Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2001, 1 - ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN C council r..fimD" Mar. 6,01 acEn.aa RepoRt Item Number / CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Long-range Planning Manager F ��3 Prepared By: Glen Matteson,Associate Planner 6Foy GkN SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION Accept the Annual Report for the year 2000, and provide direction to staff on items recommended for consideration by the Planning Commission, including nonresidential growth management. DISCUSSION The General Plan provides a comprehensive, long-range vision focusing on preserving community resources and meeting community needs. The General Plan provides a basis for rational decision- making regarding the City's long-term physical development. The General Plan is adopted and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens, appointed advisory bodies, other agencies,and City staff. The City publishes an annual report (enclosed) on the status of its General Plan and actions taken to implement it. The report is to help citizens and City officials understand recent actions involving the General Plan. The Planning Commission and the City Council use the Annual Report as a basis for deciding any direction to be given to staff, to change priorities for implementation efforts or to prepare possible amendments for hearings. The annual report is done in part to comply with State law, which says that "the planning agency shall ... provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the general plan and progress in it implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs..." (California Government Code Section 65400). Depending on the context, "planning agency" can mean the Planning Commission, staff of the Community Development Department, or both. Our approach has been for staff to draft the report, and present it to the Planning Commission for review and direction before presenting it to the City Council,which is the legislative body. The General Plan itself also calls for an annual report, to be completed during the first quarter of each calendar year (Land Use Element policy 9.3). According to this policy, the report is to include the following items. A. A summary of private development activity and a brief analysis of how it helped meet general plan goals; B. A summary of major public projects and a brief analysis of how they contributed to meeting general plan goals; C. An overview of programs, and recommendations on any new approaches that may be necessary; Council Agenda Report—General Plan Annual Report Page 2 D. A status report for each general plan program scheduled to be worked on during that year, including discussion of whether that program's realization is progressing on schedule, and recommendations for how it could better be kept on schedule if it is lagging; E. A status report on how the City is progressing with implementing its open space preservation policies and programs; F. Updated population or other information deemed important for the plan. In the report, staff has tried to balance brevity and completeness. More could be said on each topic, but staff hoped to give a concise overview. CONCURRENCES Staff presented a draft report to the Planning Commission on February 14. The Commission spent a substantial amount of time discussing the report and the issues it covers. The Commission's directions were divided into two aspects: (1)suggestions for the content and format of the report, and (2) recommendations to the City Council concerning follow-up actions. The directions and staff comments are summarized below. Report Content&Format Commission suggestion:Identify the size of the Guidetti Ranch. Staff response: Done on page 13,under the "Open Space Protection"bullets. Commission suggestion:Be more explicit in distinguishing analysis from recommendations. Staff response: The report has been modified to make the conclusions or recommendation more distinct from reporting on status. Commission suggestion:It would be desirable to have the entire plan up to date. Staff response: Staff agrees, and has added an observation to page 5, immediately above "Element Updates,"explaining why it is difficult to work on many elements at once. Commission suggestion:Include the objective for affordable housing in Table 3-A. Staff response: A box has been added in the lower right corner of the table. It is difficult to provide a complete picture, because the Housing Element's figures do not coincide exactly with the type of information presented in the table. Commission suggestion:In Table 3-B, include information on what the growth rate would have been if the commercial buildings nearly completed by the end of 2000 had received,their final inspections. Staff response: A box has been added in the lower right comer of the table. Commission suggestion: The report should acknowledge that projects have been approved but are not yet drawing water. �-a C C Council Agenda Report—General Plan Annual Report Page 3 Staff response: Two statements have been added, at the bottom of page 13, explaining when water allocations are accounted for and noting that supplemental supply is to be obtained in time to allow one-percent annual growth to continue. Commission suggestion:Include a table for annexed development. Staff response: Future years' reports will include a table showing annexed development. Staff will try to obtain information