HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1992, C-2 - MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (MTC) MEMBERSHIP CHANGES Original agenda report from the 5/5/92 meeting. S-/ -920
�Ilu^Iu1III�II�llll� MEETING DATE:
IIII^I III�IIIIII
CIty Q San JS OBISPO
C0UNCiL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER
FROM: Ren Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) Membership Changes
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Give final passage to Ordinance No. 1207
amending the MTC membership requirement to: (a) exempt the Cal
Poly representative from term limitations and (b) replace the Human
Relations Commission representative with a student representative.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of April 21, 1992, the City Council introduced
Ordinance No. 1207 which modifies the membership of the Mass
Transportation Committee. Staff recommends that Council give final
passage to the ordinance.
ATTACHMENT:
Ordinance No. 1207 (1992 Series)
kh\mtc.rpt
a
ORDINANCE NO. 1207 (1992 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 2.20, SECTIONS 2.20.020
MEMBERSHIP OF THE MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
AND SECTION 2.20.030 TERMS OF OFFICE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.20, Section 2.20.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 2.20.020 MEMBERSHIP
The Mass Transportation Committee shall consist of seven members, selected as
follows:
A. One person from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo;
B. One senior citizen;
C. One student representative;
E. One person with technical transportation planning experience;
F. One disabled person;
G. One person from the general public.
Section 2.20.030 TERMS OF OFFICE
A. Terms of office shall be four years. A member may serve for no more than
two consecutive full terms (eight years) with the exception of the member
from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, whose term
is exempt from the term limitation. Terms shall be staggered and shall
commence on April 1st.
B. Vacancies shall be filled by the Council for unexpired terms.
Section 2.20.040 OFFICERS
At its first regular meeting of April 1st each year, the committee shall elect a
chairperson and vice chairperson whose terms shall be one year, commencing on
election.' No person shall serve in the office of chairperson or vice chairperson
for more than two consecutive terms.
C-a�-
Page 2
Ordinance No. (1992 SERIES)
1207
SECTION II. This ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes
and noes, shall be published at least three (3) days prior to its final passage in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the
same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after said final
passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the 21st day of April 1992.
On motion of Cotmcilwa;m Rappa seconded by
Councilman Roalman I and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cotmcilmembers Rappa, Roalman, Pinard, Reiss, and Mavor Dunin
NOES: ire
ABSENT: None
of on Dunin
ATTEST•
V
City Clirk Pam Voges
kh\MTC.ord
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Department Heads
FROM: Jeff H 10 7
VIA: Arnold Jonasb
DATE: August 25, 1992
SUBJECT: Los Nomadas EIR
The City has begun the EIR process for the 695-acre Los Nomadas recreational planned
development project as co-lead agency with the County of San Luis Obispo. Five consultants
are expected to respond to the RFP for consultant services, and their proposals are due Monday,
September 14th. In the next two weeks, consultants will probably be contacting various
departments with information requests. In some cases, they need this information (eg. status of
city projects, data bases, information on previous studies) prior to submitting their proposals.
Utilities and traffic will be particularly "popular" topics.
Given the scope of the EIR, the consultants' questions could consume a significant chunk of staff
time -- particularly between now and the September 14th deadline. To better manage this
additional workload and to provide accurate, consistent answers to all the consultant firms, I
would appreciate it if each Department would designate one staff person as the "Los Nomadas
contact" who will handle all information requests and let me know who that person is. Your
cooperation and patience with the consultants is appreciated. If you have questions, please call
me at extension 176.
Attachments: Draft EIR schedule, workscope, and list of consultants.
� rr r
i1 = r._I
AUG 3 1992
s .
August 25, 1992
TENTATIVE EIR SCHEDULE - LOS NOMADAS PROJECT
The following tentative dates are subject to change prior to EIR contract execution. They describe the
order and relative timing of key EIR action dates. Listed events may happen sooner than the dates
listed, but not later except by prior written agreement between the City and consultant.
Tuesday, August 25, 8.30 am -Pre-proposal conference and site tour.
Monday, September 14, 5 pm - Deao7ne for submitting EIR proposals.
Wednesday, October 7- Consultant interviews.
Monday, October 12 - Consultants notified of ranking.
Tuesday, November 10- City Council authorizes staff to negotiate with top-ranking consultants
and execute EIR contract.
Tuesday, November 24 - Execute contract and issue notice to proceed.
