Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1992, 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE:M =-1 Ale A1~ Z� t f i - MEETING �q� AGENDA DATE AnSU M31 f. Thursday, January 169 1992 Mayor Ron Dunin City Council Members P. O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Dear Mayor Dunin and Council: I shan't speak for Charlie and Dave West, the owners of San Luis Sourdough, but simply on their behalf until their return to California. They are presently on vacation. I feel sure that they would be terribly alarmed by some sections of the non- residential, commercial growth questions that are being discussed. It seems that there should be some additional citizen input as well as an economic study of the impact of the slanting of the exclusions as they are presently being proposed. Thank you for your continued service to our Community. Sincerely, ,�,_ - a� Wanda Strassburg COPIES TO: ❑ ` Drnotes Action FYI Camdl CAO ❑ CDDDIR. FIN. DIP ✓❑r ACAO ❑ F 2E CHIEF gtAT7CONEY 13 FYVDiR. CLMx /O^Ic. ❑ IVUCECH. ❑ MCMT. TEA I ❑ PEC DIP ❑n RE6DFiLE TTT V — XI-Lg J 3580 Sueldo • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 54 3-6142 ,Jug 7 CLERK OE1O np, Cn call mica BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS January 20,1992 Dear Mayor Dunin: "FETING AGENDA ✓,,fE 9a ITEM #; I am writing to let you know how concerned I am about non - residental growth controls. Call America is planning on moving within the next year or two and we had planned to stay in the City of San Luis Obispo. The specific areas of concern are the preference to retail and lack of government exclusion. This structure could force us to take our ten million per year in revenues and fifty employees to Santa Maria or Paso Robles. I urge you to really look at the impact of these controls on the city before voting. Please call me at 781 -2072 with any questions. Sincerely, f uckingiram General Manager JB /j r CO:'�TO: ❑ - Dak tm Action El rn 2 C.,dl FI'CDD D1R Y CAO ❑ FIN. D11 E!'A:AO ❑ F-M CtEEF ., is L7 ATTOrwv ❑ 1•.w m. ['CLEF.( /0. ^.1G. 0 i'OL;CE CH. ❑ MG,T.TEA1!d 0 r'EC-L'12. ❑ CREADFLG- ❑— LTILDTL ERr% SAN �JI OBISPO, CA 879 Morro / San Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 541 -6316 350 South Hope Street, Suite A210 / Santa Barbara, California 93101 / (805) 967 -9693 MEETING AGENDA DATE 1: _IT X tow CHARLES L. SENN 1319 MARSH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 January 23, 1992 Mayor Ron Dunin Councilwoman Peg Pinard Councilwoman Penny Rappa Councilman Jerry Reiss Councilman Bill Roalman COrlsTO: ❑' D�wtes Amon f ild- 'D DIL ❑ FIN. DU R ❑ MEOMP tCrEY ❑ Fw POLICECIi ❑ MGMT. TEAM El P.EC Da EMDFU ❑ ZnLDM RE: Land Use Element Update - Non Residential Growth Management Thank you for the opportunity to make comments regarding the Land Use Element Update. Since the last hearing the draft has been discussed with a number of people both employees and business owners. The economic concerns are genuine and sincere. It is suggested that the following be incorporated under the heading "Society and Economy" of the Community Goals on page 5 of the hearing draft. San Luis Obispo should: A. Always recognize that a vibrant and successful economy is necessary for its citizens to maintain a high quality of life and that the economy and environment should be sensitive to the needs of each other. B. Be responsive to the needs of local business and provide necessary assistance and common sense flexibility which will help local businesses compete. The city should not be viewed as an impediment but rather a supporter of local business. C. Should encourage and assist businesses whose employment will permit employees to live in the City of San Luis Obispo. It is suggested that the section on non - residential growth management be deleted in its entirety. Non - residential growth may be able to be implemented as an amendment at some future time but the form in which the document is written gives no consideration to economic reality. It is apparent that much of the wording is theoretical and drafted by individuals without practical economic experience. If non - residential growth controls can be implemented it must be done in a manner which will allow business to be successful. I would be willing to participate with a committee composed of knowledgeable local business operators and employees to determine the following: 1. Can non - residential growth controls work? 2. If they can work, what are reasonable limitations and how should the limitations be implemented? 