on the construction date of annexed development, to at least give an impression on whether it is long established or recent. Commission suggestion:Mention the Housing Element update intended to start in 2001. Staff response: A note has been added to Table 1. Commission suggestion:Provide a breakdown by type of nonresidential floor area existing in 1994. Staff response: The note in Table 3-B has been expanded to do so. Follow-up Actions Commission recommendation: The Council should set a limit for the rate of nonresidential development, and direct staff to analyze how best to implement the limit [vote 5'yes, 1 no, 1 vacancy]. Staff comment: As the report discusses, nonresidential growth has reached the rate —more than five percent over five years—that triggers consideration of setting limits, as provided in Policy LU 1.11.4. Policy LU 1.11.4 identifies types of nonresidential development that should not be directly regulated, and there are several other considerations in effectively managing nonresidential growth. If the Council wishes to implement this policy at this time, it should direct staff to analyze implementation strategies and return to the Council with the analysis and recommendations. Commission recommendation: Reconsider the criteria for using the planned development zone for residential projects [vote 5 yes, I no, I vacancy]. Commissioners' comments focused on a concern that the PD was being used to relax standards in exchange for affordability, rather than to modify standards to achieve better design quality. Staff comment: Although no specific projects were given as examples, the Commission has reviewed some residential planned developments in the recent past that have failed to meet the"innovation test." One project on Augusta Street-involved exceptions to height, setbacks, and lot area that certainly benefited the applicant, but offered little in exchange back to the community. The Planning Commission included analyzing the PD regulations in its Budget Goals for FY 2001-03. This Commission goal was not a major city goal identified by the Council for the 2001-03 Financial Plan. This means that it will be addressed as resources permit.. The Housing Element update, scheduled to begin in 2001, may provide an opportunity to. take another look at the relationship between relaxed standards under the Planned Development zone and other types of incentives or requirements to provide affordable housing, and address them on a policy level. /-3 Council Agenda Report–General Plan Annual Report Page 4 Commission recommendation: Strive to achieve the housing production targets, including affordable housing[vote 6 yes, Ono, I vacancy]. Staff comment: The most effective steps to accommodate significant housing production include timely adoption of specific plans and development plans (for areas such as Irish Hills,Margarita, and Orcutt)and provision of additional water supplies. Commission recommendation: Update the Parking and Downtown Access Plan [vote 6 yes, 0 no, 1 vacancy]. The discussion focused on concerns with the Marsh Street Garage expansion and the relationship between proposed downtown developments and additional parking. Staff comment: The Parking and Downtown Access Plan has been undergoing preparation and review for several years. It cannot be updated because it has not been adopted. On February 5, the Council directed that staff return with recommendations to implement parts of the plan, but did not set a date for adoption of the entire plan. Council has decided to immediately pursue some of that draft plan's components that are consistent with adopted policy and can be carried out within the next few months, such as changing parking fees and establishing a subsidized bus pass program for downtown workers. Anticipated Council actions on the Marsh Street Garage expansion are an appeal of the architectural approval, scheduled for March 20, and re-authorization of bid requests in April. In the same time frame, Council is expected to consider a study titled"North Area Regional Transit Facility." This study, along with memoranda of understanding with the County and with the Copelands, will also address downtown parking demand and supply issues, focusing on the northern part. Commission recommendation: Accelerate adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan, to enable the areawide annexation rather than continuing with individual annexations [vote 6 yes, 0 no, I vacancy]. Staff comment: Plan preparation was delayed mainly by redesigning for the least costly public facilities that would provide an acceptable level of service. Staff believes the plan and environmental report will be ready for hearings that could lead to adoption this year. Commission recommendation: Take a stronger position on matters involving Cal Poly and Cuesta College, and direct staff to prepare a report on issues such as traffic impacts and housing relating to the two colleges[vote 6 yes, 0 no, 1 vacancy]. Staff comment: staff believes that this concern is being adequately addressed through recent or upcoming tasks in the work program, such as commenting on Cal Poly's Master Plan revision, Cal Poly faculty housing project, updating the City's Housing Element, and encouraging Cuesta College to develop on-campus housing. Commission recommendation: Pursue grants for affordable housing, and provide the resources to seek and enable preparation of grant applications[vote 6 yes, 0 no, 1 vacancy]. Staff