Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1988, 1 - STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT AREA. `IIN�Iy'll�ll�ll��l�l�l�l V' MEETING DATE: CI OSan IUIS OBISpd 9/12/88 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUM FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director By: Terry Sanville " SUBJECT: Study session to review the concept land use plan for the airport area. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Review the concept plan and planning principles, consider the Planning Commission's report, and continue discussion to a Public Hearing on September 20, 1988. BACKGROUND The Airport Area Planning Team 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. At a special meeting on July 6, Planning Commissioners presented their sketch plans for the airport area and discussed the concept land use plan with staff. The commission reviewed the concept plan and planning principles again on August 10, and 24. At the first meeting, the Commission invited public testimony. A summary of the key commission comments made at the first meeting in attached as exhibit "A." PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT At the August 24 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Concept Land Use Plan and Planning Principles as presented by the planning team, with the following additional comments: A. The Planning Principles should be modified to include the following: 1. The specific plan must consider the larger regional perspective, particularly the future of the Edna Valley. 2. The adoption of a specific plan must also involve an agreement between the city and county to create a long-term boundary between urban and rural areas. A commitment by the city and county is needed to create a greenbelt around San Luis Obispo and maintain open space between cities. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two jurisdictions may be a method of achieving this commitment. 3. Community sewer and water systems that serve development under county jurisdiction should not significantly discourage eventual annexation to the city. B. The Planning Commission does not support the principle that would allow designated agriculture areas to convert when 75% of the remainder of the plan area is developed. IIIryAIyIII�IIIIIII� II MEETING DATE: II„ ° ll�l city of San tins osispo ONG COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: Page 2 — Airport Area Concept Plan C. The EIR and specific plan must fully address the following issues more fully: L Circulation needs. 2. Preservation of prime agricultural lands, particularly from a regional perspective.' 3. Jobs-housing balance. 4. Water supply. The Planning Commission does not necessarily endorse the conversion of prime agricultural lands in the airport planning area to urban uses until this issue is fully analyzed in the regional context. The Planning Commission next reviewed the attached "Major Issues” report (Exhibit "B"). This report outlines various concerns raised by property owners in the airport area, describes alternatives, and presents planning team recommendations. Of the 16 items listed, in six cases the Planning Commission recommends an alternative that differed from the planning team's recommendations. These different recommendations are summarized below and have been inserted after each item in Exhibit B. Paste in Exhibit B Item Commission Recommendation 7-8 I.B. Strasbaugh Property Alternative #2 7-10 2. Expand Planning Area Alternative #3 7-13 4. Interim Development Alternative #3 as modified. 7-15 5. Conversion of Ag Land Alternative #1 (with minor changes) 7-16 6. Interim Ag Policy Alternative #3 7-19 8.A. Churches in BP Areas As recommended but allow child car facilities as a conditional use. The Planning Commission requested that their individual comments be forwarded to the City Council. Attached are written comments from commissioners Roalman, Kourakis, and Schmidt. The minutes of the August 10 and 24 meetings are attached as Exhibit C. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission is concerned about the conversion of agricultural land outside the urban reserve. The commission clearly supports the creation of a clear urban boundary in the Edna Valley, a green belt and open area separating communities, and the adoption of some form of agreement between the city and the county to achieve these objectives. In recent months the county has received applications for the conversion of agricultural lands near the Davenport Hills and a proposed clustered housing projects in the Davenport Hills and south of Islay Hill on Orcutt Road. In addition, owners of agricultural areas south of Buckley Road fronting Highway 227 have requested that their holdings be designated for Industrial use. The pressure for these conversions will continue. (See attached map -- Exhibit D -- for locations.) AA lllN�l�ul�lll��� II v' o san MEETING DATE: Main city tins os�spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: Page 3 -- Airport Area Concept Plan A specific plan for the airport area should include a commitment by both the city and the county. The city should support and accommodate phased development of the airport area as services become available. The county should preserve the rural character of areas beyond the urban reserve. We believe that the planning effort in the airport area will only be successful if both agencies are willing to make these commitments. In a separate memorandum to the council, staff has suggested that the city and county develop a Memorandum of Understanding that would support the preservation of open areas and agricultural areas beyond the urban reserve. There may be other mechanisms for achieving this objective that city and county staff should explore. Also, the City Council has authorized the hiring of a long-range planner to work on open space preservation and parks development programs. The contract planner will begin work by October. Working on establishing a green belt surrounding the city and retaining rural areas between cities is part of this new planner's work program. Staff suggests that the City Council's recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the airport area concept plan include the following: 1. The county should not authorize the processing of LUE/LUO Amendments or approve other applications that lead to the conversion of agriculture lands outside the specific plan area until the LUE/LUO for the San Luis Obispo area is updated. 2. The city and county should jointly explore ways of ensuring that urban development is directed toward areas within the city's urban reserve and that areas beyond the urban reserve are preserved as open space and agriculture. This work might include the joint adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding or some other mechanism that achieves this planning objective. 3. As part of the update of the county LUE/LUO of the San Luis Obispo area, the county should work with the city to develop land use standards for areas beyond the city's urban reserve that preserve agricultural lands and open space. 4. The city will work with the county to establish a "greenway" program surrounding the community. IMPORTANT NEXT STEPS At the public hearing on September 20, 1988, the council should formulate recommendations concerning the planning and future use of the airport area. The council's recommendations should: 1. Suggest 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 B 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. III�IyIII�IIIIIII�I Mani 2110ty MEETING DATE: Or Jan WI S OB)SPO ITEM NUMBER: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Planning Commission Comments (August 10, 1988) Exhibit B: "Major Issues Report" Exhibit C: Planning Commission Draft Minutes Exhibit D: Map of LUE activates in the Edna Fringe Area city 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 August 19, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM Janet Kourakis SUBJECT: Comments on Airport Area Specific Plan 1. Need a regional land use map (and perhaps zoning) showing the airport area proposal within a municipal and regional context. The map should include the City of San Luis Obispo and extend beyond Country Club. 2. D. Commercial Retail, pg. 1-17. 'Upon annexation to the city and/or the provision of municipal services." Omit from *and/or to end of sentence. Although there are a few instances where the city has provided services in the past, there seems no good reason to change city policy. Also, the statement seems to contradict 5.B. Services, B. 'Upon annexation, the city...will provide...services." Also, conflicts with urban-rural intensity paragraph 3, Section 1.4., pg. 1-15. 3. H.2. Propose this read "Airport Area Specific Plan will only foster development that is compatible with existing and currently adopted airport plans. 4. Insert after Land Use Principles H. Public Facilities, pg. 1-18. I. Town-country boundary. The city and the county shall agree that the southerly boundary of the Planning Area shall mark the urban, rural boundary between city and county development. Urban intensity uses shall be limited to the city and rural intensity uses shall be in the county... Or 1. Town-Country Boundary. The city and county shall agree to jointly plan a regional open space and greenways system providing a well-defined urban-rural boundary with.. the Edna Valley area. Such an open space greenways system should consider thiee: protection of agricultural lands. 5. I have hesitations about Community Service Districts. Past history has shown that these single purpose districts often run on their own track and the benefits of considering city need's comprehensively are lost. I suggest the possibility exists of creating small districts that will resist future annexation but may feed off of costly municipal development (such as roads), while creating significant problems (such as ground water contamination by septic tanks). Is there a way of insuring the phasing out of these districts by replacing their services with municipal services? PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Comments on Airport Plan Richard Schmidt Aug. 12, 1988 The proposed plan seems to solve no problems of urban sprawl , but only to rationalize mistakes that have been made and continue to be made . It compounds those mistakes by rationalizing that it is all right and even desirable to convert to urban uses the remaining prime row crop agricultural land, which given the unique combination of climate and soil is among the most productive land in the world. Furthermore , there is no reasonable assurance , even with appropriate verbiage added to the present proposal , that the plan will do anything more than extend the outer boundary of urban sprawl into land that is still rural . The city the plan envisions is a sprawling mass of automobile traffic , noise , congestion , air pollution , and uglification . To call it an enlightened planning tool is to invent new meanings for old words. If we had a Board of Supervisors whose vocabulary included the word 'no, ' we might be able to control sprawl with their assistance . However , we don' t . Therefore , if we are serious about controlling urban sprawl , we must act alone . There is a simple way to do it on our own : to annex the entire area to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space . That is the Airport Plan this commissioner supports. August 24, 1988 TO: The San Luis Obispo City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Bill Roalman, Planning Commissioner RE: Airport Area Specific Plan After having reviewed the "Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan", I have the following comments: 1) I'm concerned that city annexation of the airport area will encourage even greater urban sprawl out Edna Valley. What will prevent the sprawl from extending past Price Canyon Road? 2) The city needs to look closely at how the County Board of Supervisors has been voting on proposed land use changes / lot splits in the area south of the airport area. During the past few years, have they been allowing lot splits outside the airport area to landowners anticipating airport area annexation? 