily allow for this number of new units and if services could be made available, the land area designated for residential uses could easily support more that the 300 units proposed. This will be an important area for discussion during the hearing process of AASP. 1.4-Proposed Planning Principals _ The Planning Principals as proposed by the AASP team provide a good point of departure and with some revision can be accepted by the Ranch° property owners.* It is assumed that many revisions to the �7 1 -7 7 . . .. . Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons Planning Principals will be proposed and reviewed for adoption by the Hearing agencies. It is important to consistently apply the AASP noted overall planning framework for the entire urban fringe "..more intensive development should occur within urban and village reserve lines, and that land outside such areas should retain a rural character." The Ranch property is currently rural in character and may remain such for a number of years. The current character should not be used as a justification for designating the Ranch for rural and open space land uses. There has been an historical bias by City and County planning staffs associated with the land use planning for the Ranch. The Ranch is consistently designated in Staff reports for rural and open space uses even though it is clearly well inside the Urban reserve line and very suitable for more intensive development The Ranch Plan as proposed presents land use that are more consistent with the overall planning framework statement. Planning Principals The Planning Principals as proposed in the AASP are presented below . with recommendations: 1. Intent A. The City will annex the specific plan area in phases, provide municipal services and Implement the planned land uses in an orderly manner. - A time line for annexation should be guaranteed - A hierarchy of uses, locations, public improvements that will be used as a guide for determine phasing - The annexation plan should be a part of the adopted AAS B. The County will coordinate with the City and property owners to assure orderly Implementation of the phased specific plan and transition from County to City jurisdiction during implementation. - A standard form and terms for annexation should be approved as a part of the AASP 1 -8 Correspondence item 3 S�� Terry Simons C. The property owners will participate in a fair- share allocation of the costs of providing municipal services and the mitigation of environmental impacts associated with the orderly and phased implementation of the specific plan. - The cost of services for annex areas should be established for determining what a property owner will be required to pay for their "fair share". This should be a part of the AASP. - The cost associated with mitigating existing deficiencies for the existing City utilities should not be passed on to the AASP. D. The City and County will adopt the specific plan and amend their general plans accordingly. - A specific prohibition should be included in all plans that preclude unilateral actions by the City or County to circumvent the AASP with zone or general plan text changes and amendments, expanded regulations or public initiatives to effect substantial changes or restrictions to the AASP. 2. Definitions -suggested changes/additions A. Urban Housing: more than one dwelling per ten acres. - A more appropriate density would be 1 unit per 2.5 acres C. Urban Commercial Development: development of 30 percent or more of the allowable building coverage within each Business park or Commercial Visitor-Serving area. - Should also include Commercial Service land use category to provide more equitable distribution of development opportunity. D. Rural Commercial Development: development of 30 percent or more of the allowable building coverage within each Business park or Commercial Visitor-Serving area. 1 -9 Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons - Should also include Commercial Service land use category to provide more equitable distribution of development opportunity. G. Community Service System: interim water supply or sewage treatment facilities managed by County government that serve clustered housing and rural commercial development. - Should be available to all of AASP land uses and development proposals. - Should include a phasing program for eventual City services 3. Growth Manaaement B. The City will annex an area only when such action is consistent with the adopted City General plan. - This should be subject to the adoption of AASP as part of the City General plan and subject to the recommendations in 1-D above. 4. Land Use Principals A. Residential Areas: 1. All urban and rural housing shall be consistent with Master Development Plans prepared and adopted for Residential Single Family areas or with the adopted Edna-Islay Specific Plan (1983). - Who will adopt the plans? - What criteria will be used for reviewing the plans? - When can an application be processed for Master Plan Review? 2 Residential areas on the south side of South Street Hill shall exclude land with slopes greater that 15 percent. A precise boundary beLween residential and open space areas shall be established by the Master Development Plan for this area. - The limit on development should be 30percent to be consistent with existing City and County 1 -10 Correspondence item ? 5�7� Terry Simons criteria. In the zone above 15 percent special density and development standards should apply. - This statement presumes that the uphill areas of the South Street Hill are designated Open Space, the Ranch plan proposes Agricultural designation. The precise boundary should be a part of the Final Ranch Master Plan. 3. Neighborhood park facilities will be established to serve residential development enabled by the AASP. - Park/recreation facilities should be sized and provided on site with the residential uses they support. Off site park/recreation facilities should be justified and developed in conjunction with development fees paid to the City/County jurisdiction requiring- such facilities. - Development fees could be used to reimburse property owners for the provision of lands for needed area facilities. C. Commercial Service Areas: 2. Along the Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, Prado Road, and South Higuera Street corridors, the following uses shall not be permitted: (listed uses) - This should be changed form a prohibition to a regulation with special design standards to be applied to the designated corridors. - Criteria could include visibility, height, landscape, location and number of accesses to project sites. E Open Space Areas: - This section as written is not acceptable for designation of areas within the Ranch Plan except in some portions of the floodways. S. Services 1 -1 1 Correspondence item 3 Terry Simons F. Municipal, on site or community water and sewer services shall not be made available to the South Street Hills open space areas. - Presumes Open Space designation - If no services are to be provided this land area should be removed from all calculations for pro rata costs associated with the development of AASP, Master Plans, EIR, future service hook up costs and administrative costs. - Open Space designations and easements should be a basis for removal from property tax rolls and the shifting of maintenance and public liability to the governing agency to whom such easements are dedicated. 