1993
Thursday, January 28, 9 am - Progress meeting (City, County, Applicant's Rep.).
Thursday, March 25, 9 am - Progress meeting (City, County, Applicant's Rep.).
Monday, Apn7 26, 4 pm - Deadline for submitting Administrative Draft EIR.
Friday, May 14 - Comments on administrative DEIR to consultant.
Monday, June 14 - Deadline for submitting DEIR copies and camera-ready original.
Wednesday, June 30 DEIR distributed for 45-day public comment period.
Wednesday, July 14 - Planning Commission review of DEIR.
Monday, August 16, 5 pm - Deadline to receive public comments on DEIR.
Friday, September 17, 5 pm Deadline for submitting Final EIR.
Tuesday, October 26- City Council hearing on FEIR.
Tuesday, November 23 - Second City Council hearing on FEIR.
���� ��� i�►►►I�I►IIIIII@i►�►► �����i III I city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
August 12, 1992
DRAFT EIR WORKSCOPE FOR
THE LOS NOMADAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Following is a draft outline of issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Los Nomadas
development project:
A. Community Plans and Goals
1. Consistency with other City and County General Plans and zoning regulations;
2. City and County annexation, open space and agricultural preservation standards and
policies; and
3. City and County zoning and Spheres of Influence.
B. Population Distribution and Growth
1. City/County growth management policies.
2. Regional housing supply and demand; and
3. Population distribution and growth in areas between project site and existing City limits,
and in the areas where the proposed treated wastewater effluent line will pass through the
City and County.
C. Land Use
1. Effects of the extension of the treated effluent service main to serve Los Nomadas on City
and County land adjacent to the trunkline.
2. Suitability of site for agricultural uses, and compatibility with adjacent uses.
3. Potential loss of agriculturally productive soils.
4. Competition for groundwater resources between the proposed project and surrounding
uses.
5. Cumulative impacts to agriculture associated with the proposed project and other proposed
projects in the area.
6. Project's possible airport hazards and consistency with County Airport Land Use standards.
7. Direct and secondary effects on City commercial growth.
Draft EIR Workscope
Page 2
D. Transportation and Circulation
1. Pre- and post-development traffic volumes, levels of service, and peak hour movements on
City and County traffic patterns, including cumulative, future impacts of other major
development anticipated in the City and County. In consultation with the Engineering
Departments of both the City and County a study area shall be developed to analyze traffic
effects.
2. Effects of the proposed driveway access onto State Highway 227.
3. Effects of project on County Airport operations, including vehicle trip generation, circulation
and parking; passenger travel operations, take-off and approach requirements; and future
airport expansion needs.
4. Impacts on and needs for public transportation, bicycle facilities, and transportation
linkages with existing and planned development and uses in the project vicinity.
5. Internal access and circulation requirements, including needs for parking, highway and
emergency access, delivery and loading facilities, connections across (and possibly along)
the railroad right-of-way (need and design), public transit staging areas, and access along
Orcutt Road.
6. Traffic improvements or trip reduction measures necessary to mitigate project traffic
impacts, including possible highway or street changes, traffic signage or signals, frontage
improvements, on-or off-ramp additions or modifications, bikeways and pedestrian routes,
public transportation equipment, staff, facilities or route improvements.
E. Public Services
1. Adequacy of existing County and City public services to meet the areas' needs for such
services if the project is developed in either City or County, and changes or improvements
necessary, if any, to meet those needs. Police, fire and medical emergency response (4-
minute response time considered necessary in the City), schools, and public transit needs
and capabilities should be specifically determined, based on the project's description, City
and County staffing, equipment and facilities, and physical access constraints.
2. Effects on schools, roads and other local or areawide public facilities, including existing
private or public golf courses.
3. Solid waste disposal and recycling needs and requirements, and adequacy of existing and
proposed services and facilities to handle solid waste disposal, on-site composting,
collection and recycling.
F. Utilities
1. Water supplies and demand in City and County, including field verification of onsite well
water pumping rates, cumulative effects, and long-term reliability. A groundwater study
area shall be identified by the consultant in consultation with the County Engineering
Department. Downstream areas shall be included in the study area. A detailed
hydrogeologic analysis shall be prepared for the study area.
Draft EIR Workscope
Page 3
2. Septic system or sanitary sewer requirements, and infrastructure needs and impacts to
provide City sewer service, and possible need for Community Services District to meet
County service needs.