3) Only a small portion of the airport area's prime agricultural land (class I and II) has been designated for agriculture. Instead, most of prime land has been slated for service commercial use. This needs to be reconsidered. Prime ag land is a resource that needs to be protected for future generations. 4) The proposed land use concept designates 614 acres for Commercial and Business Park use. What kind of employment will these land uses ultimately generate? Where will these new employees live? Will the high cost of housing in SLO be affordable to these potential new employees? My concern is that the city will be forced to annex additional land outside the airport area in order to accommodate the future employees of airport area expansion. This issue needs to be looked at more closely. 5) The whole issue of water supply for the area needs to be addressed in much greater detail. Why are we considering a major annexation when we haven't enough water to service the exisitng demand? t030 Department of Planning and Building -- San Luis Obispo County County Government Center San Luis Obispo California 93408 (805)549-5600 Paul C.Crawford,AICP Director JULY 159 1988 TO: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: SAN LIIIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PIAN TEAM SUBJECT: MAJOR ISSUES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED _ CONCEPT LAND USE PIAN FOR PHASE ONE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY 1 This report was requested by the county Planning Commigsion 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 :.V 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, April 1988, (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 /- g 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 are 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 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 systems? 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? S. How will full development within the plan affect the local and regional jobs-housing balance? SECTION III: MAJOR ISSUES READY FOR PRELIMINARY 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 EIR 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. Recuests to chance land use categories shown in the concept land use an. A. Damon/Garcia Ranch property. B. Strasbaugh Property. C. Cook, et al Business Park. 2. ENRansion of the specific plan boundary. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 198,. 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 maior 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 AARProximate Acreages of Existing and Proposed Land Use Categories for the Damon/Garcia Ranch Property (APN 76-391-04 & 05) Category Present LUE RASP Owners Proposal Open Space (OS) -0- 57 ac 8 Agriculture (Ag) 73 ac -0- 49 ac Recreation (Rec) -0- 74 4 Residential Rural (RR) 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 potential elsewhere on the ranch. /-13 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 & 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) . AN SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 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: Do not increase residential City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 City Recommendation: B. Strasbaugh property. (APN 76-061-046; see correspondence items 1A7, 4, 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. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 150 198e RE: Major Issues Page 9 Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 1 County Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 1 City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2 . City Recommendation: C. Cook, et al. Business Park. (See correspondence items lA3a, 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 Farm 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 integration 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. No 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: Alternative 2 City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2 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 at this time appears premature. /-17 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: Alternative 2, for commercial/industria, City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 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 ever- close enough for them to walk or ride a bicycle. /_/ SLO 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 AASP, 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 AASP 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. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 19, 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: Alternatives 4, 5, and 7; place residential farther away from airport City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. 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? /�v 0 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. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 198.. 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: No position City Planning Commission Recommendation: support Alternative 3 as amended to read, "Permit community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be established to serve rural commercial development, but only if operated by public entities and only if phased out upon annexation or when a new city water source is available. " 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. /r0 In sum, these properties within the interior of the specific plan 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: No position City Planning Commission Recommendation: support Alternative 1 as amended to read, "Change the concept land use plan to designate all undeveloped or vacant Class I or II soils as agriculture. " 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 in 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 is 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. /-cA3 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 19£ RE: Major Issues Page li 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: Alternative 2 City Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3 City Recommendation: 7. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways. (see correspondence its nos. Al, 1B11 1B21 1D, 1G, 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 SLO 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: No position City Planning commission Recommendation: Alternative 2 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 & 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 & 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? f_a 600� SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 198, 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" in BP areas. 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 r 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 team 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 Rec, 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. F. "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 areas. 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 airport. SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 196 RE: Major Issues Page 21 Alternatives: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Planning Team Recommendation: yes yes no yes yes no yes yes County Planning Commission Recommendation: Airport Land Use Commission Recommendation: (Yes, if consistent with new ALUP) City Planning Commission Recommendation: support planning team's recommendation except for item "B: " churches with day care facilities should be allowed in BP areas as "conditional" uses. 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 S. 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. 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-H, and 2-I. 1. (RRM 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. (RRM 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. 8G. 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, 198#. 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 AASP 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. lA. 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.) /-30 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 1988 RE: Major Issues Page 24 6. Rob Strong, A.I.C.P. , The Planning Mill, April 27, 1988: Mr. Strong requests that the 20-acre parcel on Buckley Road (same parcel as cited in correspondence item no. 4) be redesignated in the 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 Prayer, 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. S. Mike Sparrow, Assistant Pastor, Agape Christian Fellowship. May 19, 1988: 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. 11. Bert E. Forbes, Ziatech Corporation, 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 or BP development not be limited, in order to keep the price of such land down. The planning team does not agree with this request. The discussion in major issue no. 1 seems to address this issue adequately. 1-31 SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 15, 19£ RE: Major Issues Page 2z 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 EIR to determine how they may be relevant to the plan. At this time, no changes to the concept land use plan appear to be call 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 /-3- , SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan July 150 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 R RM DESIGN GROUP May 4, 1988 Mr. Paul Crawford, Planning Director County of San Luis Obispo MAY 4 - 1988 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 S.L.G. COUNTY Re: Airport Area Specific Plan ;:4.^,�;NNG 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 Plan 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. wit,5..u6 I liwv }kn-m�n l ur,()Wl . - 1-3 q Correspondence item 1: // 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 20% 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 'intentthat 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 commerciaa 7. The concern is that this agricultural designation not become a defacto open space zone. 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 and 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. Correspondence item le 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. S. 