6. Circulation Principals A. Roadways: 3. Prado Road should be connected to Broad Street at the Industrial Way intersection. Margarita Avenue should be extended eastward to serve the Residential Single Family areas. ( The alignment of the north end of Sante Fe Road should be changed and improvements to Prado Road freeway connection should be evaluated). - Prado Road should be evaluated as the future route for State Highway 227 with a full interchange at Highway 101. - Margarita Avenue alignment eastward should match the existing high voltage towers as currently developed. This would minimize the amount of land area used for these functions. B. Transit and Transportation management Program;; -There should be standards for the provision of public transit facilities in all future development plans. Typical provisions would be Bus loading .... zones, passenger waiting shelters etc. 1 -12 i Correspondence item 3 Terry Simons I. l� RD SAY to SAH LUIS O OBIBPO s COUNTY KERN AR ung owsm COUNTY • *•PROJECT SITE 1 7 A MAMA BANTA BARBARA �— m COUNTY 1 0 YENTURA COUNTY BANTA BARBARA reFffum OC�N o NORTH Vicinity Map FIGURE wP DAMON/GARCIA RANCH -SPECIFIC PLANlanning x.80 Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons ;•� � '1.�� .' 1036 . . n:� �-•r�lf- ,��.�-' •• '•(�'� _�,,,plr`� 'lili ,� r �..v - ...7 •��.`1! 4111 ,� fr 1 '1 . 1- • � � . °t• � • r3 aL ,. . . .� •�•' - X111 �-`:: :� ;�'• ".::�.� 1-.... fW'.f�. -_ � � , 1 , _ � •g_qq � I •� /t 1.y rr •�. 1 � - •11 y, 1 •� 1 _ ___ t . •�. ulaii•�i� :f . "Ab IL NORTH AASP area topo FIGURE . - • • DAMON/GARCIA RANCH r� SPECIFIC PLAN Z _ Planning _ Correspondence item 3 �/ Terry Simons rr 1 ;�3 ..•;:t, � i\��\` ��%L,:- � �Vic' IV 1,44 tL _. • _, �i-•-c .: _. ..-.... ft�. o.,c• -r-..K -.+� .fes - _. :,L` �'�fLc/�{G. b �..^�.`Y K�a c.. r.: �_- rFrkY �tI` k1 — Yy • ,,..r u a - ,:. ............ x• o-S R-Z-S C-S t 3 C C 'jR-z-Po M iR-2-P0 CYOS-40 R_n M_ h I UZI "�"S 'jl l'1a+-'�• CA QI•s !' v •,.. 1984 conceptual plan FIGURE DAMON/GARCIA RANCH _ SPECIFIC PLAN 5 - Planning .j Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 3% Buekk7 Road San Luis Obispo California 93401 March 22, 1988 E1540 County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Attn: Mr. Lilly Subject: Airport Specific Plan APN 76-061-46 Dear Mr. Lilly: As discussed with you an the phone, the H.A. Strasbaugh Company wishes La request a re-evaluation of the designation of APN 76-061-46 on the land use plan of the Airport Specific Plan from •Agriculture" to 'Industrial°. The following reasons are submitted. 1. The 20 acre parcel in question was given Industrial Zoning by the County General Plan in 1981. The Board removed I acre residential from the remaining 80 acres of my ownership at that time because it did not want homes near the airport. The 20 acre parcel has been zoned industrial for over I5 years. 2. The 20 acre parcel was sold to H.A. Strasbaugh Company in October of 1987 and a development plan is being processed for a future facility to manufacture optical equipment. 3. The site has na airport related problems. Tekphone(W 341-3278 Correspondence item 4: .. ne.. ua.taes e..s • Mr. Lilly March 22, 1988 Page 2 a. It lies in Airport Land Use Category 4, that allows 'Nan-Airport Related Manufacture'. b. It has no flooding problems. c. Plans are to provide a 500,000 gallon fire reservoir that can protect the site and the adjacent areas as well . A pond and not a tank is planned. d. There are no traffic problems. 4. I held the property off the market waiting for the right client that: a. Would build a high-class industrial facility. b. Wanted to be near the airport. The H. Strasbaugh Company owns 25 acres of prime industrial land. in the City of San Luis Obispo, but chose this site instead just to be near the airport. The two owners each have their own plane. I have had other prospective buyers similar to H. Strasbaugh and it indicates that property bordering the airport is in more demand than land away from the airport. My remaining 74 acres could receive 6 homes. The airport .manager indicated a preference for more industrial land rather than 6 homes. It is my intent to apply for additional industrial or commercial zoning on a portion of my remaining 74 acres. This property borders 700 feet of Buckley Road lying adjacent to the airport. I would continue to offer the land only for sophisticated airport related uses. Please refer to the attached sketch. �O Correspondence item 4: Mr. Lilly March 22. 1988 Page 3 The second request is for the County to allow engineer-architect offices in a portion of the airport zone. The reasons are as follows: a. My leased office has been adjacent to the airport for 15 years. I would like to build an office on my adjacent airport property which will be zoned industrial . If there is a way to transfer my non-conforming use to my adjacent property, this would satisfy my needs. b. Engineers and architect should be permitted to place offices in any commercial or industrial zone. In my case I have a small plane that I use in my business. Also, it has convenient access for out-of-town clients arriving by air. c. The airport professional office land use deserves different designation than the professional office land use in the downtown areas. The needs and the public demands are different. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours. Ben L. Maddalena cc: John Milbanks, Richmond, Rossi, Montgomery Mike Multari, City of San Luis Obispo sus Correspondence item 4: INO / 141YO - . ' 1 • eo i ji FIF SAN LUIS 0BISPOCOUNTY SAN LUIS 0BISPO AIRPORT COUNTY RPORT cr•0 Af PF j INO Luc a SEC f _ SEC a Mc a - • T � IIVO�. � �i INO. ZL ... 70-406 V4 T 31 T.