comment: This recommendation is closely related to one of the major city goals identified by the Council for the 2001-03 Financial Plan. The Council's goal includes expanding opportunities for low and moderate income housing. . The single most effective method of creating affordable housing is to buy down market cost factors, such as land cost, through the use of grant funds. A strategy for doing this will be presented to the Council as a goal implementation strategy for the 2001-03 Financial Plan. —7 Council Agenda Report General Plan Annual Report Page 5 Commission recommendation: Consider updating the Land Use Element [vote S yes, I no, 1 vacancy]. Items mentioned included changes in community priorities, Council action on the Dalidio property, and expansion of the commercial core into the mid-Higuera area. Staff comment: It has been 12 years since the last update was started, and seven years since it was adopted. Council direction on the Dalidio property marks a significant change for that area. However, before deciding to start a comprehensive update it would be desirable to have Council direction in response to the pending update of the Airport Land Use Plan (refer to page 17 of the Annual Report). If significant changes to the amount or location of residential capacity are proposed in response to airport hazard determinations, it would make sense to have a concurrent update of the elements concerning safety, land use, housing, conservation and open space, and possibly circulation. Commission recommendation: Prepare a historical preservation element [vote 4 yes, 2 no, 1 vacancy]. Staff comment: The Land Use Element contains a fairly detailed section on Community Heritage (policy LU 6.6.1 through program LU 6.7.6) as well as other policies concerning heritage resources (LU 2.2.10, 3.3.4, and 4.12). A General Plan element could combine these policies, and any others desired by the Council, with summary information on resources. Council will need to decide if the effort to prepare a separate element is justified considering other demands on City resources, or if this idea can instead be considered when the LUE is updated. FISCAL IMPACT Receiving the report will have no fiscal impacts. Establishing new tasks will require additional resources, or the diversion of resources from other efforts. The fiscal impacts of proposed General Plan amendments and implementation programs are discussed as those items are presented separately to the Council for action. ALTERNATIVES No action is required. Council may continue action. Enclosed Annual Report on the General Plan: 2000 To be distributed when available: Planning Commission minutes for February 14,2001 Gp annual report\Car 2000 C r city of san lues oBispo annual RepoRt on the c en eRal plan. 2000 This report was prepared by the Community Development Department, for acceptance by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Community Development Department's Long-range Planning Division often takes the lead for staff work involving the General Plan. However, all City departments and commissions are involved in General Plan issues and contribute to the plan's implementation. City of San Luis Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OUR MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to serve all persons in a positive and courteous manner and help ensure that San Luis Obispo continues to be a healthy, safe, attractive, and enjoyable place to live, work, or visit. We help plan the city's form and character, support community values, preserve the environment, promote wise use of resources, and protect public health and safety. OUR SERVICE PHILOSOPHY The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff provides high quality service when you need it. We will: • Listen to understand your needs; • Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions; • Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City's rules; • Help resolve problems in an open, objective manner; •. Maintain high ethical standards; and • Work to improve our service. C.1tV of San IDIS OBISPO q ne.n:._,AAn amnia[ rzeporzt 2000 Report at a Glance Introduction Page 4 The General Plan is a long-range vision focusing on the city's physical development. It is adopted by the City Council after public participation. Administration of the General Plan General Plan Status Page 4 In response to State law, the City has adopted ten elements of the General Plan, seven of them addressing required topics. Element Updates Page 5 An update of the Safety Element was completed,but a scheduled update of the Conservation Element was delayed. Amendments Page 5 A Circulation Element change that drew much public attention was showing a different alignment for the proposed Prado Road extension. A Note on Commercial Zoning Page 6 The rules on uses allowed in commercial areas are complex. The City is starting a re-examination that could lead to General Plan changes. Implementation of the General Plan Development & Population Housing & Residents Page 6 Housing construction continues to be about half of the plan's target, with few new rental projects. But in the last year the city's estimated population increased faster than the number of dwellings. Commercial Development Page 10 Commercial and industrial construction continues to outpace housing and the preferred growth rate, even though much of the activity was to replace store buildings. Growth Management Residential Growth Management Page 10 Housing development in large annexations is subject to a citywide phasing schedule, but builders applied for no permits in the phased areas. Commercial and Industrial Growth Management Page 11 There are no direct limits on the pace of commercial development, but the Council must consider setting some now that a preferred rate has been exceeded. city of san turn Owspo _. 