HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1995, C-11 - REVIEW OF 1995-97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. QIIIWI� „�,„I ME=TING DATE:
�I�Ip�lll' I city Of San LUIS OBISPO 9-Iti- s
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Direc ' , By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planne
SUBJECT: Review of 1995-97 Capital Improvement Plan for conformance with the General Plan.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive and file the Planning Commission's report on Capital
Improvement Plan conformance; 2) By motion, determine that the 1995-97 Capital Improvement Plan
conforms to the General Plan; 3) Direct staff to bring the Montalban Street Bridge Project to the Council
for review and consideration of neighborhood issues prior to the preparation of detailed plans and
specifications and environmental review.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission found that the 1995-97 Capital
Improvement Plan conforms to the General Plan, with the possible exception of the Montalban Stmt
Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge transportation project. In response to neighbors' comments, some
Commissioners were concerned that the proposed bridge project may conflict with Land Use Element
policies regarding residential neighborhoods (resolution and policies attached). They emphasized the need
for neighborhood input on the bridge project prior to final council approval of plans and specifications.
A staff analysis of the policies in question is provided below under the "Evaluation” heading.
DISCUSSION
As required by State Law (Government Code Section 65401), the Planning Commission reviewed the
City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for conformance with the General Plan at its August 23rd
meeting. The Planning Commission's report on General Plan conformance must be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration, and if necessary, follow-up action. The 1995-97 CIP, adopted by Council
earlier this year, lists all proposed expenditures for existing and new capital facilities as part of a two-year
financial plan.
Capital Improvement Plan Description
All of the City's construction projects and capital purchases (other than General Fund vehicles or
equipment acquired through the Equipment Replacement Fund) which cost more than $15,000 are
included in the CEP (minor capital outlays of$15,000 or less are included with the operating program
budgets for each department). Through the CIP, the City systematically plans, schedules, and finances
capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness and conformance with established policies. The CIP is a four-
year plan. It is reviewed and updated every two years, unless circumstances arise which justify more
frequent review and amendment. All proposed capital expenditures are classified under one of the
following programs: Public Safety, Leisure, Cultural and Social Services, Public Utilities, Community
Development, Transportation, and General Government. A summary listing of all proposed capital
projects, together with their 1995-97 funding and associated General Plan policy references, is attached
to this report. Detailed descriptions of individual capital projects are available for review at the Finance
and Community Development Departments.
11111111ll1$11 city of san k-,AiS OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CIP Co4fotmance with the General Plan
State law requires local governments to adopt a general plan, with seven mandatory sections or
"elements": land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, noise, and safety. The City of San
Luis Obispo's General Plan also includes several optional elements: seismic safety, scenic highways
(included with circulation), parks and recreation, energy conservation, and water and wastewater
management. State law requires that major public works projects conform to the policies and programs
outlined in the general plan elements. The City Council may amend either the CIP or the General Plan
if necessary to achieve conformance.
Planning Commission's Role
The Government Code says that the "planning agency" Consistency or Conformity?
(ie. planning commission) shall review and report to
the "official agency" (ie. city council) on the Although the terms "consistency" and "conformity"
conformity of public works projects with that agency's appy synonymous in common usage, they have
general plan. A finding by the Commission of somewhat different meanings under the Government
Code. The Code uses the tern "conformity" when
conformity does not necessarily constitute an descnbmg the required evaluation of public works
endorsement of the projects or programs. Public projects as they relate to general plan policies. It uses
works project must still undergo environmental review % y"in describing the relationship of general
and receive individual Council approval prior to plan elements and specific plans to the adopted general
award of bids. plan. A project "oonforms" to the general plan if it
implements or advances general plan policies or
Programs,or if its effect is neutral. A project does not
Councilmembers should consider the Planning conform if,by its implementation, it would hamper or
Commission's comments and determine if•the CIP obstruct City,efforts to achieve general plea goals or
conforms to the General Plan. State law requires the policies.