%. R!3 ". - ��.frLLYJcsq `; �' IS E L — fw� � wf L SECi10M f.N - •. LEMD r�r••••�. �..-..........• • a ��.�....¢ ��r wrm.�w. - • st.w w>a �•�r�rr� �v C i s .r .ems• LAIC 1.110 M[CJTL401Ias' � •�j oU oE-+oN.rols Y—34 I.1.0UKam' O •• - + �•i •Y •' ��•• 4• •fix' ����,��(r• Correspondence item 4: CENTRAL COAST " =•-'' ENGINEERING 1aa� 3%Buckley Road yr• ='''.� San Luis Obispo California 93401 May 2, 1988 E1540 Richmond, Rossi & Montgomery 3026 So. Higuera San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Vic Montgomery Dear Vic: As a follow-up to your airport owners meeting and on behalf of my client, R. Howard Strasbaugh Company, we are requesting an early change in the designation of APN 76-061-46 from agriculture to industrial . Throwing out everything except planning concepts, this change should be accomplished because the County does not want six or more bedrooms on that property within 300 feet of the main runway. This is their alternate use. The development plan and even my .sale doesn 't have that much to do with this request. Eight years ago, after the general plan confirmed the industrial use, I turned down $400,000 cash for the 20 acres. Prior to the general plan in 1981, the industrial land use was in place as was the one acre residential zoning on the remaining 80 acres . They took away the one-acre residential . I have had three of the major manufacturers asking for this parcel, Ernie Ball who is now on Suburban Road, Hind Wells , who is building on Higuera Street, and the present owner, the R. Howard Strasbaugh Company. Because of the strong demand for land adjacent to the airport and because it is in the County interest to use it for a buffer zone, I fully Tdephoee(805)3x1-3278 ��'� Correspondence item 4: Vic Montgomery May 2, 1988 Page 2 intenct to apply for a General Plan Amendment to change the remaining land bordering Buckley Road from agriculture to industrial . The airport manager supports it. My land presently buffers a group of angry, vocal, anti-airport homeowners on Evans Road. I 'always have been aiport friendly and it is important for the County to have this type of support and interest. Attached are the letters we wrote previously. It may be overkill, but we want the issue out of the way now. Very truly yours, Ben L. Maddalena cc: Rob Strong R. Howard Strasbaugh Co. Dana Lilly Correspondeonce ttl6iem 4: Aon Msddalane To Who it a+_ht c=nern: 3-�5-88 P-: Proposed S2 for Airport Aria I own parcel I of Co.84-054 at 202 Tank ?arm Road. ' The plarne:-s of the SP ;'or t:,A Airpor, Area h.=..� r1� _ ' �'•is pr -perry in a BusinessPark (B�) category. T'ne ratioal used was "single ownership"------WRONG Th'_s property is presently Ir4 ownerships . - My property is pr:�sent.ly being developed. I have permits for two buildings which are nearing c)W_rletion. My Development Plan has been prepared and was submitted t= the County Planning Department in Nov. of 87 MY Froposad uses( =arm Su_rply, Truck Termir_sl & Ambulance Service) are al losable at arc�ser_t but wo+:ld beco=a "on.-c imPormina under thenew plan.. I haveobtained ?.otters of intent and n*coiatAd l�L?asas with these to-ants based on existing col!ernment reulatiors. If the Comercial Service (CS) designation wp•. ,1rnfN1.1 or. yy property 1t. wou?d ellairate some of m.• conckr^s. 1 . Development plans to incude 3 other owners would be - imaossible 2. 109 of 3o% is rediculus t' I have already built more than t1iat the other owners certainly not be p .:asst 3. Fly proposed uses would be cor_fo Wing, inCS of Table I., until you -read the text. 4. I have already prepared a d�velonmirt. .the following are concRrSs and possible solutions: Figure 3 (D-1-9 ) BP category o:: a hi;:s Table I done not ,•..117dn ei:4rgoncy vehicles n any category i.:�.. c_Ps i__ �..., cat..Eo.y (ambulance) rage 1-6 Co::�.ercial also along Tank ?arm Rei rege 1-15 el+mi.^.ate t:-^- words ° with annexation . °. Page 1-16 para. 3 " shall not be developP;1 until annexed to the City" add unless ;private rather than municipal services are adequate Page 1-16 C Does .this cover CS also? If not add "BP " between develop- m-int and must. 30' is close we usually use 35% if only land covered is applied & not second story Pace 1 -17 =lira C/2 This text is not consistant with table I T::.= lag:.: al :ng Tark 7arm Rcl is alr•iaciy develc:ed for these ucr:s Anc! a •nordin_ to Table I the uses are allowed in CS category raEe 1-18 S4nrice A.Does this include Urban Co=:�rcial ? If not add "R-sidentia" after Urban. B. here the City says it will provide services. on pare 1 -13 it states that the City is able to serve the study arta then says it is already exceeding the safe yield. ill they provide services ? If so when? D.: •Hp ^n our own sy stems are allowed. If ::c have our own system & do not need City services why should we pay twice? $SIT Althea Cc Correspondence item 5: Althea Cook PLANNING SNE mUJIS " SA �MaM � ® MILL April 27, 1988 Mr. Warren Hoag, Project Planner Planning Department COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Courthouse, Government Center San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93408 Subject: San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan, Dear Warren: This letter will confirm our conversation regarding our concerns about possible conflicts with certain recommendations contained in the preliminary specific plan analysis and conceptual land use plan. We recognize that these proposals were formulated by staff and consultants as discussion documents, and that neither the EIR nor the proposed specific plan will be completed until late 1988. but feel that we should express our concerns as early as possible to avoid future conflicts. In particular, I represent two property owners who are currently pursuing development plan applications on their industrially zoned properties. Regarding Lots 84 and 85 of Suburban Tract, I represent Greg Sheets, SLO Electric, who is part owner of these two adjoining five acre lots on the west side of Broad Street across from the intersection with Industrial Way. During the past year we have been preparing a development plan application we intended to file earlier this month, but when I discovered the proposed Prado Road extention was shown on the concept map as intersecting Industrial Way, I called Planner Dana Lilley to determine the intent of this proposal . Rather than submit the development plan application. which had proposed a building in conflict with this possible, "proposed major road" alignment, we have changed our development plan to accomodate this potential