2 c;enen:._ F Lin annuAl aepvnt 2000 A Note on Water Allocations Page 13 A requirement for new development to offset its water use has resulted in about two-thirds of old fixtures being replaced with efficient ones. This has allowed development to continue while the City pursues additional water supplies. Affordable Housing Page 14 Despite requirements for most new developments to help provide some affordable housing, local housing costs continue to increase faster than incomes. Capital Projects Page 14 Downtown and neighborhood projects dominated the year's activities. Open Space Protection Page 15 The City continued to acquire land for assured protection of especially sensitive areas. Historic Preservation Page 15 The Historical Museum was rehabilitated; adobes also received attention. Annexations Page 15 Four annexations in the southern part of the city were completed, while four more were approved but not finalized. They spanned a range of residential and commercial sites. Major Implementation Plans Page 16 The City is working on three major plans for future development areas, and a plan to guide rebuilding along the middle part of Higuera Street. Margarita Area Page 16 Staff nearly completed a revised draft of this specific plan, which shows . about 400 acres of mostly undeveloped land mainly for open space, parks, and modest housing. Airport Area Page 17 Staff, working with a consultant team, nearly completed the first draft of this specific plan. It covers 1,000 acres, including the airport itself; a former oil-tank area slated mostly to be a natural preserve, and sites where commercial and industrial development has been occurring under County jurisdiction. Orcutt Area Page 17 Staff worked with the several owners in this 230-acre area to reach agreement on basic features that could lead to a draft specific plan. Most of the area is undeveloped and slated for residential use. Mid-Higuera Area Page 17 A draft plan was completed and taken to advisory commissions for review. It aims to enhance appearance, business vitality, the flow of all forms of traffic, and flood protection. city of sin lues owspo 3 c,snea:, , tAn annual. r.E:p0at '2000 Other Agencies' Activities Page 18 Cal Poly's Plan Page 18 Cal Poly drafted the first comprehensive update of its master plan in 30 years, aiming for increased enrollment and more on-campus housing. The Airport's Land Use Plan Page 18 An independent Airport Land Use Commission has a major say in how land near the airport can be used. That commission published a draft revision of its plan that could mean big reductions in future housing development. County Actions Page 19 County government controls land use on much of the city's edge, and has a major presence downtown. Several past County actions have contradicted the City's plan, but the two agencies cooperate in several areas. Program Status Page 22 The General Plan contains a wide array of programs, some carried out routinely and others needing special action. City budgets usually decide timing. For More Information Page 23 Come in, write, call, or visit the City's Web site to learn more about the General Plan and the City's planning activities. —�t� j city of san luts osispo a geneRaL plan annual RepoRt 2000 Introduction The General Plan provides a comprehensive, long-range vision focusing on preserving community resources and meeting community needs. The General Plan provides a basis for rational decision-making regarding the City's long-term physical development. The General Plan is adopted and amended by the City Council, after considering recommendations by citizens, appointed advisory bodies, other agencies, and City staff. Each year, the City publishes an Annual Report on the status of its General Plan and actions taken to implement it during the year just ended. This report is to help citizens and City officials understand recent decisions involving the General Plan. It fulfills the requirements of state law, and the General Plan itself, which call for an annual report. The Community Development Department provides a separate Annual Report on all of its activities, emphasizing statistics on planning and building applications,public meetings, and code enforcement. Conclusions &Recommendations The Annual Report is a mechanism with which the City can monitor the implementation of General Plan and the application of the Plan's policies and programs. Most of the annual report will address the status of various policies and programs. When a program or issue arises that merits special attention, a conclusion and recommendation are provided to assist the City Council in determining if any action should be taken. Administration of the General Plan General Plan Status State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan that addresses seven topics. Additional topics may be included. Each topic may be addressed in a separately published document, or topics may be combined. The published sections of the General Plan are called "elements." Table 1 shows the status of the City's General Plan elements. The