Council to consider whether capital projects conform
to the General Plan; however this determination is
solely up to the City Council, and there are no sanctions or penalties if a CIP project does not conform.
The Council may choose to modify a project to make it conform to current goals or policies; amend the
General Plan; or take no action at this time.
Evaluation
Staff has reviewed the CIP projects, together with relevant General Plan and related council policies. The
CIP projects appear to be in conformance with the General Plan or are unrelated to General Plan policy
areas. The attached table identifies each capital improvement project and relevant General Plan elements.
In some cases, a project is not directly related to any General Plan element, but indirectly implements the
General Plan by carrying out some other Council-adopted or endorsed policy, for example, installing
handicapped access facilities for the City/County Historical Museum to meet Americans With Disabilities
Act requirements.
Montalban Street Bridge Project. At the Planning Commission hearing, several residents of the
���n�i�►►�IIIIIII�II° ����III city of San %AIS OBISp0
Mij% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Montalban Street neighborhood expressed a concern that the proposed Montalban Street bike/pedestrian
bridge could exacerbate noise, security, and safety conflicts between their residential neighborhood and
the commercial uses on the other side of the creek. Neighbors felt Land Use Element (LUE) policies
2.1.3, 2.2.2, and 2.2.4 should be interpreted as to discourage the bridge in favor of preserving certain
residential neighborhood qualities (policies attached). The Planning Commission considered the residents
comments at the hearing. In addition, the Commission also noted that LUE Policy 2.1.4 would clearly
seem to encourage bridge installation to allow convenient access to commercial area from residential
neighborhoods and to reduce automobile trips. The Commission concluded that the residents
interpretation of the policies cited did not clearly indicate the project was not in conformance. However
they noted that the policies cited by the residents raised issues that the Council should consider prior to
the commitment of significant City resources on the proposed project. It should be noted here that the
concerns raised go beyond conformity to impacts associated with the particular project proposed, and
though a project may be in conformance with the General Plan, it may not be desirable to construct that
particular project. The staff recommendation provides a process to address the issues raised by the
concerned citizens in a forum that can focus specifically on the potential impacts and benefits of the
proposed bridge project.
ALTERNATIVE
The Council can direct staff to remove from the CIP any projects that are found to be not in conformance
with the General Plan.
Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution, Summary CIP Listing, General Plan policies.
*LZ«PAC1P-rP
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5163-95
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public
hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California,
on August 23, 1995, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
PROGRAM REVIEWED:
City of San Luis Obispo 1995-97 Capital Improvement Program
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
City-Wide.
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made
by itself and on behalf of a testimony offered at said hearing, has determined that:
The City of San Luis Obispo 1995-97 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) conforms
with the General Plan, with the possible exception of the Montalban Street
Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Project, finding that:
A. The project may pose noise, privacy or safety conflicts with
the adjacent residential neighborhood;
B. The project may conflict with policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.2.2
of the General Plan Land Use Element since the bridge could
introduce incompatible activities into the creek and adjoining
residential area; and
C. Policy 2.1.4 of the General Plan Land Use Element appears to
support the bridge project since the bridge would provide
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to commercial and
public services for nearby residents.