3. Project effects on groundwater availability as it relates to surrounding development,
especially the Edna/Los Ranchos area which includes the Country Club development and
surrounding agricultural uses.
4. Feasibility of CSA 22, Cal Cities Water or Edna Valley Mutual Water Company to serve the
project with or without State Water.
5. Evaporation from the proposed ponds on the water demand for the project.
6. Availability and potential impacts of extending utility lines to the project site, including
water, sewer, electrical, gas, cable TV, and telephone.
7. Feasibility of on-site sewage treatment and disposal (additional information will be required
from the applicant); including the effects of spray effluent on soils (eg. ponding, saturation,
and runoff), groundwater and surface water quality, and resultant odor impacts.
G. Noise Levels
1. Exceedence of city/county noise level thresholds resulting from project-related traffic,
including the potential for noise impacts on nearby residential areas due to increased air
traffic resulting from the project.
2. Effects of noise from State Highway 227, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the County
airport on the project's employees and visitors, including the need for noise attenuation
measures.
3. A noise contour map shall be developed for the project site and the site vicinity, including
the County airport and nearby residential areas.
H. Geologic & Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications
Evaluation of the site's geology and seismic safety should be done to determine site
suitability for the proposed use and special construction measures needed to address seismic
issues, erosion protection, sedimentation, and slope stability, consistent with City and County
standards.
I. Air Quality and Wind Conditions
1. Air quality impacts of the proposed uses, including cumulative impacts of this and other
major developments anticipated in nearby City and County areas.
2. Project compliance with County air quality standards using both the Air Pollution Control
District's computer models and actual motor vehicle trip generation rates. Consultant will
need to work closely with APCD staff.
3. Appropriate air quality mitigation strategies, possibly including transportation demand
Draft EIR Workscope
Page 4
management programs, offsets, or other emission reduction measures.
J. Surface Water Row and Quality
1. Project effects on surface runoff rates and on-site drainage retention needs should be
evaluated.
2. Effects of golf course irrigation and fertilization on ground water, nearby private septic
systems, and on stream water quality should also be evaluated, including both quantitative
and qualitative factors. Water quality protection measures should be identified.
3. The City's upcoming Water Reclamation Program EIR (completed in Fall 1992) will address
maximum amounts of effluent which may be diverted from San Luis Obispo Creek without
adversely affecting creek hydrology or downstream wildlife habitat. The program EIR
anticipates that about 800 to 1200 acre feet (AF) of treated effluent will be diverted
annually, while according to the applicants, Los Nomadas project will need about 1,500 to
2,000 AF per year of treated effluent. The effects of diverting more treated effluent from
San Luis Obispo Creek than addressed in the Wastewater Reclamation Program EIR should
be evaluated.
K. Plant Life
1. Existing site flora, including rare, endemic or endangered species; habitat requirements and
project development effects on native and introduced plant species. A map shall
accompany this section in the EIR showing the location of particular plant species. The
consultant will be expected to coordinate closely with State Fish and Game on this section.
2. Effects of alternative development scenarios on plants and plant habitats, including
continuation of the current land uses, conversion to vineyards or similar monoculture, and a
reduced intensity development scheme occupying the western one-half of the site and
leaving the eastern one-half in its current or similar agricultural/equestrian uses.
3. Appropriate landscape design, planting and maintenance techniques, including plant types
and arrangements, to achieve recreational/resort objectives while maximizing site ecological
diversity, bio-productivity and habitat values.
L. Animal Life
1. Existing animal life occurring on site, including rare, endemic or endangered species, and
the project's potential effects on these species' ecology, population numbers, distribution,
and reproduction, including a map showing location and distribution of animal species.
2. Effects of project alternatives on animal life and animal habitats.
3. Wildlife habitat protection/enhancement measures, including wildlife corridors and protected
linkages to adjacent open space areas, "ecotones" and sensitive areas -- particularly creek
and riparian areas.
Draft EIR Workscope
Page 5
M. Archaeological/Historical
An archaeological surface survey and literature search will be needed for the project area, including
test digs in areas where a likelihood of subsurface cultural resources is indicated. Studies should
identify the project's possible effects on archaeological and historical resources. An historical
description and maps of the ranch, ranch house and buildings pre-dating 1940 should be provided. .
Measures to preserve, restore or enhance cultural resources should also be discussed.