City maintains a General Plan Digest that makes all policies and programs available in one document. State law says the General Plan should be kept current. This is done through comprehensive updates, and through amendments. Updates for an element are usually undertaken at least five years apart. They look at underlying conditions and preferences. Amendments are typically smaller in scope and involve changing one part in a way that fits with the overall framework. Consideration of amendments is triggered by private applications or by direction from the City Council. Changes to the General Plan require hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. The type of notice provided for the hearings depends on the type of proposed change, but always includes a descriptive item on the meeting agenda, which is published in the newspaper. city of san lues owspo 5 eenEuat plan annual uepoRt 2000 Table 1 General Plan Elements Element Required or Date of Adoption Comment Optional or,Major Revision Land Use Re uired 1994 Housing Required 1994 Update to start in 2001. Open Spade Required 1994 Circulation Required- 1994 Includes"Scenic Roadways." Noise Required 1996 Conservation Required 1973 Update combining these topics Energy Conservation Optional 1981 with Open Space is in progress. Safety Required 2000 Includes former Seismic Safety Element. Parks&Recreation Optional 1995 Update is in progress. Water&Wastewater Optional 1996 State law requires an"Urban Water Management Management Plan,"but it need not be part of the general plan. Element Updates The City adopted a revised Safety Element in 2000, updating and combining the Safety Element and the Seismic Safety Element that were first adopted in the 1970's. This work was part of a cooperative effort involving the County and most of the cities within the County. The Safety Element deals with hazards from floods, fires, earthquakes, landslides, radiation, hazardous materials, airport operations, and unstable trees. The scheduled update of the Conservation Element was delayed due to staff and consultant efforts being directed to other long-range planning activities. The Conservation Element update is proposed to include consolidating policies on conservation that are found in all the other elements,including Land Use, Open Space, Housing, and Energy Conservation. Amendments During 2000, the City approved the amendments listed in Table 2. Since the 1994 updates, there have been no major citywide changes nor overall patterns among the individual changes that suggest a comprehensive re-evaluation of goals or policies is necessary at this time. This was the first year since the 1994 Land Use Element update that there were no amendments to the Land Use Map. The Council considered a Circulation Element amendment that would have routed a future extension of Prado Road to the north of Industrial Way and provided a continuation into the Sacramento Drive area or possibly to Johnson Avenue through the Orcutt Area. While the new, northern intersection at Broad Street was supported, the approved amendment did not show an extension beyond Broad Street (map, page 20). The debate focused on continuity of traffic flow versus neighborhood character, and relationship to parks and open space areas. My of san luts osispo 6 ceneml-plan annual aEpont 2000 Table 2 General Plan Amendments in 2000 Location or Area . Initiated by;comment Type Suli ect 'Change acres Circulation Element Prado Road easterly Broad Street intersection not applic- City; for consistency with extension alignment shifted to north. able draft specific plans. Water&Wastewater Policies concerning Clarified accounting for not applic- City; to clarify intent. Management Element water for development safe yield and siltation. able A Note on Commercial Zoning The Zoning Regulations contain the details of what uses can be established where, and in some cases the sizes of businesses in certain locations. Much of the General Plan's implementation depends on the content of the Zoning Regulations, and on their day-to-day administration through use permits and building permits. Over the years, particular attention has been given to zoning rules for neighborhood commercial areas, which have a fairly tightly defined role, and service commercial areas, which have sometimes been described as more a "catch-all" category. Two years ago, the City started an effort to re-examine the zoning rules for types of uses in commercial zones. Though some preliminary work has been done, the task will get under way in earnest during 2001. The outcome may lead, in tum, to proposals to amend the General Plan Land Use Element. Conclusions./Recommendations Almost all of the General Plan elements were updated between 1994 and 2000. The final elements are scheduled to be updated in 2001. This will bring all of the elements current. The State of California's General Plan Guidelines recommend updating most elements every 5 to 10 years. The City's General Plan Annual Report process helps insure that General Plan elements are updated when an analysis of trends indicate they are no longer reflecting the needs of the community. Implementation of the General Plan Development & Population Housing& Residents Taken as a whole, the General Plan says housing supply should grow at about one percent per year, that it should include a variety of housing types, and that it should include dwellings affordable to low-income and moderate-income