intersection. To avoid possible conflict with this alignment, we are changing our development plan to propose interim use of the existing house and the north portion of this lot as a continued outdoor -storage area, or an alternative retail nursery. but are relocating the proposed new building, to avoid precluding this circulation alternative. Because this alignment will require the removal of the existing house and water tank, will involve a sebstantially wider right- of-way than the private driveways we had contemplated, and would sever a strip from the otherwise consolidated property. with limited, if any, benefit to the adjoining property. we believe that this accomodation should not be misinterpreted as a potential offer to dedicate right of way without compensation. Nonetheless, we are interested in cooperating, and appreciate the advantages to the public and other area properties if this. potential collector street could intersect Highway 227 at the Industrial Way intersection rather than a separate alignment such a� as at Hopkins Way, the former circulation. plan concept. in any ft event, we are completing our development plan application and understand that it will be considered on its own merits. without conditions regarding possible specific plan proposale Correspondence item 6: Regarding the 20 acre Strausbaugh property on the south side of Buckley Road, we understand that County staff will initiate a change in the conceptual land use proposals which suggested that this property be changed from its current industrial designation to agricultural . As the former owner, Ben Madallena, discussed with staff, he has rejected numerous prior industrial' development offers until the right character and quailty proposal was presented. He can also document that this property is clearly not desirable or conducive to agricultural use, nor economically viable, and that he sold it to R. Howard Strausbaugh, Inc. , who has already submitted a development plan application to the County proposing an equipment manufacturing facility on the west portion of the 20 acres. Recently. Central Coast Engineering has filed a parcel map to separate the proposed immediate building site from the adjoining area being reserved by Strausbaugh for future expansion or possible future sale or lease to compatible or related industries. Having already purchased the propery at industrial prices, ' and having already prepared and filed the development plan application, scheduled for May hearings, we consider it essential that the County instruct its consultants to revise the conceptual land use plan as part of this initial consideration, to avoid any further concern of possible conflict. Previous letters and calls from Ben Madallena, and recent calls from me, as representatives of R. Howard Strausbaugh, Inc. , have been answered with assurances that the planning team will address this problem as part of further specific plan preparation. We would, however, appreciate a letter or copy of memorandum confirming that the County will rectify this proposal based on the new information and pending industrial development, i .e. . recommend , that the entire 20 acre property remain industrial of commercial rather than be redesignated agricultural . If you need any further information from me regarding either property, please call . We hope to participate in the future consideration of the Airport Area Specific Plan, and look forward to these partigglar_,probleps being corrected at this early stage. Sincerely, Rob ong, A.I C.P. cc: Greg Sheets Ben Madallena Alan Strausbaugh RE C EIVED APR 27 IM Ansa. s. .. Correspondence item 6: 1 1' I ...Tr.i. r,\ ±:`1�� ..l�../VPP!• - •Pfd/T^_..:.T,..�.^�w!f�vu'Y.-.�•..A•0�•.,!tlT-.�b.n.,.......�•..�.+R -�y ! : 'ianni!:G tb :•,.i .la , :+:. Obispo, CA. 1�!': e_l•:.: '„]bin Proper:.': tri oue, att-Rnt 1:+u cr - n.:l r•arr. L _ula- ,!• —.mp cilanca. Lilt SubYi _ t. . tTl: . :•i.,, $_ . . fi:% 2 levo ra.h IS ::.[ia .. C!.;Jnc-tm -:rat Will cntlf•?!'r� te:• r ..:-!7 'C•'• (};)@•t lti•'•:':. As know. we hive b !en worshirnincy at 1::133 building for- two . .. t .:ear's. i?.) ;1F': aas3 C, '3ur•:h-I Se%t :!ii Fyt 1St 1IIS grope. _ •;. I ' - :3 is t'•% you are T_W$rP t:f.?�' :.i t!'1/: C:t 'it}LIS YRA1' �. t�l+:t :! :•t prr, t" i'S i :1_n .. i. ._. .. . :1 �1.-^ i: G�;: .. a•..!� t... .... .�• _ _ ..�?� iL•i9 l.'bi.i;;:O and C!?•] St::+t': -- t' ' .a Dap lr�.l.{.:+11: ,:3 it was Stat !on 51 night club and a pornographv Elouse. We c % ma-el t•lat problem in the last 2 years since we have ;oo�n orar'al: il;q as a church and this ':t'ae• _: i:as been sir, :1;321 the Sar. i.•tis Obispo ::ounty and :i.S su-round.n;;;. V-•' would also 'ime to submit this observation to your I-;te•)artment . Ve Know there will ;:e o concern to you oz- traffic d+irtnc bust^e^.S hi:urs on "road a .11. a z--ne• chance that conforms to the use of church w,:uld help eliminate this oarticular orotlet veiny Activities are in opera+. it•ris pcimar.i•,• I he-u".- ."igen, traffic Sa at it.a minimum. P.!!. R^• 14159 •-..:n End" Il:atSp0. fir. •JAU11 t.i..,r1.:1: IAl-905'1 t.::i:: / A® Correspondence item 7: ^---� We wotil�i highly anpreciat:? r I'avorsble zone char::;- due to the fact we are considertne making Improvements on th:s property. As you are aware the existtnp zone is a thorn In cur ii_ah ti+ ing that it does not allow church L'Det-atjon. If you can eliminate tF.is rain we would real—ly appreciate it . Sincerely. �_ra•it Y. vr1•iirar• ' Pastor _ Correspondence item 7: rranr rviellrnn MKI I U*L144A) AGAPE Nd1T:ISTIAN P.O. Box 123 KLLowdiip San Obispo vimlty California 93406 IN JESUS! Tun Morbitza, Pastor (805)541.0777 "A bn*church that God's love(agape)is building!" May 19, 1988 Mr. Paul Crawford Director of Planning County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Mr. Paul Crawford: Thank you for your response to our inquiry concerning amendments to the County General Plan which would allow churches in the commercial service land use category, specifically at the Aerovista Park site. We can appreciate the complexity of the situation in light of its location and the impending revision now in progress . Our Advisory Board reviewed your suggestion to wait until the amendments become effective early next year before we proceed with our application to occupy the Aerovista Park site. The landowner is looking for a tenant to occupy the building in October - November, 1988. We are still pursuing other options, but so far the size of the building, parking, compatibility with neighboring tenants, rent, location and