Resolution No. 5163-95
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Capital Improvement Program be
approved subject to the following recommendation:
That the City Council conduct additional study of the proposed bridge and hold a
public hearing to invite public and neighborhood input on the project prior to the
commitment of significant city resources on the preparation of detailed construction
plans and specifications and on environmental/architectural review.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Kourakis, seconded by Commr. Ready, and upon the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Kourakis, Ready, Cross, Hoffman, Karleskint, Senn, Whittlesey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: August 23, 1995
L:5163-95.wp
City of San Luis Obispo
1995-97 CAPITAL, IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY LISTING
ProjecuProgram 1995-97 Funding Policy Link
PUBLIC SAFETY
Paint Police Headquarter; $ 33,500 none apply(n/a)
Remodel Fire Stn. 2 storage building $ 15,500 n/a
Construct Headquarters Fire Station $ 439.500 Land Use and Safety Elements
TOTAL $ 488,500
PUBLIC U7217ZES
Salinas Reservoir Expansion $ 250,000 Water/Wastewater Element
Hansen-Gularte Waterline abandonment $ 120,000 Water/Wastewater Element
Water Reuse/Distribution system $8,800,000 Water/Wastewater Element/LUE
Utility Trench repair $ 70,000 n/a
Automated Meter reading Equipment $ 34,000 n/a
Storage Tank Cathode protection $ 18,000 n/a
Water Valve Replacements $ 45,000 n/a
Transmission main replacement $2,245,600 Water/Wastewater Element
Distribution System Improvements $ 723,000 Water/Wastewater Element
Downtown Fire Sprinkler Laterals $ 150,000 Downtown Physical Plan
Pump Station Transformer Acquisition $ 25,000 n/a
Crew Vehicle acquisition $ 44,000 n/a
Vehicle replacement $ 49,000 n/a
Wastewater system improvements $ 739,000 Water/Wastewater Element
Infiltration and Inflow study $ 63,300 n/a
Lift Station Telemetry equipment $ 20,000 n/a
Reclamation vehicle replacement $ 440,000 u/a
Whale Rock Main vulnerability study $ 25.000 Safety Element
TOTAL $13,860,900
TRANSPORTA77ON&FLOOD CONTROL
Streets reconstruction and paving $1,285,000 Circulation Element
Santa Rosa St. Bridge Replacement $ 445,000 1983 Flood Management Policy
Flood Protection Improvements $ 165,000 Council Goal, 1995-97
Meadow St. Storm Drain $ 35,000 n/a
Laguna Lake Sediment Removal $ 190,000 Laguna Lake Management Plan
Orcutt Road Widening $ 220,000 Circulation Element
Bullock Ln. Realignment&Signals $ 150,000 Circulation Element
Marsh St. Sidewalk Ramps $ 150,000 Circulation Element
Neighborhood Traffic Management $ 260,000 Circulation Element
Computer Traffic Model Revision $ 70,000 Circulation Element
Undergrounding Utilities $ 15,000 Circulation Element
Jennifer Street Bridge $460,000 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan
Railroad Bike Path, Phases 1 &2 $ 645,000 Circulation Element
Minor Bike Projects $ 110,000 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan
Montalban St. Bike/Pedestrian Bridge $ 100,000 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan
Downtown Padang Garage a3 $ 45,000 Parking Management Plan
Parking Lot Improvements $ 60,000 n/a
Bus Maintenance Building Addition $ 165,000 n/a
C.�
1995-97 CIP Projects
Page 2
Project/Program 1995-97 Funding Policy Link
Bus washing Facilities $ 80,000 n/a
Bus Stop Improvements $ 25,000 n/a
Transit Transfer Center $2.040.000 SLO Short-Range Transit Plan
TOTAL $6,715,000
LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Youth Athletic Field Improvements $ 200,000 Parks and Recreation Element
Neighborhood Park Improvements $200,000 Parks and Recreation Element
Portable Gymnasium Acquisition $ 60,000 Parks and Recreation Element
Jack House Renovation $ 40,000 Parks and Recreation Element
Mission Plaza Expansion $ 455,000 Land Use Element
Historical Museum Improvements $ 530,000 URM Seismic Hazard Ordinance
Public Art-Citywide In-Lieu Fund $ 29,600 Land Use Element
AIDS Support Network Housing $ 206,000 Housing Element
EOC Family Clinic Office Acquisition $ 121,000 Land Use Element
Homeless Services Center $ 50,000 Land Use Element
Other Social Service Projects 156 000 n/a
TOTAL $2,047,600
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Corporation Yard Improvements $ 105,000 n/a
City Hall Seismic/HVAC Imprvmts. $ 900,000 n/a
Information Technology Upgrade $ 785.700 n/a
TOTAL $1,790,700
TOTAL CIP COSTS $24,902,700
NI-7
��'"1 y� •d�"��"^+�-sem ".�.