residents. Table 3-A summarizes residential construction since 1994. Annual increases in the number of dwellings have remained below one percent. The table reflects only construction within the city limits. There has not been substantial housing construction on land outside the city limits but close to the city. More specifically, the Housing Element says 1,216 dwellings should have been built between June 1994 and June 1999, and that to maintain the city's household profile, about two-thirds of the new dwellings should have been affordable to households with incomes at or below the moderate level. During that time, the actual number added was about 520, with 20 new dwellings provided under affordable ) -13 crty of san lues osispo 7 ceneuaL plan annual aepoat 2000 housing programs. Compared with previous decades, the 1990's saw a trend away from multifamily construction. Nearly all rental dwellings built in the last five years have been adding one or two apartments to sites with existing houses, or Housing Authority projects. The decline in market-rate rental construction appears to be due to fewer available sites, and for-sale housing's higher investment returns and lending security. Likewise, there have been fewer condominium projects (many of which were renter occupied), with lenders and builders favoring individually owned dwellings, even for those with smaller floor and parcel sizes. The city had 43,027 residents on January 1, 2000, according to the California Department of Finance estimate. This was an increase of 1.4 percent over 1999, but only a 2.5-percent increase from the 1990 census. Dwelling tallies and population estimates often show different change rates for the same year, due to changes in estimated average household size and vacancy rates. The City helped conduct the 2000 federal census. Results of that April count were not available in time to be included in this report. The census results will establish new benchmarks for total population, as well as residents' age, .sex, race, and occupation, and the numbers and types of households and dwellings in the city. Many of the apartments lost in recent years were dilapidated, and were removed to make way for commercial projects or assisted, replacement housing. While the removed dwellings were not classified as "affordable" because there were no official limits on rents, many of them had rental rents at the low end of the range in San Luis Obispo. Conclusions/Recommendations One of the City's continuing challenges is the lack of housing affordable to all who work here. The Housing Element's production targets for residential construction in general, and affordable housing in particular, have not been met. Especially over the last year, rents and for-sale housing prices have increased faster than incomes. As a result, fewer of those already living in the area as renters can become owners. While this situation in not unique to the area, San Luis Obispo often is near the top of lists of the least affordable places to buy a house. A survey found that the share of county residents who could afford the median-priced dwelling in the county, based on standard qualifying guidelines, declined from 32 percent in 1999 to 25 percent in 2000, while the statewide percentage went from 36 to 31. Although the City has taken steps to help, as noted in the "Affordable Housing" section below, there is no easy solution. The difficulty is expected to continue, with anticipated increases in Cal Poly enrollment and in retail and service jobs. Housing conservation can be part of the solution. In 2000, staff completed research for a program to strengthen protection of downtown housing, in preparation for hearings in 2001. .0 M ul - ^ C cU6 i O O O O y O CNO e o 0 o c c c c°D� 3w ~ � � �I� o o -0 •r 4 > M C d O \O M — N O, '* v'� t ' U. fi Oyi 01 C Z Lroi vw ODy �� a - d N O 0 00 U U CU -0 N N O O O C O O O � Q' Q N 0 0 0 0 W G h h h Q 'a ro C L io 0 co a C. al N ~ N O 00 00 cm cz ta{� CUJ Y J O U •�: R ._ �' cam'. O N °+ 00 .^. in o Os -tr t- y b0 C N N ON ..r". C7 7 p,•y ON OD R = w OD Q O O O O a0 .b L > en C C T w >O i N a+ •O ' bO aD ^ O y 0 O O O O O O al � w 7> Ca ` b n eoe'' cOa l7 y ° y ° ea O GM 0 o o v "v ao � oR n � c � � � ° � m o — s `-' Q ro ❑ ^ RLL i � > OD °' °? cw CC* V 4: wEz ~ NvO N y �'n E" E O to N. °' as r- 6 03 In O `nx •° 0 3t ° Q = o (5 cj i `° robR v00 O\ o bm y •� N 7 N N N O ro V'1 L O O O ` h 1 U .O C do10 rm; i a cE ° 3h to C .a o 0 0 0 0 0 o W, a ., • `" � o y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � u b o -° .O i y b ° � s = � � •o dui ° s G `� Y oD N L a~i ro �- i v .E �, C V w O O 0 0 0 0 0 .� C U N ° Oyi V] ur O 0 U G. O y .� > C U Q ro Oq 3 � T7 �� p � � U 'p � •> '�" cc co ` p .O O .. C\ Q\ N O v1 •-• y :fl X U d y O OD C 'fl d eC ro z M �n a cn v v 3 s ^ �a 'gyp+'' EC ° ,r ° > E 3 fV Co y c� U Cy s. "�C E O N v� x s >, •E eD eD v E to w y vNi Mto rs �.S •5 a°ia� .E ' y C7 r. .-. v o ro •y^ ^y y ^y S •= E U Oto U b O ro E �.. Vl \a I— 00 a1 O y C O •C N O O p U C/I Q A Z G o � oo0 DON1aVNi UW �oQ1 � O K 00 V 01 r, O 00 kn woNOU . A � O \O O0000VM . N > O N O N O G U C=dN iys QO4.7 GD ca M. C` O O r` N 00 V �O 7 O O ❑ O O G 3 O w �. O 0 ca O - d' C V) r` 1.0 N NO •� U 'b b y �" [r 00 V) 00 00 �D Ct �' y '' •...... wN ca N M ,,,., N k O N m w O •^ C ° C c.. O U U. 01 N O\ M C Obi O b 4. 7 U ca y y 7 y > N m 00 01 t` l0 h lZ O. ^+ — U }� U U a+ Ct \O 01 V) 00 � O\ 0A Cd O m U '0 C, Q'. %a N .--� �--� [� V) M ct M'. 