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 subject 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. 5. 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. '.l 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 G -- 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 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 su port urban commercial and urban residential uses (see definitions within the Specific Plan area". Correspondence item 1: 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 GROUP Victor M ery .A. Chie a tive 0 fi er nclosu cc: Mr n lbanks Mr a Multari V5/JW-Crawford / 42� R R M o E s I C N C R n u r 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). Correspondence item 1 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). iV 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 01 • Principle D1 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? Corresnondence item Dana Lilley Page 3 March 24, 1988 Principle El : 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 Gl : 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. V 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 i 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 a]low. for a greater amount of acreage that is not subject to the special design standard ��3 b limitations. (See comment on Principle C2 above). Correspondence item 1: 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. 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, . jESIGN GROUP i B. Nilbanks President ing Division /—q3 cc: Y. Montgomery M. Multari Technical Review Committee Members .e.,.. . .nr. ----.----A........ ire.. 1 100 Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo , Ca. 93401 May 10,1988 Paul Crawford, Planning Director �ir"i1. Planning Department �-' C_- County County Government Center San Luis Obispo , Ca. 934+08MAY 5 .988 RF.: Avila Family Santa Fe Ranch A.P.N. 76-361-03 S.L . � ;;;�•JTr ;: . 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 the final arbiters of its future unless controvening action is taken by the government and/ og_itg agencies. Since it may be too late to redress the deletereoIIsness, 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 neigh ors to the north. Coupled with the above, we believe that there is adequate 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 northerly 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 lots to the north. We are willing to wait until an interest develops in the other Lots 19,22, and 28 and an appropriate develovment 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(Reason: We would like the Urban Reserve Line be returned to its former position. Correspondence item 2: I Manuel F. Avila, Jr and 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` 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 189239and 27 of the Santa Fe Ranch be zoned Industrial Rural and the parcel size be of the equivalent as the neighbors to the north. We further request 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, // % A- Man F. ',.V& Jr. tr •ct1_-.� ank Avila Managing Partners Enclosures: A,B,C and attachments thereto. Correspondence item 2: Nnnnal F_ Avila_ Jr ani Enclosure _ Union Oil Spill of 1926 and comments of subsequent flooding since then. 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 some 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 from' 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 much water was shed from the covered reservoirs, the valve was closed and later reorened to release this water. Later, as the property was developed along Tank Farm Road and Frado 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 1960's, Frank Avila talked to County Senior Engineer Campbell about the worsen 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 onthe 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 nut in �o 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 thecosts. 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 re.%6nded 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— meat increases its impact on the farming, value of the land decrease, dueito factors. beyond our control. This fact increases the desir- of the family to find alternate uses than agriculture and receivk a better return from the Ranch. v Y correspondence item 2: M Manuel F. Avila, Jr and 1 1 j � fir if /.e74i L iox _ ( .�. _ . . `• —t• ' �C/ L4. �t •ii�e�9a•�9 i I ' ; I I li i . I 1 rt � ^ ll • � -� ! � evil•/I'9L�«al�Q�J ' 1 • Correspondence item 2: F- Avi 1 s r_ _-..3 ' t n r 0 m • c . n O . ' zY - Y • COUNTY ROTO NO !• vi oto OOVrm /]l0 m • N • h w f/ o N r cr ^ f~1 • L O � n M O N - N'•O , /w N ro p Q r s T 0 o N I ► N I ► � f1 I T N r = W R n � .. w n r / O P .: O N •y •. �Cc�•s� / 1: a v I _ N a o N w Ulm •,� C N ; N O o A r • Z w A Y No w � • r c z • ►C ZO O I • > { � v oCI C A i 9 A N � O T mvssrx v s a• f HOZ vu it Ci e vi :.. Z p Correspondence item 2: .r Manuel F. Avila, Jr and 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 934 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 net with Supervisor Kupper to discuss this problem. Mr. Kupper 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. Correspondence item 2: .N Manuel F. Avila. Jr and -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, Frank Avila has s-3oken, using wordslo 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 was 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 %9A-.a good well, . but not artesian% 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 fames. To this list is added, the more recent development of the Kaiser Sand and Gravel Company with the effluent from its trucks and manufacturing process to the other 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 development. We request that the Correspondence item 2: r Manuel F. Avila, Jr and -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 Vachell Daae 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 geaeral 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. S Frank Avila � Managing partners enclosure A .and attachments thereto cc: Board of Supervisors County Engineer Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila_ Jr and Cll. / -. . ...-. �os�r. li: ..vilI ' rust;12 t -nue1 F. :_vi la Jr ?r-r_l: �vilo ,Trustees f:ay 30,1979 -- — San Luis Obispo County Planning Department _ Courthouse Annex San Luis Obisno,Ca.°3401 Dear Director: We own Tax Assessors Parcel 76-3$1-03 which lies between } Buckley Road and Suburban Road. This parcel is in the San Luis Obispo Element of your Land Use CrnteCories(1977) presently under -consideration by the department for study ,planning and recommendation to The Commission and The Board . tRecently,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 must for the various beneficiaries (ourfami W) without our providing inputs to the governmental organizations doincr the planning-. This could be considered a dereJietion of Trust on our part; Whereupon we obtained a coni of your Preliminary Discussion Draft of. the Land Use clement of tl,e San Luis Obispo Planning lrea,some mi r.-s of tl Area, and minutes of the Board of Supervisors meetings relative to zoning.We studied these materials and arrived at conclusions on what we considered to be the best use o` this r•arcel of land. Back-round:Our father purchased this prresl of lani along Bucgley Bbad in 1411 from Stanford University. Since then . various meabers of the family have farmed portions or all the property with varying der-rees of succes. Intimate contact with the soil and the attendant elemental forces imnineRing upon it during the past years have provided an enduring and specialized knewledre t'-at is inva)u-ble(in an.7 decision- mikinr: incident to develorvert of .?ren. .ie hive 'iso ac^.!tired erre rience Correspondence item Z: Manuel F. Avila. Jr and PPERepcctensive contacts and in rost ins t-.nces,cooperation with neighboring a*Viti'es in resolving problems resulting from adjacent development. rxsmnles are :, (1) Union Oils fire and flooding- from t`+e burning. oil in the 1920's-Union then b,--ilt dikes and installed f6cdgates to cont--in and gond oil nd .. ter;. (2)Gouthern F•• cific t:illin- Comzrzn- r_ot. =tch Plant emission of noxious Eases which dana`ed adjoinin6 crops and soils-lessened production and reduction of gases ; (3)Drainage from S.P. PSilling Co and t*te Electric Motor -orks despoiling rand and crops=rsrtial Tesolution rafter discussion with City (:er. Romero) Rnd Count; C-r. Campbell) engineerson ronding of water,us=sce of eXistinc drainage system and, in the future , a sharing of the maintenance expense (we presently maintain it). This background knowledge encourages us to make the following . recommendation. :That the Parcel # 76-361-03 (see Enclosure) between Suburban Road. and Buckley goad shouldbe designated Industrial (Rural) for the following reasons : Intecrity of Drainage Area,direction of wind (downwind from pollutants, stability of soil, low percentage of sloze, adequacy of water (600 gal./min.well),access to roads,proximity to .services' as well as emvloyees and customers,Buckley 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 socia-economic environment justifies it, we consider that this is the best designation for its use. We realize .that you have a busy schedule with much work in progress 'ind understand some of its coarlexity,however pre request that you keep us informed of your .zction upon the recommendation. Farther , please make this letter part of the record on vl3nninr- for the rroperty. lincerel:r yours, S Manuel F. Lvils Jor :. ate- .f Josenhind ':.. Correspondence item 2: v......et r A-41- �_ __ • •`.""_b .J/ •�!p....� ..,fid, . 1 . v 1' - 33 V Nv5 >t M H332 eo Q3D C3 cn o d O a ID- I p Gs. V N :s .'(-� i4,�= � = tD :''mss\••.. -- i+ .' :- �. ....:.:.-• , •'-LCL.. =� .•��` ... f.•-4• .. in Cr w 0 Oki fn 4D to Z I%—rte h y -.•• u..unr► uq.rrnrrrf - - .r_�. -. v ...... .......~ .. •v N y°• CO .......... _ CD qT 0 in a JJJ �� 'r,�?; Q / O '.gin,••. - - l� ry\ . � .�'• .. �•- •s. ��•z:: in Q is Q � �, `� . . `:Q�• :.� • O C\l N s t f' •a• ti\. O a } "f LLA CM in Pq .It !/�l� N u7 N N Q Q Q to t N \:::•• _: _ ..CD 0011 co a. / (P .doww" 010eja ._ - _ (/ �� li -r-•� .: '.'• :•ate.. ru Correspondence item 2: / ! Manuel F. Avila Jr and - -' COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION .�,Q '�-� - WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM For your convenience, this form may be used to submit written testimony to the Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors as part of the public hearing pro- cess on the Land Use Element/Land Use Ordinance. When you have completed this form, the planning staff will zeros copies and furnish them to each Planning 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 ,Man„Pt F *.ila J--.Tzusi;Pe HAILING ADDRESS: 100 Grand dvenue,San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401! LOCATION OF PARCEL BEING DISCUSSED:Between Buckley Road and Suburban Road,South of San Luis Obispo ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MMM (if ]mown) 76-3611-03 C0i24ff1'ITS: We have owned Tax AssPssnr's Pare PT #2A_3(;r_03 Sir,cP 1911-Tn the past this area ( ucklPv Rnad to and ahn»t 4'„h„,+han Road) has had a mixtnrP of ni=l nit„ra And indust v i-h the latter hemming- mnrP Q rPyalPnt in rPront XPnrc _ Acg-01•o+.