3. How can the limitations be enforced in a practical and common sense manner without impeding the success and competitive ability of local businesses? 4. What realistic exceptions should there be for the limits? 5. Any other questions deemed relevant by City Council. The tremendous effort by each of you in the update of the Land Use Element is appreciated. The draft on non - residential growth control is misplaced. Before economic restrictions are imposed it's imperative that each of you as decision makers understand the implications and information needs to be provided to you by individuals who are both credible in the community and knowledgeable in economics. That has not been done. It would seem this type of citizen study could be completed within 4 to 6 months. Please delete the non - residential growth provisions from the Land Use Element Update until a realistic study can be completed. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully submitted, Charles . Senn CLS:pcb �Q 7. fi rr _ ar t �t MEETING ' I q b AGENDA µ , DATE ITEM' =.=: f. r CHARLES4 L. SENN s _ 13151 MARSHA STREET r. � ��: , R .T �, ley SAN;" LU_ I'S' OBI §P_O'; CA`I.93401 r, = _ w t •C O Li3M{ -Y A I tie L O F T' �. Januart- 23, 1992 i t R . A77aRAlEY ©:.F�VDIR ` dcZ �►uvbFacr t7- OUCF -t i - ❑ 1vtGIvIT TEAl�t O:' TIM DM::. Mayor Ron Dunin 0, C F1LEt D �_ - -- . Councilwoman- Peg Pinard �- Councilwoman- Penny Rappa Councilinan'Jerry Reiss -` Councilma_n•_Bi11 Roalman_ RE':. Land Use Element. Update: - Non Residential Growth, i- - - _ Management Thank you° fo'r: the'. opportunity` to'make comments regarding­ the Land Use - Ele'ment Update: Since the last hearing the;:: draft- has been discuised' with a number; of people both.:; = ~`::: _ .. employees and business owners The economic concerns are: "` -:_ genuine„ and sincere.. It.is suggested that.the. following be incorporated und'er' the heading "Society and Economy".of.the Community Goal's= on page_ 5 of. the, hearing draft.. San. Luis Obispo: --should:' Al.,­ Always`'recocnizq; that .a.`v } bra,o.t- ^and''``s- ucc.essf l - _!:__ economy, is necessary_ -fo='. its citizens, to maintain a? high quality, of- life and that the" economy and` environment should- be.,sensitive't'o..i he needs -of each. -:. other: - ' B. Be responsive to the needs of local business and prgvide necessary assistance and common sense. flexibility which will-help local. businesses compete_:..` The city. should. not. be viewed. as, an impediment' but-.;' . rather-a supporter.of'. local business. C.' Should encourage and assistlbusinesses whose :. "empl- oyment will ypermit• employees to, live in. the,: City,-,,.-.-.-. - of-,San Luis Obispo - 4 t '4 1. h.•,1 '.,. 1.. j' t y n ! • .d'.a Y r y-^'n 4X,' -C y l r,1' 'L r u 9,,,, S.A. S..- A p ' ' s "'�, ,� 1 , r.r... A "Ci 1 ar" i•e.Y ar -t., r �'m u N.,• 1 c, r , a i, y : r•\ , I ai :1" I_ +1. i Y ! 'Jt. ,— ..L � 4 '7 T4 i L ' 1 \ i ,f , '! �,, •l ,. � •c a a � a.l � � R��•['j 4 1Z + .T l a ni , f - r n i 1 ` ,l �A � f _ y„ r ;1� Y i E L 1;= Y J Y 1: rl "— 7 �f�.x •'`iti n'' I,y <} a..:< c n b,— , i _r r+ { +1. r '.i.7. >r .y r* -^� r-r •i r ti.'} , ( '- .1��1. k fY.- '(,,.'r'� IS h�'w�} k .{r`n A m' rdkh it ^ n '�' WT)-1 is i.11. 4 T, .,. Y ].1.. :-- a .hr L _— �I'.r' 1 J.IC° Tti•: f a + c♦ '�,1^t$��d } f r _ 1 x � S ,lM�r f � i w It as suggested that the section on non`zesideential •. n • • i r �_ `9. _c . T`. T,mv. r t i• 3 n..c Y �gr�o�th management lie deleted''??in it "s entirrety cil Y, rT z G;wf ryc „y } er T Non r,es,id�ent al • growth may be; ablef.to be implemented_ as` L an ameiidment,r at some . fub' ib' time: but the forra� in which „ =F � .y docuident: is written =gives; no` consideration to r� .aTTr -v1... 4 _ILA; economies reality It is;�apparent.f•thats much7ofm�he;� ; wording... is theoretical and drafted) by�r;inaiviauals witfiout practical'economic'.expe =ierice. If, non= residential:�growth -` y - controls ean,be implemented;,it must be done "in�a manner:' r :� which will allow businesse to be successful"` WM1'�7� i L:wouId be'wil_ling to particpate� with aF committee) _ - composed' of knowledgeable local business operators=' and -;. i r employees ,try 3e *ei!axne_ the :follawinge 41 Z 1 Cannon- residential `growth controls work?:, qr 2 If_- ..they c:ah,.work what are reasonable., limitations ind. ,- .,-•x' a, . P.. —a. ,4 ._.sA ate! -rw how- sfiould the limitations, bdf implemented? 