existing tenant improvements make the Aerovista Building our primary choice for short term church use. We are still looking into ways to resolve our dilemma. I attended the Airport Land Use Commission meeting on May 18, 1988 to briefly present our position and get an opinion from the commissioners concerning church use at the Aerovista site. There was a general feeling of acceptance of the proposal, although no formal application was presented and no official approval was granted. However, based on the geueral response of all the officials I have spoken ::ith, I feel confident that the Aerovista site would be approved for short term church use. RECEIVED MAY 1988 23 - V s � 0. COUNTY Coorespondence item 8: Page 2 Mr. Crawford Letter May 19, 1988 Enclosed you will find a summary of the reasons supporting our position. We respectfully submit these to you to consider when evaluating changes in the General Plan and Specific Plan for the Airport Area. We have 264' signed support cards from six other churches asking for churches to be an allowed use in commercial land use designations. We will provide verification at your request. We will keep in contact with Mike Draze and/or Warren Hoag concerning the timing of your changes as well as our possible submission of an formal application for the necessary amendments.. Thank you very much for your time and effort. Sincerely, Mike Sparrow Assistant Pastor == ,, Coorespondence items 8: County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Staff County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 To Whom It May Concern: I represent Agape Christian Fellowship (ACF) of San Luis Obispo in the pursuit of a temporary (5 year) leased facility we will use until a permanent church site can be constructed. We are aware- of proposed plans by SLO County to make churches a conditional allowable use in Commercial Service (C-S) zones. For this reason we have entered into an intent to lease agreement for an 11,000 square foot building at Aerovista Park adjacent to the San Luis Obispo airport. (See Attached) . We desire to pursue the proper contacts and procedures to ensure that occupancy is legal. We understand that the site is under the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission and is being reviewed under a new Specific Plan. The initial reaction by many of the officials I have spoken with was pessimistic until we more thoroughly discussed the pros and cons of church use at the Aerovista site. The idea of a church in an industrial-type building is becoming more and more accepted as cities and counties acknowledge the need and respond favorably. The major hurdles we see concerning the Aerovista site and the reasons we feel church use should be considered are as follows: Current Obstacles 1) Building is currently zoned industrial but is proposed to be changed to Commercial Serive (C-S) zoning, under the new Specific Plan. 2) Churches are not currently an allowable use in industrial or commercial service zones but under the new General Plan amendments, there is a proposal that they be conditionally allowable in the C-S zone. 3) Church use is conditionally allowed in Zone 5 and allowed in Zone 6 of the Airport Land Use Plan. The Aerovista Park building is in Zone 4. However, theaters and auditoriums are a conditionally allowable use in Zone 4. These are assembly buildings and are usually occupied more frequently for longer hours than churches. Because of this, Paul Gimer, Airport Manager, and Jim Filbin, Chairman of the Airport Land Use Commission, agreed to review the policy and .Use church use at that site. Coorespondence item 8: Why Industrial/Commercial Buildings For Churches? 1) It is very difficult to find 10,000 square foot or larger buildings outside of commercial industrial zones. 2) Industrial buildings are 40 to 50 percent less expensive per square foot to lease than office or commercial retail buildings. This is better stewardship of the congregation's money, allowing more funds for community needs. 3) Independent churches often lack the denominational support to finance major building projects until congregations are well established. 4) Church use is primarily weekends and evenings which complements the Monday through Friday business use of neighboring tenants. This reduces traffic and parking congestion. 5) Aesthetically, many things have been successfully done to adapt commercial buildings to church use, i.e. , awnings, landscaping, new facias, etc.. . Why The Aerovista Site? 1) Five year projected tenancy. 2) Desired size for ACF which will allow for office space, Sunday School rooms and an assembly area for 275 people (11,000 square feet, total) . 3) ACF has been established in San Luis Obispo since 1981. The location is ideal for members residing in San Luis Obispo and those commuting from the south county. Locating outside this area would be detrimental. 4) Major improvements are already in the building. Three commodes per restroom, established office space with dropped ceilings, lighting and partitioned classroom space. This will save approximately $60,000 over comparable commercial "shell" buildings requiring improvements. The money saved will be applied toward the permanent church site. 5) Abundant parking - over 180 parking spaces will be available on Sunday mornings - this schedule of use is compatible with Berkleonics' needs on weekdays. 6) There are no adjacent tenants besides Berkleonics which is a compatible, quiet, clean business. The likelihood of substantial increased growth adjacent to _ =_ Coorespondence item 8: the site in the next three to five years is moderately low. 7) Currently, there is an abundance of undeveloped industrial/commercial land around the airport. With a five-year occupancy, church use should not inhibit commercial/industrial growth in the area. 8) Sunday mornings are the quietest times at the airport which should alleviate any noise conflict. 