•1ti'�yy tug--past two vPars)_ThP dPVPTrmmPnt of C„h+,,.b�”P02A 1,124 had an impart nn 1-hi,; narnal ci nrrP j+-, 4e h.;r,]�+rrl na sbbor to mmah ev that industry. and is effected to a greater or lesser Pxtent by the pollution generated thereon. Similiarity of tMpoCraphX.wind direction,minimal slope of land . access to roads,nroximity tm = services .supply of groundwater.climate-al I stprnrt a similiar hand Use Designation to that about Suburban Rnad(Tndnstrial R„rara Buckley Road acts as a good boundary wh _r - drninagA can hp Planned and directed into appropriate channels- We feel that the Plannins Staff svmrVthiz _d4WS1ch a view as was recently illustrated by the fellnwing Pxampla- ThP T.AnA ttsp \ (Continue on the rear of the page if necessary). 4 Co of �d FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DALE RECEIVED• PLANNUG AREA: RESPONSE: "=- Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila. Jr anc Coat'd Elements' Preliminary Discussion Draft showed part of this parcel. being included is the Industrial Rural designation and behind . the Urban Reserve Line. 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 recommendations and comments an asking that these be made part of the record of these hen rings. We continue in our Ilecommnendation .that this parcel be designated Industrial Rural since it meets the criteria established ';: in the Land Use Booklets. Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila. Jr and Planmn g D ep artnl.ent 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 Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr and PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE LAND USE ELEMENT & LAND USE ORDINANCE Y L. Orr T+.•n w .-rr arw✓.!.w F duOl"Ta 8N 09"OQ46 Cryo .fr rr rlwl F hrla rb••r•W r .YY Ts.• s.YT Yr•.ti f..�..w r.w •ren ••+ r . R•••• • ryr'r r w w w lbw r w Yr a•r- ••w�rr+sw ri•:•rYv wY.r.T.�i..riaYw�~irq w •re r.••wr w F .-w.a rwr ..- Lr rr L«r- w•r ff.Iw Y r rwrr 4.r+wf.Yra •rr F rr�r .e-Tf« rl•r rnr.rlr Y•ra w.ww,Ca�.rl.. .rr.._ Twrf ti..l. ra N w-+r•.w r ar«•wwwrt wp•Yia Tr 4.440 WIw N ts., r r r .w�.• r ./r.r...I Y1Yi•• .• F irYIT rrYrY r Y•••-��•Yw ww.ftrr.r a r ar.rYr.F r••T.rr.Y•11.0'•/'WM1.•• w •T F ••rMM• tYrf. w ars •••�. Tw,wavy w Yr llw..(1r 1. Lw r rYMrq M M• .•r-..I •.� F t.rT wI. . ra• W Orr•.r.. (uol. r arwYYYr YV. •�. (fr1 verve r rr.`r r•w.wr4 fTalPwfaL TAY.4 r.rT fr.w w wrr'r r r w •r.rl r w...•-rw,f r r...vr F rwrrwr wvr. NOW ARE THE HEARINGS ORGANIZED 7 IIf041a 400 f4faACE aA[WLWO IWIr 1V .aYr,. .N .•.r rp N w.ti• .LI•fr.•f Ir WHAT ARE THE WE AND LYO) C-.a' Lr r arrrrr aww4 OF ....-r •w.. V w.M. . ww I..w�a.rr•r wr..kv. . wu.—. NrYrr frw. w rw « ...rr: •rr. Tr w YY Or.raa.r tr/•f.:rrY..fr.f.sa.�.. 11Y w YY lrw w L« Yr O.Yw• w ave•. l.rlrf i a/Y• r I.MrI F rrir �Ir♦ swlT• .rr rr.w-• .. w ......T 4..r f.a., rr. r rO fNrw Fera 400-0 .• rr ar. war. trove,, Odie wYT r rr w warA4N MIR fg,YNltl r..rw rrwru. . TNN C..Oa • Sw Cr.4iY.rw 00.00 It.. Tr awwAY.wwk. f F rw w M F.•arT..ver • taw CurfW fr.rr aTr Maw. w fTawY} TM .vel. arri-, ver r..r /.. LArO 034 aL4r4N1 • ar 4.•r•Car ftw .O w w eryq.•••I.rN au..fr rwr r F r:w • A.WN w r•r Irrtr I.r• lFrrL .•Y rdr• r F Afw-r� rn••Fa•rY fHtrs. T>r w Yr fwr.. r F.Cw.-r fLw r ^w w • Cw M LW C.Pr •.w serf r•rTw r Ir•ra•• .f.f.. .-•wr. w••p r•- rrai. trw.a.ralr«. w .w tw. w frr�r AYP• • a..rr N frY/r f.w •ver. •w. ave.. r art r M a•afrl+w •rY w .• w .r-rr. r ri• rr w.wnq r • Trrsr rr aver ww fw•w r rwlL f.r.f.Mrr.w r W..•r. r-r w r«.r u4.w. ..a r..•rw rr+....r w f.wrr 0000 Crrr fr w••«Fwr�..f. - .LrIW Yw vYr IoM • Cara Cwrr ww LAOS ME 440.rANQ 4f•arf r 4r.....w.yr:.. w A.:aa.ir f:r.Ia-AP rr./A•S.Cr.�r ave r C�wir Aw.-. lar.•Y.r wf w..e i F T..rwir Ilrr:•.rlyr Ori rw�r ww • Ta.�r 4rw,.i rr aW.+r M Lr Wf OrV[- ar.:1 fif�T w Yw.•rffr r wY•.rwe.. re r r F.iw Y F w Yw Lr.w. T1ri. i w•�.• Tr fwr•.,f V rw ar�•r w•IITY�: w warrrrer N rfrw I.r F rr w Yw Lor.-Vtwa TIr•w uY IY•!•f rr FiswY ver rw rY.r r Yr tY�.rr rYw i �.•. rww. rY I�s•I itra un Wwr awwlr... .rw r rrTw r•�./r.•. • d4 lrlrw Tfsrt ar �•rr w:r-ItaYwr fi.••••S-• • fwal.,.4004 TP•rE.Itw r 4Nr, w F lw Y.• fFWYrr ••PM Nw a-rr,. • Cwrr aY.r(raa SOI S•-FIr hr rrr Or Lw wriw rlrrf .44000 S•.rNr I lY t«Yr aY+•L rWw. r y ar..: w Iver. • Lr.4.drrr Fwr{!Prat ww •r•a'! F w Yr __ rr w ar Yr lfr-wa 4 r7.w wwy.L r F.w.rr.. T.I•rr.Or IIw • A•4•Vr r LFdr I.w art• •r F WV r LrafMrT. TIY w W.Yrnrs• frrr�r r wY.lr.r•Yw a•Y. �7 w w ialWtrrT ••YL O•Y wwrr IF i trY Yf• NOW WILL THE FLAN AND ORDINANCE AFFECT TME w .tar w r •+-•--r•� tr .... Ow war Ia COUNTY T' EAr441WJA MP&CT 49•44T wrrt. ave aw.�..... •-lAw:w.r r r:.i..rr .•w r F arrT. Taa ar •w NM rN Ota w Nw•._. _ _ FT rr•wr.:.L Vrr:+i rr aP+w .. ati LANG,ASL A4Ar4rCE •rrr W rwwr r w 00.00 r a_wYlr r a.rN• a•�a Y.Irlrsr trafa raw.r.tw attar.•r rs- • •Parr. Le iY7 r ✓• •wrrrq r w w.eArr Y r.rw rrYlfr w Lw 110 Dwr.w Girw a+nt... To. w Nr b•:••e ..Y Ilr.rw r awewrw r rw r w rfer i r eA.lr,fwW ra.A r A.�..ver .A.;Ae s .a.ww L.am w w r.+rlrY. r•�srJe i t.N•er. Awrrrl w rSlr rrtw•fft eNr( s 0000 r w TF.w�4 rwlw. w r w. Tr.r rwrw o-e.,r 004.0 r rr Lrlw r F•wti r erq IwIrN r•r 0040.• a anrir. ave .. F wrrw ..w1 r T!w ff•r.w< w • r� w r w r r.rrr w rY.w rw r r•w.. r w.rrr r.w-.Y.a w rY+ .�..r N Nwr. orw..w.....ay.r w.•r.r r, r r rO.4rw w r.•r r M wrw�r w eNwfr V Ar w•ftra.w►r rw NW•I.-•a w ICK•LAANONO SeAS Wky 15 THERE A NEED FOR A NEW LAND YSE .r.�. Starr, w tr t~.1 rwr4r•F wrrtq C.___. 2 FLAIL AND ORDINANCE T WHO AT TME PONFWGS OSE OF THE NIM �a•r •rte re. •.ao.Nr.t.T wa s•..w r w amt rnm.•N..w wd" Yr• r•-tits r swi•r.w•.^r•r rr. Tr b..*W 010th! Wrr w .NFNNriTr r Pw.s �r r�r� ffrlrr rr r waiver r r r F ...a r rwr. Tr fr r w.•..T r Nr r r Lr L.r 00007 a w fft N or•.•.rw w w S.Warr Lrr w •r ra iAa NI.r ver NAf w f4w r rw tar fir. oa..r w S.fr FI•r,r +. ver Lsr.arw fTrr.,Ar frrrw i r w r F ave ar.w. Lw fa• Oabwr r w EwYrr+r tia ti.+ TA.lyr M•0140 f1lw r.w Imo, •eA.Mf. If R.fra. .ver•air♦ r .rwfrr; verve r rwr• awaw, w!r4 r Nr tYwlr.T.M r rltlA.Na!ala_ YrY. w Cwr•i i rw rr�•Yw.t r w S.rw r •y TrYrl. LA•MTaO 4SLONAmsf..w+w w w Ir.r /rw Y.a O r w LLr.Na Tr Eve r•Tr SO rrNlr rfr r.w.r+:.rrt ArrT WHERE TO GET MORE INFORMATION Tw..Y,.r r o..a vert r.r...rN.r r F aver r r•'r"+'rowlF w� 4...r. r+Y w....•• w w r r•w.tr.• w.wY} Cr r F mfr w Yr Lrrrr_ Lw Yr era• Tr•rr w w F w.rr..:...a r w r.r,..w NI R LIl�ART 10 ATTLIO THE MEANINGS T _ re r Offae f..&N bgpF A.wO4 w rrtf•I. a • NIL. "MON r M rLY'•.. r 40.040 aw.rirb vert�.►.wT twat Com•w r•01001•r Fr•- ..s r rr.-ia.•.4fr, ver aarf� r ar.11w� w vett r..Nr..N w aTfow r ryrr w L••r r■ rrr...r Nr F.swA www• N•aw�... r.....'. •w L.r w Lwr Y••Lira Fr•IC rfd r MAl W Srw r ..a T4N.wr•. •.r...4 r wrrrr aFrw r.•w w Nrr rr•.N.w r,rr.a F•.r.-r. A•a.r.air f.f. er.._ Yn•rY.�•Alrw w rr..a.r� r qw• w.ver rw.iY r r S.Lr.Wra COw O rtrra CrwtNrf F.w.r w u.. Ors. r.erq •.rYAYrr r�iw• eh LY{/LW>oO f�� a.- ra.r w L.frNf.r w Fw.fr�,r wo MEN Nr.a Lr r r.ver wa,r fr F.••..Iiw. ave Law Ww<V. O� -a 'GENERAL HEARINGS PLANNING AREA HEARINGS FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING. ESTERO SAN LULS SAY SAN LUIS OBISPO. f.0: LAND USE ORDINANCE, rw a Oft a•S Lr•a-•m HUA-SNA/LOPEZ PADRES & LAS PILITA: DRAFT EI R NOL».'VRfYY 4000•LAS 0208 AN.Ns. MOM&.TaMI 6-90" r4CN IS A tL t .E:N r-S f.• IS NNNtl AVL a LOwfr SaT;WO-LOS OL0 FINw WETS atm W 4.P w von . AA44e a TwPf4wSONS CrrrElw NORTH COAST f�a�STOUT$ � ■��ea.MM A.L. CCY4TWOKU.tai.PALO STOUT w4p;ITR a-S A••-f ALuffs Lor LIwA Panto C..AN14 WETS atm ADELAIDA NACIMIENTO SAUNAS RIVER ....ar.•e.rAr 4P4gtLN .N-sr Swnaa.n .a-af!•a-LFV. SHANDON-CARRIZO Jt 00440 w NI^■^Lee a..MINuS ATASCAOUM VETS GLAG- EL POMAR/ESTRELEA eelr4�«�..IN STOUT iTASCA1A~EAe LAST r4 Mon .TAWA oa4�e,O.RSVIE A.ANOELars SOUTH COWYTY "raw, FEArf44T;Ttw 640 Late AWS,ATAACIgAe Smog,;"w.a-S M a a.r r! DIM"4. TT-CAL wCaErawV Boom Y SLOIL W-6OMIaO OOfNTT atrr •N6<afSSOIN � UT ft" f f�11 w awnrw r w Trr 4.wwL4.w oTNNi�Cr.Wwlw arw•rtw of awraN r rwiw w w.N�Ifr.•r . Fr••w f4r1.rNwrrlT.4 r r Srrl r EIw.4.NN. fa•a i t ww r w Frye. r ar.a fNw w r w r . frw•r.•.rY. 1...w.Lr•r r tr•r fwra Nr•ar SL ti ot;A:N SAL r•Ir•r w N•wN r Snaww OrrP•. wwrr Ar•r.frr Sri r Lw Arae Nw;s r;TNN,Ns•a r•Fs r r sw Lr LlrNr trwafW Afrrr. nw.Sr...CI..N Sr..w.s•L.44 SATAN fK Aro;N;Sra Ss r a�+N F Aw.4 r 7wl�w•aTrr.r,ow...r � 4Nr.frf•sa ave Lw elra 7 sa Correspondence item 2: Manuel F. Avila, Jr and cr��T. Lf. 4..4T 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 the- 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 eliminate 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 is 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: w . Manuel F. Avila, Jr and 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 _is _yr•,... 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 I Correspondence item 3: 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 DD on®eopmm®n9 3©mn06®a-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 Pian Study Area could be evaluated and a fair share of the cost of the EIA 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 1 -1 Correspondence item 3: 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 Concept 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: Land 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 7.9 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 forthe 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 Line 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. —6k/_ There would be no direct access from Prado Road or Broad Street for �Y`5 1 -3 Correspondence item 3: ...._......- - --- W_.. .............�._........__ ___......._.__ _................. ....__... _... _...... 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 Prido 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 1040 1 -4 Correspondence item TerrySimons ..............I.........r........... .r_.u:yJUJY./.µle..rinr:wrLY.wYYYYY:u:JIYwMYV1Y�YY.rYu.:ti ..:...:ti.1.l::JYY.:YYYIM.mYMYIYMYU VYYrIYJ.p11.1V-�•.r:. ._...r 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. AASP. 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 Extension' 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 1 -5 Correspondence item 3 Terry Simons 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 Dismal 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: If 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� 1 -6 Correspondence item 3: 1 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 1 -7 Correspondence item 3: Ter,-,. c i m.,.,a 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: Terry Simons ..rrr.r.4vr4r.r.rr4Y.WLrr.r.1.".4rMYY'MY\YYWWAYti4Yr.r.Yr.wvrourWuu.u.r.rYrru�.rY.rw.ryyYY.lu..uu.wY.u.4rr+.r..4r_u .rr..n .r.r.�r.r.�..ru. ......urr.w.rrr wrwwrV\ 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 RASP. - 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 o! the allowable building coverage within each Business park or Commercial Visitor-Serving area. / / 1 _9 Correspondence item 3: TPrry 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 Management 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 1-13 above. 