3 How can the limitations be . enforced: in' a, practical and, common sense mariner„ without impeding the success m and competitive ability of local businesses? Ff' jnNl° What' reaiistic� exceptions should there, be,. for thliz r , w 5- Any other, questions F�deemed relevanf'by�City Councils '4� .. 1 'Y - r - y'✓ 2 .. ] °-, ', ? IL +,fn;'.. f ,+�.. G ]. iT;S [ t yr U jn•. .Y ti .• The' frimendous•'effort by each'- of you-, in' the update`'of the Land. Use- Element is. appreciated.. The draft on E non- residential growth dontrol is misplaced. .Before..;..,, y economic.restrictions' are' imposed .it's” imperative....that _- 'each of you as: decision.:•makers understand the - implications .and- information needi:,io be.-provided. to- you_;:; < °: : by;- individuals_.who are both - credible, in -,the community:. ands: = knowledgeable: -in economics' That�.has not:. been done, _ •_ .ter r- - -_ . ` ` .” ._ -- _- Ita-would seem =. this type- of; citizen•; studyk could be •: Y- compleied,witbin: -+,to: 6, months Y ..Pleasefdenote the..,... _: _ w •LL non residential- gr.owth-proy sighs fromP the` Land Use' El'ement.. Update: until a�� realistic '"study canfbe ?'completed:: Thank ;`; for• your _attention:. - .., . .- Respectfully submitted;_,- F Charles L 'Senn rs a - _ . ._ y -9.i -� .aa pp [r -1, ,yr�Y�It.. i.,y r .sir•' r , �- r5 "i" T4n. ,.. vry „r+. `� " i.. sY �t (• r'. �- _ ' ` - '`' -ii' _ �1• �— 7. rrl—'! '•! r Jt M, ]1 'i. ?r'r,M 1 L: f Y—n •k r 1�,rF ,rl.•- ,,,r.y..s J _ _ 4 f. ]•. I`J'p+r'S E'w'e .r, r' y 'S'.� i;r +�fi,"'ft.}'}'f y } r '1 ice„ *C �', �� f � 1 !.� ,y] 'jF:�•'°'� h4A� �i ^��' f a�'� { •f7 ' `rY.,, `'!�' • kt + ry `YC• - f. a 1 iW 4^ a•f r - a _ •4 1 . -'� ]t .• 1 D �.ei �A..}h 1 r `f I : t r ', :. sy r I .. f nF r� Vrh•f f. 4 v tl.' r fr�1 f� r1 �"� i +�7 7 L Ty �. 'n` 5 kbrc of K r .r r, r e..z t d� i, ° y 1. d M "' • ek^ i. u R.a .', ~ _ r -�f_�C nrN_p.+� t - .v: ,�mt.l�*. S . Graf _ .. -..,. ..r ° °:JI+ d �x!?�^" _� 7 � ..,, �?.'•. -. �ac. . ' _, .. '. ._.. 6 C MEETING AGENDA MEMORANDUM DATE _ PZ, M]j # January 24, 1992 TO: John Dunn, CAO (for, Council information) VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director C- P07 FROM: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner (ext. 165) SUBJECT: Telegram- Tribune article on Land Use Element Please note that the caption in the January 21 article (attached) incorrectly says the new Tom's Toys store would "account for almost 20 percent of yearly downtown growth allowed." This 13,000 - square -foot building would comprise a little less than 15 percent of the construction allowed citywide. The proposed reserve for downtown would allow one such building to be built every year, no matter how much construction was approved for outside downtown. While refined numbers must wait for the EIR and economic study, I estimate that the proposed plan would accommodate expanding the number of workers in the city from about 26,000 now to about 33,000 in 25 years, while the.number of dwellings would increase from 18,200 to 23,300. The question has not been "will we have more or less than we do now," but "how much more will we have ?" . I have received several comments from citizens indicating that these point are not widely understood. COKSTO: ❑ • D=tm Action �❑ FYI 9CAOMW ❑ FN. Da aCAO 0 ME N MWIE' DIX ❑ MCMI 7EAM O Mr—DDIRCR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR. r-!' Zr_- — ER'_ Firs I I a a Sc pIC Spo} busine the prc Land L Dave San U MEETING AGENDA DATE /18-U ITEM #_.1 Roalman d like to express al of the Land Use ction. nd Use Element not commerical growth. concerned about ut revenue being able business arefully review the non - residential urge you to growth. f k Adof Center S irts Hillier ey's Buster Brown i eeves Greenery Z5�;'Z_l lie Ke s lie's ar & Grill JAN 19K Ciro COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 771 M. e w ,a it / jw- ZI s to A45 74 ,a rx ITe '21 -Ec,( .