6U0 .t; C". m "O ? O c06 'OD as .0 N ~ c� O flc o z o -- -" v 00 � �e cd >, a� mow °, 0 O sr 3 � 000Mood ca N O O �--� O' tb 10 M %1 '> w 01 M O1 00 00 O1 ca O Nto tr) 7 .-• e+1 " fV CN 1p >> V O O N N y U rCd A� .� O O N Vim' in C� en W G O V y. c cd 0 C 6 " y W 'r' U 0q y ON 0 y � Lv3 03 CT C1 H y. N o M N N V• V) w m r;,. ca 44 -0 }, 0 45 C U U t5 q tU U,vo`�ov � v �° � Ob ° OE Ocr m .+" •• N .0 C OU bA 0 0 0 O O O O 3 O O .O 0 0 y 00 y vyi . 4, w O � � V1p Z a� O m b D` ai O n It ca . ^R � S. N. •0 en yam y U '� C' N_ O M N_ N ` kn y t` 00 � t` w N Q > to � c ca O 1p oo -� �. N '7'IT w .y '� O cC OC. O 7 bb CD O¢ Z o fOt. � -- "O y•' N U O U .b O T a in 1.0 Cooam °o ° cso O o y y O y O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m rn L- V ra N N m p C 7 w aU+ CA �+ O A C d 0 O CO O -00 t1 N b O OHO O. O N M OW 5 O vi U 0 0. 01 r` cn W � r` W) ca O a� r- U C ,. a 01 ea 00O r- N06 0\ r m +.• N y' ° 0 }O., m pN 0. QM .--� .--� .fie �0 N a. N OD N Vi m N L �. ° 0 K ;K � ... M0000wtn o w $ ° c ❑ °' a 0 m okn > b p ° °w' ca °�' ° ai U z M M N. �o O. p 0 ca ti ea C .N to N U E is O •° O « .0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •.«.,.O � y ° v o v w aOi o �Q (U .c r ami 3 :; m N m o ai cma S = p O O O O 00 V) w O U U ti N 000 M 001 O 's O E 9 00 m •'"' w0 w aU+ [d N M N W) O N p b 006 iii e0 N kn .� U 0 f.. 'D ea 4. p W) � T 00 OCi O iU., N c'" 01 as c� m ca a7 U w0 N N D\ D\ a� a1 0\ O O 0 A W z //_ crty of san lues osispo 10 geneuml Otan annual uepout 2000 Commercial Development The General Plan also says that the gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase (Policy LU 1.4). This overall direction is supplemented by a policy that the City will consider setting nonresidential construction limits if the amount of nonresidential floor area increases faster than five percent over five years, excluding the first 300,000 square-feet built after 1994 (Policy LU 1.11.4). Table 3-13 summarizes nonresidential construction since 1994. The 300,000-square-foot threshold was reached in 1997. As the table shows, nonresidential floor area has increased faster than five percent during the two previous five-year periods, even with the 300,000-square-foot exclusion. The table reflects only construction within the city limits. Projects at Cal Poly or in the unincorporated parts of the Airport Area, for example, are not included. During 2000, most of the nonresidential construction consisted of new commercial buildings in the South Higuera Street area and new stores replacing older ones in the Madonna Road shopping centers. The net loss in retail floor area resulted from building demolitions having been completed in the Madonna Road shopping centers, but not all replacement buildings being completed and "signed off' by the end of the year. Institutional buildings comprised a large part of the net increase. The year 2000 saw completion of a major addition to a downtown church and the conversion of, and addition to, a downtown motel for group housing for seniors (which was not counted as an increase in dwellings). Conclusions/Recommendations Nonresidential building floor area has been increasing about 2'Y2 times as fast as the number of dwellings. While total land designated for commercial uses is not increasing,the rate of commercial development is exceeding the rate of residential development. This disparity contributes to increases in the demand for housing, housing prices, and commuter traffic between San Luis Obispo and other communities. Growth rates are discussed further below. Growth Management Residential Growth Management Residential growth management policies are implemented through phased housing construction in certain expansion areas. These areas are mainly the large annexations the City has approved or is considering (map,page 20). (Housing built on the Cal Poly campus is not subject to the limits.) The phasing system is based on issuance of building permits to specific expansion areas, during three-year intervals, as shown in Table 4. During 2000, no building permits were issued for areas subject to phasing limits. In fact, builders submitted no applications for permits in areas subject to the phasing limits. During 1999 and 2000, the first two years of the current three-year interval, permitted construction in areas not subject to the limits, and demolitions, were very close to the projected amounts. In preparing this Annual Report, staff solicited input from expansion area property owners to confirm the allocations previously established. Several requests were received from builders who want to proceed sooner than scheduled. city of san Luis oBispo" n ceneizal plan annual aepout 2000 Conclusions/Recommendations Because of the requests to modify the residential allocation table and the need to fine-tune the projections for areas not subject to limits, staff is presenting a proposed amendment to the growth management allocation schedule on the same hearing schedule as the Annual Report. Revising the schedule involves difficult choices, because it means taking allocations from one area and giving them to another area, changing the number of units that can be built in certain areas at certain times. The General Plan's housing production targets are the main guide for deciding the timing and distribution of housing allocations among the different expansion areas. Commercial and Industrial Growth Management There are no direct limits on the rate of nonresidential