N. Esthetic
1. The project's visual impacts on views of the site and key surrounding visual features
including Islay Hill, Santa Lucia Hills, Edna Valley from vista points along Highway 227, in
the Airport Area, from Highway 101 at the south entry to the City, and from Orcutt Road.
2. The effectiveness of visual mitigation measures planned with the project, and where
applicable, additional design measures (site planning, grading and road design, architectural
design, colors and materials, landscape and golf course design) should be discussed.
3. Potential changes in the area's visual character as a result of the project.
4. A visual simulation study, photo collage, or similar method should be used to document
visual impacts.
O. Energy and Resource Use
Project impacts resulting from increased demand on energy and resource supply and demand in
both City and County should be evaluated, and impact mitigation strategies discussed.
P. Socio-Economic Effects
Project effects on the City's and County's economies, specifically:
1. Number of new jobs created and income levels.
2. Direct and indirect fiscal costs and revenues to City and County with A) construction, and
B) on-going operation.
3. User group analysis, including expected origin of users, mode of transportation, frequency
and duration of visits, and dollars spent in the community.
4. Summary cost/benefit analysis of the project and the project alternatives for construction in
the City and County.
Q. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
A mitigation.monitoring plan shall be included in the workscope. All recommended mitigation
measures shall be referenced with regard to timing, implementation, and identification of
responsible parties for mitigation actions.
Los Nomadas EIR
LIST OF EIR CONSULTANTS
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services
510 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Attn: Katyn D. Smith
Fugro-McClelland (West), Inc. _
1012 Pacific Street, #A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Chris Clark
SAIC (probable joint venture partner)
121 Gray Avenue
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
The Morro Group
P.O. Box 6297
Los Osos, CA 93412
Attn: Mary Reents
Site and Environmental Design
849 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: David Foote
Dames & Moore
175 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Attn: John Gray
Andrew Merriam (probable joint venture partner)
Merriam and Associates
1350 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
TN s4 1 l' l�r`��9
SEP 2 � 1993
Ri9R. M D E 5 1 G N G R O UP r
Ardtttechtre Planning Eng neer ng Interiors•Landsmpe Architecture
CIIYfCOUNCII _
_ SAN::,L'UIS OBISPO;iCk, _
:Septem—W, a•1993 . q
T.
N f
Hand De'Mivery
r f
/fin/
it f
I QJ�f//• J 4
'Honorable'Mayor Peg.Pinard. Q%'v
'Members of the CityCouncil
1
City of San Laic Obispo
a ;
900 Palin Street
San_Luis Obispo, CA-';93408 Retain th s r current
_ rUt�,ire aG"J:;!'ll meeting
Re; .z Open Space Element - Los Nomadas
— 1c, tts;.a.sndiz.en-�
"'E Pinard:. -
>..
On behalf of the Los Nomadas ,project, we have., reviewed the iPlatog Commission
leg>tslative draft Open.Space Elementan,anticipation of your counc—s scheduled ear:ngs
on the Open•Space Element;Update, 'The draft document before you has'�mprovea greztly
§ince ttie ori- al document rwas- ublished� ecificall' vinth .re ect,;to, ack*.owledgmg
o
— — Y p y .
acctive recreatio`n:as+,open,space:.
w -
e do, !iower;_have some: concerns.— �- —e-v— ,,than there. are internal mcons'Isstencies vv><tlun the .
docament and ttbatathe,adoption of�th>Isddiaff Open vSpaI.
ce Element may preclude current n
or future admin�strations'from encouraging.income,producingopenspace and recreational
land uses_such,asLos'•Nomada"s, We'offe th"e followini s,ecific commentsmith respect to
the;P"lammng Commission legislative:draft Open.Space'.Element. ,
r
i GENERAL COA MENTS."
'-15}+aert. 1+no. tc T'Tnr��.T Jc. Til ..,CPt0panSpaceffil.'.^.:P.ntvi�-jousina
... .,.� . :ro•�.
Element and consia rg an upeate:to i*sr,rarks and Recreation Element Al these
elements^contain toverlapp><ng:,poll<cies an-d. each with Ikdii. own ,fiscal
mplioationi. nAf r would'seem:-appropriate,"particula ly when estabMbhig,,`a priority
schedule' fo**;acquiring. open space,' Ithat the: City evaluate: the fiscal"impacts:Ghat ,t
would iesult °fom ,settwg .policy encouraging easement` or fee title ;open space
acquisitions Such fiscal' evaluation would help the .City determine .real-time. 4
acq Witions and seasonable implementation.