4. Land Use Principes 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 bellaween residential and open space areas shall be established by the Master Development Plan for this area. - The limit on development should be 30 percent to be consistent with existing City and County e-7 .-7 7- 1 -10 Correspondence item 3: 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 Saace Areas: - This section as written is not acceptable for designation of areas within the Ranch Plan except in some portions of the floodways. 5. Services _ 1 Correspondence item 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 RASP, 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 Programs: -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 Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons I� L^ 1 rm 6 A to SAN LUIS O OB19PO COUNTY KERN AM tat ON@" COUNTY • 'Fa PROJECT SITE y A MAMA •...� C4, O iC 1 BANTA BARBARA COUNTY 1 1 l VENTURA COUNTY SANTA SARGAAA 1 1 VENTURA oc•f�� o 0 1 NORTH Vicinity Map FIGURE DAMON/GARCIA RANCH -SPECIFIC PLAN 1 Planning J) Correspondence item 3 Tomo SImnne ili •ytinr / �•, I Ifw'/� :1ti 'l 1`�l1 � r..y�`�'\\':11�' �. .�1 1� ��. t :i. 1 . .'�• �.P•�• •y'V'IS+I�si�• ,�1''.•' • �'_ ;_•:���!'.i;•��I /Irl .�' 'i- �-� , - • • .CfrT��•r ��};YI•�,( /t+11 �I~� �•:..•-�� .y �t �� �( I r BW l.. .���� '` '�•� ill,Ir'� I� +�a.'-. '' • �3S � .�M I r'T /��. ., �,; M ••;cam:.- 11:1:.. F-!._.. g�• --�•' � r o Il � ? f• s NORTH AASP area topo FIGURE DAMON/GARCIA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2 _ Planning 740 Correspondence item 3: Terry Simons At- sp ly MEN :-tzFs 14, fs-I I =�i}�•�;V.�•'�k \ 4 -,�.L - :•. 7%'."n \r r-: ��- d ::..r,:r.r.iv-Y. I' M'+ f' :..- t '�.''i.- 'F'1r�. � • .r. i Ty K_, rr' .<. r i_..^.x ..T..y.l:_�..�ta.=r•- .+ftnV'.. r.�y�"Sv� +i.•"!'�y'JC�fT.`�..'_.t�'_4—Ys�7'46�St:t a'�'i_ . .r ti �ti L MR, / III N acti.."�• e!' `\':�.�'kX \ \�\�\. s�`, � _ --_ IIIA I• I �.. I�t'�-•yr—�,„i} s.. CC I ,f1�7F K � 1 �(�iil (•F 1. f�� •� r .I M. r 5 t a:'� '1 Y! �..M • -` j S ��� u- _ _ � •SII f� � �n4e1 �� � fw±2 t\�.�}�� -,.- •' :f T l:tom: _— _ VIII I6�1�1 I F G � f� -i'rl .r'� `l: ` ti 1 ` !f L 1 t � �a r ` ir . .................................... .. - �R-FPD o-5 R-Z-s D-S C •1 `-i 11 jR-2�0 M 1i R-2-P0 �\ jCJUS-40 • fir`- .....� •: �- L.!N-_.—. Q t.s -5 ,.: a z S cit �• '. 1984 conceptual planFIGURE _ , - • . DAMON/GARCIA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 5 - Planning / 79 Correspondence item 3 Terry Simons CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING 396 Sucklcy 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 on the phone, the H.A. Strasbaugh Company wishes to request a re-evaluation of the designation of APN 76-06146 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 1 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 15 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 nQ airport related problems. TckVhom(OW)3"3Z?S /— ?y Correspondence item 4: Mr. Lilly March 22, 1988 Page 2 a. It lies in Airport Land Use Category 4, that allows "Non-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 pl anned. 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. 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. 1 woula 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 aW 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, r &�_J/ gLl- Ben L. Maddalena cc: John Nilbanks, Richmond, Rossi, Montgomery Mike Multari, City of San Luis Obispo To-74 Correspondence item 4: -- i•"i �. -'O IND , e .0 '• Y `\.\ _ �N D \. PF i .IND • SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 ��►� SAN LUIS OBISPO 1p COON TT COUNTY AIRPORT #IRPORT PF ' IND LSCC12 SCC 7 — } \ SCC o SCC r -�- F \ / IND. llO+' 76-c6i- v6 T 31 R 11 IS C RS • • . .. . .• ' Z 76,74, G 7 y�/lEs • Cor KCTION V46 LEGEND •ea .•.•.e•• I.Mo.m• c,.e.,m. a�asta•.r ar A �a--a• \ � - . i.1•.�•�,/r.I/�tt �.ar .� mar.. a.•a•a.w • - as-��-•� �aar• a.•aaary a+—�r �ar + - . .� _ �_maw r���. a�wr�•a.•aa4 aY• arrr�aa•..a• •� i.�a C'1 •aa.1s•1 t3.�a+w aar aawar•w r • - .,..a,.sr�F.. r af•.• Yaarl•aa•s1 ss .-:.• � ar-a.a/l aaf•CC r..at ma •�� ar.a.�a rlaa aa• • +•rr.-si.�t.w� �. `� .. '� - of•�.r •rre•af—a•.atr. .� •aa.a—•.y L. J .• — - �� ■ �� C1T(601lfa- Y- 34 rlpl[trT oc-7owTva - u•o us CEMCI Correspondence item 4: CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING ,j- J 396 Bickley Road San Luis Obispo California 934017.1. 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 7,7f Telephone(SOS) 544-1278 I Correspondence item 4: Vic Montgomery May 2, 1988 Page 2 intend 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 Correspondence item 4: �7 -2j-rte To Who it ml7ht C nr� rn: R Proposed Sr' for Air:)net Area I own parcel. I of Co.-84-054 at 2G2 Tank ?a:.,, Toad. The .)lanne -s of the. Sc fo-r Air)'lr-' Ar-:a Or ,perty in a Business- Park (32) category . The ratioal used was "s ; _,E1 a oti-a-s li)11-----_•i11RJNCr Th. s property iG prnsen,tly in 4 owners-lps . - CIV propP.rty is or.Asently bpina developed. I nitre Permits for two buildings which, are nearin? cr:,rletion. My De:•eiopm-^t Plan has been prenared and was submitted tc the County Pl=nnir;- De_art:^ent in Nov. of 37 My rroposed uses ( Farr Suppiv, Truck Term nfl1_ Ambulance Service) are alio':%a'ble at prr; nnt, but :o"l'd b=co- e nT -.•• '7for=i _r_` urder t.henew olan.. V t.a_n 5 awe 1 =a e tEn n s I ha ebb �:� l ?t'er Of int"rt _:^.t: .^.eCO'_ , _ d 1-3ses '.rith these e t based on existing `ol'ernment reulati,"s . If the Comercial Service (CS) designation ,,/, • property it. wo:j'-' d -limina te some of �,. concF:rr.s . 1 . DevelonmPnt plans to inaude 3 other oty"-rs :could be im-)ossible 2. 10% of 30% is rediculust ' I :+ave already built more than that the of--r o:•rers certainly not be es. 3. iiy proposed uses would be cc..r.f o^irg, inCS of Table I, until you :read t a text, 4. I h^.ye already prenar-a a dpvel-npm?rt. . T^P foil0::_n are C ).^:C"rA8 an: )OsFiO_P SO_ut70^S : -t'ure 3 (D- 1 -9 ) BP category o:: r: 4 ... -r; ' _.S l.i•:t� e :,rg;ncy veh_cles in a n_ catecory (ambulance) .`., arc image i -o Cc::::-ercial :iso along Tank ?arm Pd r'•L" 1 -i 5 e1 1 Leat!) -.: words 11 with anne?Xation 11 Page 1 -16 para , 3 " shall not be det'e1_o)Pd until annexed to the Citv" add unless ;private rather titan munici^ l services are adequate Page 1 -16 C Does this cover CS also? If not add "BP " between develo_n- :3=nt and rust. 30" is Close we usually use 35.0 if only land covered is applied & not second story ?ace 1 -17 ,'Ira C/2 This text is not consistent with table I lr:r•.; al. :ng Tank Tarn Rd is alr-,�eriy invi:0 -ped for these users Arc. a -.n.ordin, to Table I the uses are allo:•:ed in CS category 'rage 1 -1E S =l••t'ice A.Does this include Urban lwo:rmercial ? If not add "R•%sider_tia" after Urban. B. Here the City says it will provide services. on ppre 1 -13 it states that the City is able to serve the study ar-a then says it is already exceeding the safe yield. ill they provide services ? If so when? D. •HPr,�- our o::n sy stens are allow-id. If ::s have olir own systPm, do not nerd City services why should we pay twice? Althea Cc • Correspondence item 5: `� Althea Cook «; THE oNE BUENA VfSTA 9 F_ PLANNING �Na69 � � 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 dre changing our development plan to propose interim use of the existing house and the north portion of this lo`_ as a continued outdoor storage area. or an dlternative 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 scbstantially wider right- of-way than the private driveways we had contemplated, and would sever a strip from the other-wise 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 —V 7 potential collector street could intersect Flighway 227 at the Industrial Way intersection rather than a separate alignment such as at Hopkins Way, the former circulation. plan concepL . ]n any event, we are completing our development plan application and understand that it will be considered on its own marits.__ without k conditions regarding possible specific plan proposals 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 particular robl being corrected at this early stage . Sincerely, Rob ong. A.. I C.P. cc : Greg Sheets Ben Madallena Alan Strausbaugh RECEIVED APR 2 7 $ Ansa.. 7+�� Correspondence item 6: ...n-.,•, V..\i `, '•..Jj� :+a�.MPFTI .wrY��w��vep•!�n�w�c'.T6a••14V!1TTGmT•M.��!l.•10'�:I e�•.!w...+..•.....�T •� .:;'" .�- . .:.i�:: !'_ .... :1. 11. !•-.... .. ! ] •'v ub l spo , CA L!Ilan .o our attRn`. 1=,a r rL u a... a.• ,� 1. .... }r �..J raQ Ci:e na.:i� ;::, Lilt- •51'1�-v.. _ !- (:.+':.iSF• .:f !': . . 'n• -](] � .:? :.} suL+Yi . 1. itl� . ..•i... d� t;J & i£b'7r�t.1� .. C 170 '.:r•at will Cnt)f•-)!.0 tr:, o—prs I.at ... As vc:t know. we hive n :en worshi;:nir.•1 a4 ':h! s building .`or two , .. 1 i?ar3. �? :Yc 1.�G• !7l:r :t:�Pr.. `�i_ . "4 St! Ili� ~rope.: _ •r. I r.• yu •r. you are a_War? that !r, try Gf -v-: 1^••.... ^_ i -.a?; LUIS Qb,13po and the h.--r: z Ila;+'sri.1.1.:Tl is •13 it WAR St nt lor. 51 night club and a pornographv :louse. We c` tial�3 t:iat problem in the last 2 years since we hav? i.)pan ac•pr•a:: ;t!ct as e church and this :i•at•�c: hes bee:: +in a snt - ' the Sar. Llrls Obispo :'ounty zn:i !4-z su-roundinge. 1d1=, would also lice to submit this observation to your q;e_�artment . We know there will he a concent t.: you of t:e:rc.iseinq traffic d%iring business haurs on Broad Strz eL. 4:= i I change that conforms to the . use of chur•cn wt,uld h6lp eliminate this particular orohlee veiny kli ,t c-M;r:h ActiYltles are :n ooeratic•r,s . pr•imar l lr. c.v"nl .-+:1 haur"Z- whan traffic is at iia mlR iwum. P.!!. p'•* 14159 %in tai,, 1151spa. CA 9341P.- !.i..lydh: !•4!-9115ri Correspondence item 7: We :aae:l •i highly anpreciat:-? a favorrblq zone chan-1- dug to the fact we are cons lderIna eak1na improvements or This property. As Vou are aware the ext nt 1 nq Tome ? s a horn. 1 Sf our I 1 e.'.!n tiefnr_ that it does not aljow church oue:"atiUn - If you can eliminate this ;gain we would r•ea;.iv aopreclate 1` . sincerely, Gr-t Y. Gr1•11rc,n -$� Correspondence item 7: ; AC,Apt Cl11%'ISTIAN P.O. Box 123 FELLOWShIp San Luis Obispo \ACfORY California 93406 IN Jesus! Tim Morbitzer. Pastor (805) 541-0777 "A family church that God's love (agape) is budding!" May 19, 1988 Mr. Paul Crawford Director of Planning County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93468 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 general response of all the officials I have spoken with, I feel confident that the Aerovista site would be approved for short term church use. RECEIVI�p MAY 2 31988 81.0 ('.