1TM
ryr .... _^rte-•--�M�l1y.� - ti _
12
1� Av
T ��.'•
may,', '..
l
1
27
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
1 POLICIES
1 2.1 Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement
2.1.1 Neighborhood Identity The city shall assist residents to identify and designate
neighborhoods. The city will work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to
facilitate development of a sense of place within neighborhoods.
I2.1.2 Neighborhood Groups The City should encourage and support the formation and
continuation of neighborhood planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents.
IV 2.1.3 Neighborhood Traffic Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic.
All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local
traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic
speed, street design should include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped parkways,
traffic circles, textured crosswalks, and, if necessary, stop signs, speed humps, and bollards.
V2.1.4 Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that
Promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks
or paths of adequate width, connecting nei hborhoods with each other and with wand
commercial seep to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. (See also
the Circulation Element.)
2.1.5 Neighborhood Open Links The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front
setbacks as a continuous open link between all areas of the City and all land uses. These
features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact,.and community
identity.
2.2 Residential Location, Uses, and Design
2.2.1 Mixed Uses & Convenience Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the
daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail
stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of
all dwellings. When nonresidential, neighborhood-serving uses are developed, existing
housing shall be preserved. If existing dwellings are removed for such uses, the
`' /development shall include replacement dwellings.
1/ 22.2 Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from
incompatible, nonresidential activities, 'including most commercial and manufacturing
C�i-9
28
businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be
protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities.
2.2.3 Housing and Aircraft New housing should not be allowed in areas where aircraft
noise exposure and the risk of aircraft accidents are not acceptable.
V/2.2.4 Residential Next to Nonresidential In designing development at the boundary
between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first .
priority.
2.2.5 Street Access New residential developments, or redevelopments involving large
sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium-
or high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. Major arterials
through residential area shall provide only limited private access or controlled street
intersections.
2.2.6 Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with
existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new
development should create new neighborhoods.
2.2.7 Housing and Businesses Where housing can be compatible with offices or other
businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged.
2.2.8 Natural Features Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as
amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, and plants.
2.2.9 Parking Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened
from street views. Iii general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the
street.
2.2.10 Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should
be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large
group-living facilities should becompatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A. Architectural Character New buildings should respect existing buildings which
contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing,
and variety.
B. Privacy and Solar Access New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access
of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or .
additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the Energy
Conservation Element.)
,;�n;�'.. '. �y ♦rA +.. 4 4 i '.��� 4<. �il i� s:• t4 c �� i � ,t-� �
Z 1 i � � / _ '� fi \`rte • f t k f 1 I. .i .L�
Ar '�! � �'I)�.�bb" ��'�a ��' r � Ka�' r .��� .f `f 1i�i�,•� �� s� �a� �.. �
�r � ,;' . �,`�+f�_ .. �; ��,r3sj tt4 .x ct"dr.�1 _'�����'l �ri �d/w t�� �i •Y';.(.
µ f� .. ",• S �4� l .moi. '"�
T��{ a: L� u �'" tib., � ��-�� r'4�•.. i 4 .c a"w• i. � w'� r,,,.�.4 s,'
„ IN_ S'1.' b{C.ti1• r 7Jy� _ yam, '''f
IF I Ng
t r t z� s'i- �911 �Y ,�,� ,c.;.) Ilii/ ��I�k� 1 •� - _ � 3.
� t
+7
^..J_ '�'•ti-'..Y'.'..�: t K*�irre1` 'P".r .�.-�t'`��_-_�..i�ti�'T��'�:T fir* -j-�.r-
��''.� N���iF 9♦.Y�TVrF,- � -.F^•^-- \� LfY �Ly R'1LT. ! r___
1
Y
Mn
a■ELI
■■■■ ■
z 07LIN
MEN
WOW
1
41 1 mom
� J
I
► f F