Golf courses�are}open,ispace uses as def>lned m both the lI.City of San Lu><s;`Obispo's
definition of open space and'-the State definition ;of open%space I,,Repeatedly the
document referencessp-assive recreation as a sub category of open space lbnds, aiid
stated that acttvekrecreahon, while considered open space, should be addressed ;E
within,the Parks and Recreation Element of:the'City's Gerieral''Elen--
n -:t
3026 South Higuera Street,San Luis Obispo,California.93401 805(543-1794 • . SEP, ^;.1993
101 alth Street,Modesto,California 95354 '209/544-1794 -
A C.„...a„a„/6no.bt„nrgumr.y,Ar1h,110-L,,,.,Numb,r cos toed' CITY'_COU NC.I
'SAWLUIS_OBISPO; CA.
Honorable Mayor Pinard
Members of the City Council
Page 2
September 22, 1993
Space Element is a State-mandated element of the General Plan, while the Parks
and Recreation Element is a voluntary or elective element the City has chosen to
prepare and adopt. Under State guidelines, the Open Space Element should set
forth all policies and programs for every kind of open space. While it is reasonable
to maintain the Parks and Recreation Element as a subset of the Open Space
Element, the City should not create two mutually exclusive documents.
With respect to golf courses and parklands as open space, neither is defined in
Chapter V - DEFINITIONS, and thus, there could still be some question as to
whether the City considers golf courses as parkland and active recreation or open
space lands.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The following comments correspond to policies within select chapters of the draft
Open Space Element, as noted.
CHAPTER A. HILLS AND MOUNTAINS
♦ General Comment
The Los Nomadas project is consistent with the document's stated Hillside goals,
both within the Urban Reserve Line and the Greenbelt/Outer Planning Area. The
City stresses protection of the Morros and recognizes Islay Hill as property which
should ultimately be protected under fee title in public ownership or easement under
private ownership. The Los Nomadas project proposes development consistent with
the Hillside planning program and would grant the entire circumference of the hill
in fee title to the City.
CHAPTER B. CREEKS
♦ Comment 1.
Within the City limits there are approximately 35 miles of creeks. The Los
Nomadas project has over one full mile of creek corridors which would be offered
to the City in fee title or easement The active recreation proposed at Los Nomadas
would implement creek policy D, page 23, as well as maintain consistency with most
all creek policies identified.
♦ Comment 2.
Honorable Mayor Pinard
Members of the City Council
Page 3
September 22, 1993
Policy #1B, Page 24, under Programs Within The Urban Reserve Line, the
Greenbelt, and the Other Planning Area states that an ordinance should be adopted
to standardize creek setbacks and designate allowable uses within creeks. The policy
also states that this ordinance should establish that the creek corridor should not be
utilized in determining site density. This policy should be a major concern to most
of the large land owners within or neighboring the City. If the City is to gain
easements, fee title, or riparian enhancement of creekways, either within the City
or within the Outer Planning Area, creekway property owners should derive some
benefit from dedicating creeks to the City, and incentive programs should be devised
to encourage land owners to offer creekways to the City.
CHAPTER D. GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES
♦ Comment 1.
As noted in the Open Space Element, most grasslands within and surrounding the
City of San Luis Obispo are non-native grasslands which usually contain highly
invasive weedy species. Specifically, Policy #2, Page 37 under Policies Within the
Greenbelt and Outer Planning Area, states the City will work with the County, State
and other applicable agencies to retain grassland communities found within the
greenbelt area at their current level of use. Because these grasslands are not native,
we feel this policy is overly burdensome. Most of the grasslands in and around the
City, particularly in the Edna Valley, have little to no value and those with value are
heavily grazed. As a part of the golf course proposal at Los Nomadas, many of the
grasslands will be preserved, and native grasses planted, reclaimed, and enhanced
in corridors providing for continued wildlife movement.
CHAPTER I. AGRICULTURAL LANDS
♦ Comment 1.
Policy C, sub 1, Page 61, suggests the City implement agricultural buffer
requirements and mitigation fees. This policy is unreasonable in that a mitigation
fee to purchase agricultural lands elsewhere within the greenbelt as a "protection
mitigation" would be asking the property owner to write a "blank check" for an
unspecified, and undetermined piece of property. Perhaps more appropriate
wording would be for the City to develop a mitigation fee program to purchase
agricultural lands within the greenbelt when other lands in the greenbelt are
converted to urban use, or agricultural buffer requirements cannot be met.