(U ihmv 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, M64 �- Mike Sparrow Assistant Pastor 4 Coorespondence item 8: County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Staff County Government Center S.an 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 consider 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 1 �� • 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. Ie 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. / 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 coorespondence item 8: 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 residential,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 far 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. Than F r our Consideration Mab6hal Rothman,Owner 4211 Broad ,ECE�� ED AUG 4 � S.L.O. COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. / 4 Correspondence item 9: usrshal Rothman May 3, 1988 1164 Shannon Lane Arroyo Grande. CA 93420 Mr. Paul Crawford Planning Department County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA. 93408 Dear- Yr. Crawfords We are requesting a meeting with you and bike 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 (snow when we may meet with you to discuss this matter. Thanks very much. RECEIVED W. M= nbeck ccs Mike Multari - MAY 4 — 1988 Vic N.ontgomery S.L.O. COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. -�� Correspondence item 10: `SS o d. LL1IP a D CL n �.. z0 -•� z a � / 0Wv � I Cuj / U / U ca / 2C E � r av �3 - �a r" o. i �' �:F ;• III U s ts AT cz 4 CL a \ Z 9d �© � •r�hy.rr �•� M`GN 4 ,, cMNM*. rnrresnondenee item 10: =I IZIAi CCH CORPORATION Junc 16, 1988 Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center 1050 Monterey Strcct 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 Arca 1 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: 1 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 JC(L proposal discriminates against smaller companies (and most ST O county businesses are small). Anytime you restrict or limit a resource, you drive up its 1 Lx �`•� price--basic college Economics I precepts. By making the land L�Iti r I r more expensive and therefore less affordable by local d J r1 it companies, the Plan will encourage acquisition by large outside ftibtfirms that most of the SLO County residents want to avoid. ftp X11 This restriction of Industrial use in the Airport Area will I 1 h ,J� ultimately be self-defeating. (1, Ln "d, Secondly by limiting the build-out potential and building i" coverage ratios the Plan similarly discriminates against small businesses that cannot afford the additional land to support the p enforced Open Space on their own property. This is indirectly a J 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 4 �Q involved. Taller buildings should not be outlawed, however, NO since they do offer a solution to some design issues. Eastern Regional 3433 Roberto Court Tednical Support Office San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 USA 1 Market Way West, Box 28 (805) 541-0488•ITT Telex 4992316 Yom*. PA 17401 (717)1346-7157 Correspondence item 11: Small businesses represent a vast majority of the County's employers and arc a vital source of jobs. Please don't create legislation that discriminates against than, either explicitly or lit ,nip[icitly. `l(,` Land Use Categories (Table 1) The current Land Use plan iL explicitly disallows Electronic Manufacturing from tl:c i.-P0,-* Area. The proposed uses shown in Table 1 arc ambiguous in If F.�M1 `i this regard. On page 1-9 "Electric Equipment, Electric & Scientific Products" is shown as an allowed use in CS and BP zones. This should explicitly allow 'Electronic Equipment', till ji �,•� which is a clean, compatible land use. This category is largely 1 �(t I ignored in the analysis on page 3-20 in projecting future ,q. �Cl,(ii �1.� J growth of 'industrially-related jobs'. 11 V Several local companies are in the Electronic Manufacturing f/I/ business and are among the companies that would like to VV'-� //l/1111�+/ re-locate to this area. While my company is not in manufacturing, we are in Electronics and 1 would not like to "J 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 arc 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 offices. County Lan The largest and most ve Airpor se ti ybl�4 t feature of this tareaasLthe Airport itself. The pr posedeplan makes very little reference to it and does not seem to capitalize on its strengths. A viable airport is a must for a continued viable business (and tourist) community. Fly-in visitors are Y�L Ila" I�C4IL L attracted by restaurants, shops and easy access to town. Every. (, effort should be made to enhance the viability of the County tyI Airport and to reduce the factors that might cause its demise. J {C The health of the City of SLO depends on it. 4P ofy, 1V The arca around the Airport is ideal for Industrial (including office) uses. My company depends on easy access in and out of SLO by air for both our employees and our products. ,y� Industrial uses are typically more compatible and less /�t/' 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. l'..��uc nnna nnrn i Fnn 1 � 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. C Planning Principles The use of the term "fair share allocation" ��• is used in describing the coverage of costs for municipal i`y G services. This term is open to a wide variety of intcrprctations. 0 Who is going to decide and on what basis will they decide what a "fair share" is? r' a �L'1 �,•� h�� This item is of great concern to several landowners with respect Cy� 111L . t�� to roads. Most of the traffic on the major roads (Tank Farm, �A L r / Prado, etc.) is from transit uses. I would venture a guess that lk Iry'� (, 98% or more of the traffic on the current Tank Farm Road y���r,�L•"' C,i'� �I• never stops at a business along that road. This high percentage will doubtless apply to Prado Road when it is extended, since it v �a tit J will represent a short cut for many of the people currently 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 spiral in on itself with the ultimate crisis of not enough jobs in ��:it rtiL L= the city for the ever increasing population. Don't prevent job (� formation only to induce economic decline for those left in the Z. limited housing. � L This issue is obviously a Regional one and must be viewed as 021 O� such. There is probably no way that the city of SLO can bring 1 the job/housing ratio back into balance without supporting �L (� annexation of suitable housing areas (this does not include the Airport area in my opinion). If they do not do so, t! a other cities will eventually grow out to surround SLO city and they F v►/l" will have the situation they seem to fear most by defauit. 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 to have the cart before the horse in desiring employers to 'actively participate in providing housing". In the American �l 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 05 needs to be modified. _ �� Correspondence item 11: Housing is housing whether employer-sponsored or otherwise. I It would be best to encourage employers to concentrate their resources on what they do best. I y lcy 'vL I do agree that "each community near such -4 �. housing-need-generators must allow for additional housing" (i.e. ,V 1 14 the City of SLO). Limiting jobs is not the ansMer! I cannot 'L agree at all with the conclusion espoused in the last paragraph ll�i y t,l�� of pngc 3-30 which states that the solution to all housing problems is to limit the arca available for Industrial and Commercial uses and to restrict the types or uses to "those h� - requiring lower numbers of employees." This is not a solution at all, but a sure way to aggravate the problem. fit, Ziatceh grows slowly and steadily--a few jobs eery 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 J i? Yater: If water is one of the main limiting resources in the San (JV Gti l Luis Obispo area, then the proposed golf course should be re-evaluated. Table 19 on page 4-8 shows that the golf course 't- 4, � (and parks) will consume 38% of all water in the Airport Area Specific Plan. This is almost as much as the total commercial r�ti n development, yet the golf course will serve only a tiny fraction of the SLO community. Scarce resources should not be allocated in such large portion to such small portions of the community. �F() �(r This is even true of reclaimed waste water--it is a limited 4 resource with other uses as well. 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 V" ,n the arca--some people who used to use South Street will now �I go Prado Road (whereas Tank Farm was too far out). I suspect �. that Tank Farm Road traffic has increased substantially since the Los Osos Valley Road on-ramp was opened. This will 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 comparison to the trips attracted by the pr000sed 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 (sec the topo map Figure 5, page 2-3; the "gravel pit" is actually a 200 foot high O J/J,& U n�� hill.) A much more reasonable alignment is the one proposed by •19ILL( 1 the Damon/Garcia family on their Specific Plan proposal. 11. Prado Road would be routed to the North of the hill ;nd would tiU4 �J follow the natural contours of the land and minimize the J I. V erosion potential, while still intersecting Broad at Industrial I Way. It doesn't make economic or esthetic sense to put a ),L� four-lane divided highway (see Figure 24) through a hill when �J t you can go around it. (/ Orcutt Road While 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 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 routing. Overcrossings aren't cheap: the money saved on the overcrossing 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. Capitolio This street is not mentioned in the report, but I know it to be a traffic problem for traffic entering Broad Street v/l_f' 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 r`� 0 ,/�• trips per Table 24). It will, of course, need to be sync. ironized Jy QY with the lights at Prado Road and Tank Farm road. �`''L I am taking the liberty of routing 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 ir the political process. Thank you for your efforts in this regard and /J �1v11 my thanks to the individuals that invested the time and energy to prepare this preliminary pian. If I can be of help, please ,J contact me at Ziatech. Sincerely, Bert E. Forbes President • ( � Correspondence item 11: Copics to: SLO County Planning Commission —SLO County Planning Dcpartmcnt SLO Airport Land Usc Commission SLO City Council SLO City Planning Commission SLO City Planning Dcpartmcnt RRM (Airport Arca Property Owncrs) rnrresnondence item 11: YMCA of San Luis Obispo County 1020 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)543-823s July 31, 1988 RECEIVED Michael Niultari AUG 2 1988 Community Development Department city a Sm Luis CampoCanta,p�yDevmp"nj 990 Palm Street Bog 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Michael, Thank you for sharing with me the Parks and Recreation Planning process. The information you shared was most informative. Program space at our current location on Southwood Drive is becoming increasingly crowded. In order to meet the needs of San Luis Obispo members three to seven years from now, the YMCA will need space in which to expand. The city's Airport Area Specific plan for recreational uses would be an excellent site on which to develop a YMCA facility. With a favorable land lease, the YMCA would construct a multi-purpose facility to serve all citizens of San Luis Obispo. Such a facility would be designed to meet the needs for physical education, childcare, leadership development, youth sports and aquatics. Whenever deemed appropriate, please keep the YMCA posted and include our organization in the planning process. I look forward to working with