9) We have received favorable responses from the Airport Area Property Owners concerning our proposed temporary tenancy. Officials Contacted To Date: Paul Crawford, Director of County Planning Evelyn Delaney, Board of Supervisors for Airport District Fabian Romano, County Planning Commissioner Paul Gimer, Airport Manager Jim Filbin, Chairman of the Airport Land Use Commission Don Ross, member of the new Specific Plan Technical Committee and member of the Airport Land Owners Association. Mike Draze, County Planner and adviser with the Airport Land Use Commission Larry Kelly, County Planner The main concerns expressed in these meetings were primarily the compatibility in commercial zones and the possible noise and safety conflicts adjacent to the airport. As previously stated, we feel church use can be very compatible in commercial zones based on time of operation and the other reasons listed above.. We also feel any noise conflicts can be easily mitigated at the Aerovista site. The assembly area is composed of concrete walls with two doors and no windows. Based on conversations with three Berkleonics employees, the only noticeable noise occurs during commercial airplane maintenance when the engines are revved. This happens during late evenings or early mornings. Paul Gimer, Airport Manager, stated Sunday mornings- are the quietest times at the airport which would complement our assembly schedule. We will guarantee no noise complaints will be filed by our church. Concerning safety issues, the Aerovista buildings are located to the side of the runway, away from any takeoff paths or landing approaches. Currently, the adjacent commercial buildings house up to 150 people for 40 or more hours per week. :7e are asking to assemble up to 275 people for 4 to 6 hours per week. The amount of exposure to aircraft hazards would be reduced in that building by church use, especially during Sunday morning slack times at the airport. s"-y8 Coorespondence item 8: Auditoriums and theaters are currently a conditional use in the same zone as the Aerovista building. We feel churches should have the same conditional approval as other assembly buildings in Zone 4. In summary, we feel the Aerovista site would meet our needs very well. It has been a frustrating three-year search for a large facility within our budget. The vast majority of large buildings in the San Luis area are located adjacent to the airport, which greatly reduces our options outside the Airport Land Use jurisdiction. We hope you understand and support our position concerning the amendments and/or rezoning necessary to facilitate our move. Based on conversations with the previously mentioned officials,. we feel we have the support necessary to implement the required changes to lease the Aerovista site. Your assistance is greatly appreciated in pursuing this endeavor. Sincerely, Michael Sparrow Assistant Pastor/Agape Christian Fellowship .jc see ==- Cocrespondence item S: SQUIRE DEVELOPMENTS 6725 MONTE ROAD • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 .(805) 595-2443 Dana, 7/31/86 As per our conversation on 7/31 I am writing this letter so that you might more fully understand my wishes regarding my property at 4211 Broad St. It is my feeling that with the extensive development of residentiai,as well as hyway access, in the area amore open approach to uses would be appropriate. Broad St. as it sits is capable of handling great amounts of traffic( in fact would seem to have been built with this in mind) .Now , with the ongoing increase in residential capacity ,to limit space for professional and supportive services localy would further aggravate traffic problems in the downtown area.It is for this reason I feel it would be consistent with county interests for more uses ,mentioned under industrial zoning regulations, to be allowed in my building which is of course zoned industrial. In particular allowance of permanent office use would go gar to alleviate my leasing problems in a building which is best suited to,and has more than adequate parking for,profesional offices. I would like to further point out the clean and undamaging nature of office in comparison to the presently allowed uses,which necessitate alteration to my building as well as my bank account. T.;n EFourlConsideration RaMhal Rothman,Owner 4211 Broad ,tECEIVED AUG 4 Wo S.L.O. COUNT "NNING DEPT- �r Correspondenee item 9: Marshal Rotbman N.ay 3. 1988 �.. 1164 Shannon Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Yr. Paul Crawford Planning Department County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA. 93408 Dear• Yr. Crawfords We are requesting a meeting with you and Mike Multari to discuss the proposed zoning of our property within the airport specific plan. Enclosed is a page from the city's Edna-Islay specific plan which includes our property, as noted. The linear park designation seems to be in error, and probably an unintended extension of the linear park in the Edna-Islay development. The back fence of the Edna-Islay houses runs all along the city line on the east side, and it is all part of our parcel on the west. Please let us know when we may meet with you to discuss this matter. Thanks very much. RECEIVED . W. hlenbeck cot Mike Multari - MAY 4 - 1988 Vic Montgomery S.LO. COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. Correspondence item 10: W ' � N vt ATIE °b vel Z al a _ • L.1.� ///� 0 z got( O W O m C I t9 V m CC , �' I Ec a as 23' n W • 3m 79 .0 �� Ori Y1O � � / 3a mm C- t-- as cc .tip• . ,, ; P ' `. L a U; • rI 6 i• t r r C `} 4 U f o < <:�.. r 02 o a 10 � ni Correspondence item 10: t.1111ZIPT CC14 June 16, 1988 CORPORATION Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Reference: SLO County Airport Arca Specific Plan As President of a local company that has just recently purchased a small parcel of land in the Airport Area I would like to comment on the Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis (April 1988). There has obviously been a lot of effort put into this proposal by many people. It is good to see the co-operative effort among the City, County and the land owners. The Preliminary proposal looks so professional that it tends to make one believe that it is the finished product and might be cast in concrete, even though the County Staff repeatedly says it is preliminary. It is in the hope of improving the Plan that I submit my comments: I hope that they will be of use to you in your attempt to finalize the Plan. Proposed Land Use Concept The report notes that the current proposal has substantially less industrial land allocation than before. This is done in the name of matching the "probable demand for industrial uses' (page 1-4). By limiting the total amount of Commercial Service and Business Park use, the C.f• proposal discriminates against smaller companies (and most SLO county businesses are small). lLJv Anytime you restrict or limit a resource, you drive up its price—basic college Economics I precepts. By making the land more expensive and therefore less affordable by local �! p� companies, the Plan will encourage acquisition by large outside �Yr� Jt � firms that most of the SLO County residents want to avoid. .n pv' This restriction of Industrial use in the Airport Area will ultimately be self-defeating. 