Honorable Mayor Pinard
Members of the City Council
Page 4
September 22, 1993
♦ Comment 2.
Clustering incentives being encouraged on agricultural land is a positive policy that
we are happy to see incorporated into the document. However, such incentives,
including density bonuses, should be made compelling enough to encourage
landowners to place a majority of their lands in protective open space.
♦ Comment 3.
Page 63, Policy 1, sub 1, states that urban uses should be located within the City's
Urban Reserve Line or County's Village Reserve Lines. Strictly interpreted, this is
a good policy. Yet, what if a project such as a golf course and related commercial
structures is proposed outside the Urban Reserve Line? Since a golf course would
be considered active recreation or parkland, it should be considered an appropriate
open space use.
♦ Comment 4.
With respect to the various policies regarding agricultural production, many lands
in the Edna Valley adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo have little agricultural
productivity value. It is important that the Open Space Element acknowledge that
when agricultural production value is limited, restrictive agricultural conditions
should not be placed on private property owners or ranchers. For example, La
Lomita Ranch has only ±60 acres, of a total ±700 acre holding., where the soils are
suitable for dryland farming. In the 1991-1992 year, the total revenue received from
this ±60-acre crop was only $6,000.00.
CHAPTER J. SCENIC RESOURCES
♦ Comment 1.
Page 70, Policy D, sub 2, stresses that preserving agricultural viability should have
a higher priority than preserving scenic quality along gateways into the City. We
agree with this policy, but there seems to be a contradiction between maintaining
productive agricultural lands and protecting agriculture as important view corridors
and viewsheds. If the quality of the agricultural land is limited, then the City's
ability to maintain agricultural as open space for scenic purposes and important
gateways is questionable.
CHAPTER K. OUTDOOR RECREATION
Honorable Mayor Pinard
Members of the City Council
Page 5
September 22, 1993
♦ Comment 1.
Page 73, Policy F, sub 1, states that active recreation should be located within or
contiguous to the Urban Reserve Line, specifically relating to hotels or other
commercial development associated with golf courses or resorts. We agree that
resort and golf course use should be located within the Urban Reserve Line (URL),
however, golf courses could be allowable within the greenbelt areas provided any
structures associated with that golf course were:
1. Located within the URL with the golf course located in the greenbelt outside
the URL buffering the urban uses from adjacent agriculture lands, or
2. Designed to minimise visual impacts from prominent view points and also
provide attractive gateways in to the City.
♦ Comment 2.
With respect to policies on Page 77 and 79, specifically 1D and Fl-3, the revised
Update goes far to encourage property owners to work with the City to site and
develop a golf course. With the latest proposal from Los Nomadas to dedicate 170
acres to the City for a municipal golf course, it would appear that the Los Nomadas
proposal is clearly consistent with the goals of this Draft Open Space Element.
CHAPTER L. URBAN EDGE
♦ Comment 1.
Page 82, Policy 1, sub B, states that the City should not allow major expansions to
the Urban Reserve Line, as the existing Urban Reserve Line provides adequate
capacity for new housing and employment up to the City's desired maximum. This
policy directly contradicts earlier policies in the Outdoor Recreation chapter that
encourages the City to work with private property owners or the County to designate
potential golf course sites within and outside the Urban Reserve Line. The City
currently does not have adequate capacity to accommodate recreational needs in the City.
The City should encourage policies to increase recreation opportunities and be
willing to expand the Urban Reserve Line to do so. This policy should be omitted
and reworded to encourage URL expansions where public recreation needs can be
satisfied. Also, special consideration should be granted to "income producing open
svace"uses. As the City's taxpayers become further burdened by decreasing services
and increasing tax and service rates (i.e.: recently increased water utility tax), the
City should look toward, at minimum, revenue-neutral annexations and aggressively
seek revenue-positive land uses.
Honorable Mayor Pinard
Members of the City Council
Page 6
September 22, 1993
In conclusion, we hope that these comments submitted to you on behalf of the Los
Nomadas project can be evaluated as a part of your deliberations on the latest Draft Open
Space Element. Should you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to give
us a call. We appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
*LeeHagmaier
Vice President
Planning Division
z/lh-losno.pi2
cc: John Mandeville
Doug Murdock
Keith Gurnee, RRM