you. Sincer y, Mike Mogensen CEO 1-1040 y �. ®rlrt Courier Systems 1171 TORO, SUITE D • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 July 21, 1988 Paul Crawford, Director of Planning and Building County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Mr. Crawford: This letter is in reference to the proposed airport zoning plan. As a local businessman interested in opening a business in the airport vicinity, I am suggesting that CS zoning include public assembly and entertainment in the proposed plan. This is in line with how similar county land is zoned. I have selected this area for' my future business, which would need public assembly and entertainment zoning, because it is easily accesible to the public, and it provides ample space for parking. In addition, traffic congestion, a problem in other county areas, would be avoided. In closing, I again urge that CS zoning include public assembly and entertainment in the airport zoning plan. Sincerely, / ii Rolf F. Storlie RFS/cep — 1-107 Arnold R. Hpplebaum 14830 VALLEY VIEW AVE. P.O. BOX 577 LA MIRADA, CA. 90637 (714) 522-8924 June 28, 1988 AIRPORT AREA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 843 Via Esteban San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Parcel # 76-511-15-000, 5.36 acres Dear Sirs: I am in receipt of the "Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan." I have had a chance to review and would like to find out the procedure for including my parcel in the re-zoning to light industrial or commercial. If you would please, direct me to the correct person in this regard, as this zoning change could have a great impact on my property and its future use. Thank you for your help in this matter. Your quick response to this would be greatly appreciated. Most Sincerely, � I. Arnold N. Applebaum ANA/so e -�U � 1F'drh 0 7a ° 4Y t{p i Son lursObltpoSubufban 47 2 A iK c ?c (a 11 &vocntii Traci 2 RS SS�� C 091 1 196 61 Aj 2 3 4 S 6 7 9 63 y 62. — SUBUFt"P Ro L2 14 104 k. T e rrr6 169 I � . «- -• ... #0 �9 f 9 171 16 r y . . . 2e' 27 ; 261 2Si 242 ; �2 �1 20 19 ' �j i 1 1._ r4.� {a` :- is + 2z 64 ;9 I• - 29 Vf L54 ,• _ -- - =_ _ " -7- __-:"s_-� _ Bra i2 - - East Sar JAL R --- - - - - - --- ___- AR 3Z1 h 12-YAt4 :: .......:: .:-.:.: a Z _ Nw , - J y *XXII: 1900 i)63 CIO s•0(� Z 'S SRA o Public Hearings Planning Commission July 28,1988 Avila Santa Fe Ranch Major Issue no. 2 page 19,11 Correspondence item 2 Under Ordinance 1284-July 23,1973- the Santa Fe Ranch was zoned A-10-AH. Two years previous in 1971, we sold parcels 29 (40) acres and parcel 30 (20) acres to Mr. De Vaul as money was needed to care for our ailing mother. Subsequently parcel 30 (20 acres) was divided in 4 5 acre parcels. In the Land Use Element Preliminary Draft , the 20 acre parcels 18,23, and 27 adjoining the development on Suburban Road were included in the Industrial Rural designation and behind the Urban Reserve Line for consideration, and then they were withdrawn from consideration in the Hearing Draft. The development to the north of us continues to grow, new roads, many new businesses. It is good for the area, stronger tax base, better employment opportunities for young people, who at one time left here because their field of interest could not be supported in our small town. It provides local people with needed services and there are choices. We have not benefited directly from this development but rather been damaged by it. I would like to quote from the INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ANALYSIS July 1986 Urban Research Associates for the Airport Area Specific Plan. page 27 "Figure 3 illustrates the dispersal of manufacturing firms across the study area. The largest concentration is found adjacent to Suburban Coad where considerable diversity of fabrication, distribution, and service businesses are located." /iia page 2 Some of these businesses adjoin our land and their owners have asked to purchase some of our land to expand their operations. We would like to cooperate, but a legal parcel is 20 acres and it is agriculture. Therefore, the Avila Family once again request that lots 18,23,and 27 of the Santa Fe Ranch be zoned Industrial Rural and the parcel size be of the same as the neighbors to the north,thereby making it possible for our business neighbors to acquire additional land to expand. Lots 19,22, and 28 could remain in agriculture until an interest develops for an appropriate development to be presented for approval. As development increased along Tank Farm Road and Prado Road in the 60's, the water drained across Union Oil and onto our property. It was necessary for my brother Manuel Avila, Jr. who was farming, to deepen and widen our drainage ditch to handle the increase of runoff from above. My brother Frank Avila talked to the city engineer and county senior engineer about the worsening problem. Some action was taken but the problem continued. Our drainage ditch was deepened and widened as further development grew to the north of us. On the advise of our engineer Ben Maddalena, a swale was constructed on parcel 23 to carry off some of the water. (See the profile map enclosed in the packet of correspondence) . On site retention ponds are now required by the businesses. The county has tried drainage controls, but the fact is that commercial development and agriculture are not always compatible. On page 15 of the report from THE SAN LUIS SPECIFIC PLAN TEAM which is before you, your staff has aptly described the conditions that prevail: "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 and working nearby. Nearby residents may cause problems by removi:tg or damaging crops or equipment". page 3 Your staff has said this in relation to agriculture in the Business Park area. Development impacts agriculture too, with increased runoff from hard surfaces, pollutants, dust, and other waste by products. Elevations are changed as lots are raised and leveled. Adjoining parcel 27, the elevation was raised about 5 feet over the existing land elevation. Some of our business neighbors know of our concerns to keep the ranch in a healthy environment and try to cooperate. But they are in business and our concerns may not fit into their budget. We were advised not to join the Airport Area Specific Plan, but to wait and see what would develop through the study. The fee was sizable for us. The cash rent was inadequate to support an expensive study as the MSP. To quote from the Airport Area Property Owners Association March 30,1983 "AAPOA funding will be used primarily to pay for technical consultants with a combination of $25. per acre assessment once a year for 3 years and slightly increased permit fees". There was no guarantee that we would not be a sacrificial lamb to keep as much land as possible in agriculture. Regardless of all this, the problems for us are there. Development above us continues to the detriment of our farming enterprise. There's the statement that management says there's too much land zoned industrial, enough for the next 20 years or more. In contradiction, our discussions with real estate agents have shown many inquiries about the availability of this property. Much of what has been said today is already included. in correspondence over the years with the Planning Dept. It is attached to the agenda for today's Planning Haaring and we ask you to read it without prejudice. l -//Z. page 4 jThe ranch came into our family Oct. 31,1910. The first piece of property our father purchased in this country. He arrived here in 1890 and worked like so many others for a piece of the American Dream. He and others in my family love the land and were and are good farmers. But they were and are also wise and progressive enough to understand when economics indicate farming is no longer viable it should be practiced elsewhere. Fortunately for the heirs, the eldest is 88 with great grandchildren, we have been able to earn a living outside this land, since we have not enjoyed any significant income from it within the past 20 years. Under Proposition 13, the rent pays the taxes with little more. / -/l3 DO VN L 0 Z 0 CL 4z U5 L6 OH ,Iv rrr 1 04 rre i f—ff i .1.0 LOOP Cb. ay 0 O cd Cd Ld LU M N m 0 LA VJ LU LLj (L cL MV 0 q.4 ci -N 43 vi CD 0 Is's FROM &I Wil PS Mll M MRq O n O !A- Z G o r,Df•O.O// y N irwle .r7•e OLf� LL m 1 00 9 J � o LL qC • •a.1w f `O N 0 Y y � O s 7 = $ a (mac o > O +f u y m • 'u O W rn �5 N 5 zj y •� C , O a � a = _ N o m •O. co N i N i n m O u u N o o N • w O n �t � N • • i y 4 Y S:. _ OaCI MinOC Oifi fi ON C• tl i C', M11N mlA OO 9 m w s i *XF H I B"'I T tl a P .C . Minutes August 10 , 1988 �_ } Page 5 . -- David Br non , 3534 Empleo , discussed design criteria in detail He stated there was equate parking and that the bank needs to be repl ed . He did not feel the 100 year flood zone affected the buildings . Commr . Schmidt a ed about the uses for the warehouse ildings . Mr . Brannon replied t t contractors , auto repair , nd similar uses would be involved. Commr . Sc idt did not favor solid/walls facing the creek . Mr . Brannon did not feel fice space would be ifarketable and would have parking problems . Commr . Hainline stated she woul conside variable setback options that were firmly supported by design s nda s . She asked staff to provide a list of allowable uses in that zone . Chairperson Kourakis wanted staff input n how significant the west bank area was . Chairperson Kourakis closed he public hearin Commr . Duerk suggested a applicant either stick ith the 20-foot setback or provide a design t t would satisfy commission c cerns about creek protection . Commrs . Roalman nd Hainline agreed . Commr . Schmi wanted more information about the opposite si of creek and what was cessary to upgrade the west side of the site for de lopment within flood zone. The aff agreed to take all commission comments and suggestion and co ideration with the applicant . --------------------------------------------------------------- Item 6 . Airport Area . Review and discuss planning concerns in the airport area . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Sanville presented the staff report and recommended review of the concept plan , planning principles and Major Issues report , and to forward recommendations to the City Council . Commr . Roalman was concerned that if the city included this area , urban sprawl would spread to Edna Valley . He wanted to see more specifics on how the greenbelt around the city would be protected . Staff discussed the concept of the memorandum of understanding to mitigate this issue. / —/1 Co P . C . Minutes August 10 , 1988 Page 6 . Commr . Duerk was concerned with an appropriate balance of land uses . She wanted to know the planning criteria that supported the balance of housing and employment opportunities relative to the population . She was concerned with the number of requests from outskirt property owners to be annexed and wanted more information on that situation . Staff responded with discussion on the market study . Commr . Duerk was also concerned with the issue of agricultural land converting to commercial and with water and sewer availability versus the pressure of development timeline . Commr . Gerety agreed with commission concerns and was especially concerned with the commission ' s lack of involvement in developing this plan . He did not understand how a lot of the decisions and alternatives were reached . He did not agree with the circulation plan and was concerned with housing availability and pricing . Commr . Schmidt agreed with Commr . Roalman about the urban sprawl concern . Chairperson Kourakis agreed with the urban sprawl problem and the greenbelt issue . She was concerned that the general principles set forth would not truly work and that the airport area was not participating enough in the plan . She felt there needed to be a commitment to a greenbelt and a major entry way element created by the plan . Warren Hoague , County Planner , reminded the commission that this plan was conceptual and a compilation of information only . He felt the Specific Plan could not accommodate more residential areas because of the proximity of the airport . Dana Lily , County Planner , discussed the job creation ratio against housing demands . He stated it would be addressed in Phase 11 and the EIR . Terry Simons , Damon/Garcia representative , discussed the plan and the lack of his participation . He felt there was a leaning toward cooperation , but felt this would be a long process . He felt there was too little rationally developable land available . Burt Forbes , 2415 Leona , agreed that there was a lack of overall resources . He felt the public favored low to moderate growth and the problems faced now were a result of poor planning 15 years ago. He felt that growth was inevitable and that the Airport Specific Plan was too small an area to focus on for proper planning for the future. He urged for a broader scope in annexation , as the Airport area was inappropriate for housing . Vic Montgomery , 3026 S. Higuera , property owners ' representatives , explained how the plan has been developed . Ida Garden , 7114 Orcutt , was concerned with the pollution that has been affecting her farming industry . She asked that her property be included in the development. Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing . P . C . inutes August 10 , 1988 Page 7 . Due to the lateness of the hour , the commission agreed to continue this item to the next meeting of August 24 , 1988 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 7 . Cit Council Referral : Electronic Game Amusement Centers . Review Ic 10 a n comment"Fo—n—'po-ss-l'BT e or d I n a n c e mei i f i cationsrr e p e a T of ordinance ( Municiapl Code Chapter 5 . 52 ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Gary Price requested commission deliver comments and direction regarding a draft of an amended ordinance on processing of electronics game amusement centers . The commission , by concensus , moved to continue the item with direction to the City Council to approve as recommended by staff . COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Terry Sanville reviewed council actions and noted preview of upcoming meeting . September 21 , 1988 was tentatively chosen as the date for the next special meeting . Neighborhood planning subdivision approval was identified as a possible meeting topic , as well as discussing circulation . The meeting adjourned at 11 : 55 p .m. to the next regular meeting of August 24 , 1988 . Respectfully submitted , Lisa Woske Recording Secretary MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City of San Luis Obispo, California August 24 , 1988 Regular Meeting PRESENT : Commrs . Charles Crotser , Donna Duerk , Patrick Gerety , Linda Hainline , William Roalman , Richard Schmidt , and Chairperson Janet Kourakis . OTHERS PRESENT : Terry Sanville , Principal Planner ; Michael Multaril Community Development Director ; Dave Moran , Assistant Planner ; Wayne Peterson , Engineering , and Lisa Woske , Recording Secretary . There were no changes to the agenda or public comments . ------------------------------------------------------------- Item 1 . ------- .L�ort Area . Review and discuss Planning concerns in the airport area . (7o—ntinued from August lo , 1988 ) . ---------------------------------------M--------------- Terry Sanville presented the staff report and asked the commission to forward comments and recommendations on to council regarding the concept plan and any specific concerns . Chairperson Kourakis was concerned that the plan continues the same type of development down into Edna Valley . She felt the southern boundary already presented in the Planning Principles should be included, but was not certain that the agricultural uses would be preserved within the Specific Plan. She felt the valley hillsides were important and suggested an open space/boundary within Edna Valley to protect agricultural land should be included in the Principles . She felt urban intensive uses should stay within the city and that rural uses should be in the county . She was concerned about the community service district agreeing to annexation . Staff responded that the Principles intended that interim development would be Positioned to make annexation desirable. Commr. Duerk was concerned with the basic intention and dedication toward greenbelts and felt a larger view of intentions needed to be more clear . Michael Multari stated that there needed to be boundaries for urban intensity in Edna Valley and felt the open space phase was necessary to create a community separator . Commr . Duerk was concered with balancing housing and employment issues and felt circulation options needed to be addressed. Terry Sanville agreed that circulation was important and would be addressed in Phase 11 and that the update should be completed by spring of 1989 . Commr . Roalman cited his submitted memo regarding concerns about urban sprawl , lot splits south of Specific Plan and annexation, Memo of /-//7 Understanding , prime agricultural land being designated as C-S instead of protecting it for the future , balanced housing, and consideration of a major annexation of the area when water was so critical . L P . C . Minutes LW August 24 , 1988 Page 2 . Chairperson Kourakis felt the Principles could be acceptable if modified to address urban boundaries and greenbelt issues . She felt that there were many questions that still needed to be answered. Commr . Roalman was not convinced the city had explored all options . Commr . Crotser felt the Specific Plan was a good tool and felt that a commercially intensive use area would alleviate growth in Edna Valley . He wanted to see a well -defined urban/rural boundary . Commr . Hainline agreed with Commr . Crotser . Michael Multari discussed the specific aspects and functions of the Memo of Understanding agreement . Commr . Hainline moved approval of the Planning Principles and that the EIR and Specific Plan should resolve issues concerning circulation , water , prime agricultural land protection , greenbelt boundaries , jobs/housing balance , with an additional focus on a larger regional picture , community service district, rural separators , athe Memo of Understanding method exploration , and designating the best use of agricultural land in terms of expansion . Chairperson Kourakis seconded the motion . Commr . Schmidt stated he was against the motion because he felt the plan was flawed and would not prevent urban sprawl problems . Commr. Gerety reiterated his concerns cited at the last meeting and asked that they be specifically forwarded to the council . VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Hainline , Kourakis , Crotser , and Duerk . NOES - Commrs . Gerety , Roalman and Schmidt . ABSENT - None . The motion passes. The commission accepted the staff report recommendations and alterantives presented , with the exceptions as follows : a ) Commr . Roalman moved to recommend Alternative 5 in Question 1 . Chairperson Kourakis seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Kourakis , and Schmidt. NOES - Commrs . Crotser , Cuerk , Gerety , and Hainline. The motion fails. b) Commr. Roalman moved to recommend no change to concept plan and accept Alternative 2 . /./Oz 0 Commr. Duerk seconded the motion. P. C. Minutes LF i August 24 , 1988 Page 3. VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Duerk , Crotser , Hainline and Kourakis . NOES - Commrs . Gerety and Schmidt. The motion passes . c) Commr . Roalman moved to accept Alternative regarding boundary expansion . Commr . Crotser seconded the motion . VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Crotser, Duerk , and Schmidt . NOES - Commrs . Gerety , Hainline, and Kourakis . The motion passes . d) Commr . Roalman moved to recommend Alternatives 1 and 5 regarding the airport residential area. There was no second . Chairperson Kourakis moved to recommend Alternative 6 . Commr . Hainline seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis and Hainline. NOES - Commrs . Crotser , Duerk, Gerety , Roalman and Schmidt . The motion fails. e) Commr . Roalman moved to recommend an additional Alternative 1A to revise the Principle to vacant Class 1 and 2 land . Commr . Duerk seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Duerk , Crotser , Gerety , Schmidt , and Kourakis . NOES - Commr . Hainline . The motion passes . f) Commr . Roalman moved to accept Alternative 3 regarding the above. Commr. Crotser seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Roalman , Crotser , Duerk , Gerety , Hainline, Schmidt , and Kourakis . NOES - None. The motion passes. g ) Chairperson Kourakis moved to modify the Alternatives to allow dayca in commercial zones with a conditional use permit. Commr. Duerk seconded the motion. / am _ 1 y P . C . Minutes August 24 , 1988 Page 4 . LL VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Duerk , Crotser , Hainline , and Roalman . NOES - Commrs . Gerety and Schmidt. The motion passes . h) Chairperson Kourakis moved to recommend modification to the community service district to phase it out when the development is annexed . Commr . Roalman seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Roalman, Duerk , and Hainline . NOES - Commrs . Crotser , Gerety , and Schmidt. i ) Chairperson Kourakis moved to forward Planning Team major issue recommendations to the council , excepting those as outlined above . Commr . Hainline seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Hainline , Crotser , Duerk , Roalman , and Schmidt . NOES - Commr . Gerety . The motion passes . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 2 . Public Hearing : Use Permit U1396 . Request to allow an addition to r�enc Hospital ; T11 o nson venue; 0-S zone; French Hospital Medical Center , Inc . (William Adams) , applicant. Continued from August 10 , 1988 . ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Multari presented the staff report and recommended continuance . Chairperson Kourakis determined there was no public testimony . Commr. Duerk moved to continue the item. Commr . Hainline seconded the motion . VOTING : AYES - Commrs. Duerk , Hainline, Crotser, Gerety, Roalman , Schmidt , and Kourakis . NOES - None. ABSENT - None. The motion passes . /—/� '0a EXHIBIT D PENDING COUNTY L.U.E. AMENDMENTS/DEVELOPMENT iTANK FARM ROAD •� ; • ram \\. y. , >>z � • 000 y"s € BIICKLEY mama u �t STRASBAUG + i LA LONITA RPO- <7 / LEGEND JACK RANCH -----CITY UNITS m■=■mURBAN RESERVE UNE PROPOSED PROJECT /-/a3