4� Secondly by limiting the build-out potential and building coverage ratios the Plan similarly discriminates against small L �� businesses that cannot afford the additional land to support the f" enforced Open Space on their own property. This is indirectly a form of 'Taking" and should be avoided. Smaller footprints lean to vertical buildings to maximize the floor space available—is this really the desired effect? Taller buildings impact fire fighting and other county concerns, block views of our hills and drive up construction costs for the business involved. Taller buildings should not be outlawed, however, since they do offer a solution to some design issues. eEA_stern Regional 3433 Roberto Court Technical Support Office _ _ - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA 1 Market Way West. Box28 = (8051 541-0488•ITT Telex 4992318 Yat, PA 17401 (711171846-71 S7 _ Correspondence item 11: Small businesses represent a vast majority of the County's employers and are a vital source of jobs. Please don't create legislation that discriminates against then, either explicitly or implicitly. t zh, Iti(• jy Land Use Categories (Table 1) The current Land Usc plan �1tC l' sL explicitly disallows Electronic Manufacturing from the Airport Area. The proposed uses shown in Table I arc ambiguous in' I� h this regard. On page 1-9 "Electric Equipment, Electric S his Products" is shown as an allowed use in CS and BP zones. This should explicitly allow 'Electronic Equipment', which is a clean, compatible land use. This category is largely ignored in the analysis on page 3-20 in projecting future growth of 'industrially-related jobs'. r � Several local companies are in the Electronic Manufacturing business and are among the companies that would like to J re-locate to this area. While my company is not in manufacturing, we are in Electronics and I would not like to have my future choices limited by arbitrary zoning restrictions. Certainly Electronics is a lot more savory and less of an eye-sore than many of the listed uses. Offices are a vital part of business and it is good to see their inclusion in the proposed CS and BP areas. The term "Offices" covers a variety of business needs that are hard to define otherwise. In general San Luis Obispo has had a very narrow view of what an office is. This should be broadened to include more uses, such as high tech firms and the like. Let's avoid the Capitolio industrial area look of warehouses turned into of f ices. County Airport Land Use The largest and most distinctive 14 feature feature of this area is the Airport itself. The proposed plan J, makes very little reference to it and does not seem to capitalize on its strengths. A viable airport is a must for a continued A LlI, I GL viable business (and tourist) community. Fly-in visitors are attracted by restaurants, shops and easy access to town. Every 'n Z effort should be made to enhance the viability of the County _,yl� Airport and to reduce the factors that might cause its demise. ��" The health of the City of SLO depends on it. The area around the Airport is ideal for Industrial (including office) uses. My company depends on easy access in and out of CSLO by air for both our employees and our products. ,1it1 Industrial uses are typically more compatible and less deleterious to airport areas than housing. No matter how much you tell potential home owners that there will be noise and a small safety factor, they tend to forget after living near an airport for a while. Industry makes a good airport neighbor. Don't let the airport be squeezed out by failure to plan for the .._ political realities of the airport neighborhood. Correspondence item 11: Page 1-18 speaks about the Airport in the Public Facilities Areas. There should be a more pro-active stance that the development of the surrounding arca should enhance the airport and its viability, not vice-versa. Planning Principles The use of the term "fair share allocation" is used in describing the coverage of costs for municipal tC services. This term is open to a wide variety of interpretations. I� jQ Who is going to decide and on what basis will they decide what. a "fair share' is? a, L r This item is of great concern to several landowners with respect pj 1101 JL. to roads. Most of the traffic on the major roads (Tank Farm, Prado, etc.) is from transit uses. I would venture a guess that 98% or more of the traffic on the current Tank Farm Road L� G w)rod •�,L• ry L L never stops at a business along that road. This high percentage will doubtless apply to Prado Road when it is extended, since it �Y Vwill represent a short cut for many of the people current("y Jef" using Tank Farm Road. The "fair share" of the cost of improving Tank Farm Road and extending Prado Road should a therefore be quite low for the property owners and the lion's share funded by taxpayers who will benefit from the roads. The cost of putting in a four-lane divided road like the proposed Prado extension would bankrupt a small firm if their property happened to lie along its frontage and if the fair share were not a low percentage. Housing availability There is an obvious 'Chicken and Egg' problem with the housing vs jobs issue. The City is quoted as discouraging "activities which would aggravate the imbalance between residential and employment opportunities". This can L L4 y' spiral in on itself with the ultimate crisis of not enough jobs in the city for the ever increasing population. Don't prevent job CI formation only to induce economic decline for those left in the r Q �Yh !L ' �d' y� limited housing. 1,� _ k This issue is obviously a Regional one and must be viewed as 'Isuch. There is probably no way that the city of SLO can bring the job/housing ratio back into balance without supporting f EL D annexation of suitable housing areas (this does not include the •9 Gf �� Airport area in my opinion). If they do not do so, the other 3 Y cities will eventually grow out to surround SLO city and they will have the situation they seem to fear most by default. Commuting is not all bad—many of my employees choose to live in other cities for many reasons besides cost of housing. The current County policy stated on page 3-30 (item #5) seems j - to have the cart before the horse in desiring employers to 'actively participate in providing housing". In the American system an employer provides jobs, and the resulting demand for housing provides economic incentive for other people to make money by providing that housing. This policy *5 needs to be modified. S—� Correspondence item 11: Housing is housing whether employer-sponsored or otherwise. It would be best to encourage employers to concentrate their A Lresources on what they do best. �I.