- r F.4, ;Nvt 7. Z..'A RK a. ut - ol� t. e 4 U- t 11 v It U, - MAU Ip fj .4xi-NwiLm Holli��A �V Lp wi mrf ff. IW m A HO f READ Q S- rS � Amx:, - ol� t. e 4 U- t 11 v It U, - MAU Ip fj .4xi-NwiLm Holli��A �V Lp wi mrf ff. IW m A HO f READ Q S- rS � Land Use Element Update Hearing Draft , development of the largest number of dwellings affordable to low- income or moderate - income residents would be developed first, with open space dedication or other public benefits used to decide the order if two or three areas offer substantially the same housing affordability. The anticipated intervals for the major expansion areas' development are: first area, 1993 - 2000; second area, 2001 - 2007; third area, 2008 - 2017. TABLE 2 CITY POPULATION GROWTH Approximate maximum Anticipated Year number of dwellings Number of people 1992 18,200 42,800 1997 19,100 45,000 1� 2002 20,100 47,300 2007 21,000 49,700 7� 2012 22,200 52,200 ry tM s{ ' s 2017 23,300 54,900 P3 , D ' AG ,,p. 9 f, Le 1.10 Nonresidential growth management ��R� apt ��6 V S' b p�� g"' (x4 A. San Luis Obispo wants to balance additional job opportunities with additional housing opportunities. It also wants to accommodate moderate expansion of activities which meet residents' shopping demands and which help fund public services, while not stimulating excessive growth or exceeding the selected rate of change for the community. Therefore, the City will aim for expansion of trade and services not to exceed an average of one percent per year during the planning period. B. The City will continuously monitor applications for annexation, use - permit, rezoning, and subdivision that would lead to creation of nonresidential space, in relation to the allowed cumulative addition for each benchmark date, as shown in Table 3 . If the projects waiting for City approval would cause the limit to be exceeded, any approval of such applications will include an earliest date to start construction, or phasing, 3 0,,;11 to assure that the total floor area limits at each benchmark date will not be exceeded. v & All nonresidential building space to be built within, or annexed to, the City CA red+ will be included in the determinations of whether the limits are Inez, Vi whether or not the City has building permit authority over the space, with the following exceptions. �Pp� e� gmt): LUE -GFUMN :'I' 16 I Land Use Element Update . Hearing Draft (1) Department stores which are integrated with other comparison shopping centers, so the City can accommodate, downtown and at `7 ]% Madonna Road, major retailers which will provide comparison ;(i ' shopping opportunities which San Luis Obispo area shoppers have , left the area to obtain; (2) Public schools, which are not included in the inventory of nonresidential space; (3) The net increase in nonresidential floor area equal to the net increase in residential floor area, within any mixed -use project on land which was zoned for nonresidential use in 1992; (4) Buildings existing in 1992, but annexed to the City following that year. (Amounts in Table 3 will be revised as the base amount of nonresidential building area increases with annexation of buildings.) C. Downtown and the Madonna Road shopping area are the preferred locations for new nonresidential development, particularly comparison retail stores. An increment is reserved for the downtown core (Figure 3) so that area can at least maintain its share of citywide nonresidential building space. The floor area of all approved developments will be compared with the amount allowed excluding the reserve, until that limit is reached. After that limit is reached, downtown core projects may be approved up to the amount reserved for the core. TABLE 3 NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH LIMITS (square -feet gross floor area) Benchmark Total Cumulative Added in Cumulative addition Core Date Floor Area .Addition Interval excluding core reserve Reserve i 1992 7,600,000 - - 1997 8,020,000 420,000 420,000 353,000 67,000 2002 8,440,000 840,000 420,000 706,000 134,000 2007 8,860,000 1,260,000 420,000 1,058,000 202,000 2012 9,280,000 1,680,000 420,000 1,412,000 268,000 2017 9,700,000 2,100,000 420,000 1,763,000 335,000 gm D: LLE- GR',f.N.µP 17 Land Use Element Update Hearing Draft D. To better manage the relationship between residential and nonresidential land use capacities, the City may do the following: (1) Redesignate vacant, suitably located office, commercial, and industrial land for residential use. Such action would be considered in response to any private application, or any significant update of this element. (2) Require residential uses to be combined with nonresidential uses in certain projects, where appropriate (mixed -use development). (3) Change its zoning standards for office, commercial, and industrial land to reduce allowed intensities of .development, except .for. certain parts of the downtown. These changes will be considered before l'k�iAr. the next comprehensive update, anticipated 'by the year 2002. 