& L'JVL I do agree that "tach community near such pL' CGt ��.' housing-need-generators must allow for additional housing" (i.e. CA" the City of SLO). Limiting jobs is not the answer! t cannot G Ugni� ti agree at all with the conclusion espoused in the last paragraph �U 4 of page 3-30 which states that the solution to all housing L h'►- �'/bC problems is to limit the area available for Industrial and 1G � Commercial uses and to restrict the types of uses to "those L� requiring lower numbers of employees." This is not a solution at wa J all, but a sure y to aggravate the problem. Ziatcch grows slowly and steadily—a few jobs every few months. To disallow, discourage or put a cap on that type of growth is to stifle local industry of the very type that serves San Luis best. Environmental Constraints ((( Water: If water is one of the main limiting resources in the San ,!• Y Luis Obispo area, then the proposed golf course should be 'Y l N"d" re-evaluated. Table 19 on page 4-8 shows that the golf course 1 t, yy (and parks) will consume 38% of all water in the Airport Area �Jl �rl Specific Plan. This is almost as much as the total commercial development, yet the golf course will serve only a tiny fraction �1 J/' of the SLO community. Scarce resources should not be allocated in such large portion to such small portions of the community. This is even true of reclaimed waste water--it is a limited resource with other uses as well. W Roads: The analysis on page 4-17 of increased traffic through the Airport Area seems to me to be low. The addition of Prado Road as a cross town highway will undoubtedly increase traffic in the arca—some people who used to use South Street will now go Prado Road (whereas Tank Farm was too far out). I suspect I � that Tank Farm Road traffic has increased substantially since I` I the Los Osos Valley Road on-ramp was opened. This will j�n/V� /►_Jk certainly be true if a full interchange is built at Prado Road. `[ Y All this runs counter to the Plan's statement that "Non-specific traffic growth in the area will be relatively insignificant in p comparison to the trips attracted by the proposed developments." See my earlier comments on current Tank Farm Road traffic. I would also question whether the type of offices that will exist in the Airport Area development will be the same type as envisioned by the data that gives rise to the 17.7 average daily trips per Thousand Gross Square Feet (Table 23, p 4-18). There is a substantial difference in traffic to our "office" than you would find to a Dr.'s office or a CPA's or an insurance company office. Do their numbers realistically represent the SLO environment and demographics? Correspondence item 11: Prado Road The proposed route for Prado Road seems to have ignored the geographical terrain. It goes right through a 200 foot high hill just West of Broad Street (see the topo map Figure 5, page 2-3; the "gravel pit" is actually a 200 foot high ��.0 a� �� hill.) A much more reasonable alignment is the one proposed by T k the Damon/Garcia family on their Specific Plan proposal. (J Prado Road would be routed to the North of the hill and would �vt.) � follow the natural contours of the land and minimize the �� �• ` erosion potential, while still intersecting Broad at Industrial / ` Way. It doesn't make economic or esthetic sense to put a n •1, four-lane divided highway (see Figure 24) through a hill when I� you can go around it. Oreutt Road Whilc this road is in the city, it is discussed in the proposal in relation to the intended overpass at the railroad crossing. While this overpass would be nice to guarantee emergency vehicle access across the railroad at all times, with the new no-freight-train traffic plan of Southern Pacific I feel I BVI, the overpass is not needed. I drive Orcutt Road every day to and from work and have never been stopped for a train since the change in SP's freight 4V routing. Overerossings aren't cheap: the money saved on the �'J�• 1 P a- overerossing could be used in many other places for more needed items. Let's not build it just because the ball was started rolling a long time ago. ` L Capitolio This street is not mentioned in the report, but I know it to be a traffic problem for traffic entering Broad Street Ofi especially at times when various companies stop work. There is no left turn lane, so both right and left turning traffic are blocked by a single left turning vehicle. A traffic light is needed and will become a necessity when the proposed Williams Brothers shopping center goes in (which will add 20,000 vehicle d trips per Table 24). It will, of course, need to be synchronized with the lights at Prado Road and Tank Farm road. Pat JYV I am taking the liberty of muting this document to the various city, county and property owner agencies that are involved in this process. I am very pleased at the Regional view point that is developing among these groups--it gives one faith in the political process. Thank you for your efforts in this regard and ! / VV my thanks to the individuals that invested the time and energy to prepare this preliminary plan. If I can be of help, please iv contact me at Ziatech. Sincerely, Bert L Forbes President ��IO� Correspondence item 11: Copies to: SLO County Planning Commission —SLO County Planning Dcpartmcnt SLO Airport Land Use Commission SLO City Council SLO City Planning Commission SLO City Planning Department RRM (Airport Area Property Owners) Correspondence item 11: SPECIRL IRLLED M66"I" 1116 *Denotes action by Lead Person Respond by: CITY COUNCIL Council L E3 CAO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1,EJ City Ally. TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1988 — 6:15 P.M. Cleik-w1g. Council, HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Q.116Wd SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 2 D. .eome- a 0 -77- NOTICE 7TNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Mayor Ron Dunin of the City of San Luis Obispo has called a Special Meeting of the City Council to be held on Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The purpose of the meeting Is concerning the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pending litigation in Closed Session. This notice is in keeping with Government Code Section 54956 Entitled Special Meetings= Callt Notice. 4s/AON DUN1N MAYOR RON DUNIN