1.11 Government agencies near the City The capacities of the three major public institutions near the City directly influence the City's ability to manage growth. Cooperation between the City and those institutions is important. A The City favors a Cal Poly enrollment ceiling of 19,200. This ceiling may be reached, if campus and community resources allow, about 2005. The City favors additional on- campus housing, enhanced transit service, and other measures to minimize any adverse impacts of added enrollment. California State University system plans call for Cal Poly enrollment and employment to remain on a plateau during the 1990's, then increase between the years 2000 and 2010, when Cal Poly's ultimate size would be reached. An increase from the approximately 17,000 students enrolled in 1991 to about 19,200 in 2005 would correspond to about one percent annual growth over that period. B. The City supports having no more California Men's Colony inmates than were housed in 1991. The numbers of inmates and employees are expected to remain about the same during the planning period, as increases in the statewide prison population are accommodated by new facilities in other counties. C. The City favors satellite campuses, enhanced transit service, and other measures to avoid local impacts of increasing enrollment at Cuesta College. Cuesta College employment and enrollment are expected to increase at about the same rate as County population growth. Cuesta College attracts students from throughout the County and the State. gm D: LUE- GP%IN.WP 18 January 28, 1992 MLIING AGENDA 4 i DATE ITEM #._, R R M D E S I G N G R O U P Architecture • Pbmunl • DnNineeri q • hitcriols • Lanitsmpe Archit The Honorable Ron Dunin Mayor of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: CITY LAND USE ELEMENT -- AIRPORT AREA Dear Mayor Dunin: LJ • Drnotes Action ❑ FYI Q� council g��/C+CI 0CDD DIR 13 FIN. DIP, IL1 ACAO El FiRE CF�F ff,ATPCILNEY r? CLERK /ORIG. ❑ MGMT.TEAM C READ FILE r r. ❑ FNDIR- ❑ POLICECH- 0 P.EC.DIR ❑ UTIL Da P;r A1114: As the representatives of the Airport Area Property Owners Association ( AAPOA), we must express their profound disappointment with the Draft Land Use Element. While the City Council apparently chose to continue to reflect the Airport Area Concept Plan in their update, the sum total of all of the other policies contained in the Update draft can lead the property owners to no other conclusion that the City is interested in reflecting the Airport Area their Update only for the purposes of control. The statements that the property will be annexed between 1995 and 2017 and that if annexation does not occur by 2000 the Airport Area will be reconsidered is an insult to the property owners of this significant area. The AAPOA sees no commitment in the document to serve the Airport Area and no timetable to develop the infrastructure and resources necessary to serve it. This, coupled with the proposed commercial growth limits, will cripple the Airport Area, and will continue to motivate these property owner to turn their backs on the City -- as the City seems to have turned its back on them. The real issue associated with the annexation of the Airport Area just does not appear to be sinking into the minds of certain members of the City Council. Annexation requires a vote of the people being annexed, and people are not going to vote for annexation if the result is more control and frustration. It is requested that Council reconsider its position on commercial growth policies that would harm the Airport Area and unduly overburden commercial property. Rather, the City should devise policies that will truly encourage the timely and beneficial annexation of this area to the City of San Luis Obispo if cooperation is to be expected from property owners in this area. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GRO T. Keith Gurnee Senior Vice Presi Planning Division 3oz6 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 8051543-1,94 imz - i1th Street, Modesto, California 95354 = 091544-1794 A C.1,W —i e.r.pnr,r...... 1 1„Inr hl.,nr,�r.inrry. Irrlrrrnl - I r.....; Nj—b. r Of 1U 1 RECEIVED JAN 2 81992 30XCITY RK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA c/kg- aapoa.cty NORTHWINDS 4501 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543 -8475 Telex 658531 NORTHWIND SLO January 27, 1992 The Honorable Ron Dunin and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEME NT UPDATFJLOS NOMADAS Dear Mayor Dunin and Members of the Council: As the owner's representative for La Lomita Ranch and the proposed Los Nomadas project, I've read the latest Draft Land Use Element Update which you are reviewing and intend to approve and forward to the City's General Plan EIR consultant. In reviewing this draft, I must share my concerns with respect to how it affects La Lomita Ranch, the Los Nomadas project, and he future of this most important region — the lands just outside the City limits. The La Lomita Ranch has had applications on file with the City for more than three years now. While we have changed our planning approach for La Lomita Ranch over the years, generally due to changing political tides and economic parameters, we had at least thought there would be some recognition of our plans in this revised policy document. Yet, we find no mention of the La Lomita Ranch property within the Draft LUE - nor any hint of policy direction from the City for forward planning in this area Rather, our ranch is simply shown as "Conservation Open Space" outside the City's Urban Reserve Line. Also, after much research and coordination with staff which culminated in our presentation on the Los Nomadas project to the City Council on December 10th, we had further hoped that there would at least be some consideration given to the ranch as a part of the policy network in the draft document. While we realize that Los Nomadas is somewhat "late in the game" with respect to the City's LUE Update, the fact that the City has been notified of property plans in the past, leads us to believe there should be some mention of this area in the Draft LUE. Specifically, we would like to request that the City's Sphere of Influence be expanded to show the entire La Lomita Ranch holdings and that La Lomita Ranch be designated as "Interim Conservation/Open Space ". Text should also be included within the Draft LUE that would allow for the processing of applications for a resort/recreation project, through a subsequent General Plan Amendment request. Should this position be unacceptable to the City Council, for the purposes of preparing he EIR, we request that one of the EIR alternatives, as required by CEQA, include the Los Nomadas project as part of the environmental analysis. Mayor Ron Dunin Page 2 .oanuary 28, 1992 Another matter of concern to us is the suggested commercial growth limit policies as written in the Draft LUE. We feel such stringent policies would ultimately paralyze the City and negatively impact the ability of the Los Nomadas project to proceed. In these post Proposition 13 days — and in the middle of this recession which has already begun biting deep into government services - - one would think that the City should be doing everything it could to encourage those uses that will increase City revenues (i.e., retail sales and visitor serving, tourist, resort projects similar to that proposed at Los Nomadas). Approving such restrictive commercial growth limits would be an invitation for other cities, and the County to absorb the commercial growth demand that will be denied in the City of San Luis Obispo; thereby eroding the City's power as both the County's seat and economic center, resulting in the gradual strangulation of City revenues and services. We have prepared an economic analysis of the revenues and benefits associated with Los Nomadas, if approved under either City or County jurisdiction. The findings indicate that the positive impacts on City and County revenues would indeed be profound. Further, Los Nomadas proposal to jump start the City's wastewater reclamation program by constructing a major trunk line that will be necessary to serve the remainder of the City, should not be ignored. This wastewater line would not be constructed -- and the City could not get started in the wastewater .euse business, in a way that would generate new revenue — without the Los Nomadas project. We thank you for your attention and sincerely hope that the City makes the right decisions with respect to its Land Use Element Update. If it is the Council's direction to forward this policy document in its present condition to the EIR consultant, please know that we will be ready to vigorously participate in the public process once the EIR is published. Sin re , Doug urdock General Manager cc: T. Keith Gurnee, RRM LeeAnne Hagmaier, RRM c/kg- nomad.cty