construction. In 2001, the City will need to consider setting such limits, because the threshold for doing so in the General Plan has been crossed. According to the policy on nonresidential growth, any proposed limits could not apply to existing businesses, projects in the downtown core,public agencies, or manufacturing or research businesses. Conclusion/Recommendations The City Council will decide whether or not non-residential growth limits should be adopted. The greatest capacity for non-residential growth exists in the Airport Area and the Froom and Dalidio areas. The issue may come down to how fast the community wants to accommodate corporate offices and retail uses in undeveloped areas designated for those uses. A key question will be how to account for commercial and industrial development recently built under County jurisdiction and then annexed by the City. city of san Luis osispo 12 ceneRal plan annual aepout 2000 Table 4 Residential Growth Management Phasing Status Number of Dwellings Authorized by Building Permits a, b 1999 -2022 calendar year intervals: 1999-01 2002-04. 2005-07 2008-10 Total Demolitions(e) initial assumption -30 -30 -30 -30 -220 actual 1999- 2000 _--33 remaining for 2001 0 New in-city (c) initial assumption 270 120 120 1.20 1,000 actual 1999:- 2000 _._.-_1 78 remaining for 2001 92 Dalidio allowed 0 0 100 0 180 actual 1999 - 2000 0 remaining for 2001. 0 Irish Hills North allowed 190 80 0 0 270 actual 1999- 2000 Q remaining for 2001 190 Irish Hills South allowed 0 0 50 50 150 actual 1999 - 2000 remaining for 2001 0 orcutt allowed 01 90 100 200 640 actual 1999 - 2000 -_ 0 remaining for 2001 0 Mar arita . allowed 120 290 230 2501 1,200 actual 1999-2000 0 remaining for 2001 120 Other annexations initial assumption 20 30 30 30 200 actual 1999---2000 0 remaining for 2001 __20 Target for total dwellings permitted 570 580 600 620 3,420 actual 1999- 2000 145 remaining for 2001 425 Target annual percent change (d) 1.011 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.76 Exempt dwellings permitted, actual 1999-2000 (a) 1. 49 Notes: (a) Dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes, as defined in the Housing Element, are exempt. (b)This is a simple count of dwellings and is not meant to reflect the Zoning Regulation's method for calculating fractional dwellings. (c) Includes the incorporated area in 1994 and certain annexations during 1994- 1998 (Stoneridge; Prefumo Homes;and the EI Capitan, Goldenrod, and Fuller Road parts of the Edna-Islay Speck Plan,which has its own growth management provisions). (d)A calculated result: dwellings permitted (new construction minus demolitions), divided by 3, divided by the total number of dwellings in the city at the start of the interval,X 100; assumes that the maximum amounts are achieved in previous intervals. (e) Includes losses from fire, use conversion, and moving out of the city. (f) Columns for years 2011 through 2022 have been omitted for formatting reasons only. r City of s,\n Luis ompo 13 C+E..11O.1zdhOl.N l innu.A vepont 2000 A Note on Water Allocations Under General Plan policies, the pace of development is also affected by the available water supply. Nearly every project that would increase water usage needs to obtain a water allocation. The amount available for allocation is the difference between (1) calculated, citywide usage at a rate, adopted by policy, that reflects effective long-term water conservation, and (2) the amount of water that can reliably be drawn from the City's supplies, even during a drought. This "safe- yield" approach is intended to assure that there will be enough water for all customers at reasonable usage rates, even during years of low rainfall. Until essentially all the older, inefficient water-using fixtures in the city have been replaced by low-water-use fixtures, developments can obtain allocations only by helping to complete such fixture retrofitting. The required retrofit amount is set to produce a net decline in long-term water usage as development occurs. This has been the case since 1990. At the end of 2000, about 68 percent of the older fixtures had been replaced. Accounting for water allocations occurs as building permits are issued, not when land is annexed or when initial development plans are approved. Using all the development potential outlined by the General Plan will require additional water supplies. Not counting the City's aggressive water-conservation efforts, no major new water sources have been obtained since the 1960's, and there was only a minor addition of groundwater in the 1980's. The City is pursuing the following supplemental water sources. They City intends that they become available in time to support one-percent annual growth. • Using more well water. The groundwater basin under the city can be depleted quickly by pumping, but it recharges quickly with normal or above rainfall. The City is studying how to get more from the groundwater basin without adverse effects. • Using highly treated sewage for landscape irrigation. The treatment plant is ready to provide this source of non-drinkable water. Concerning using part of the effluent for other than stream flow, the Council has certified the environmental impact report and received needed approvals from State agencies. However, the City still needs to approve detailed plans for construction of the pumps and pipes that would distribute this reclaimed water. Major new development areas will include dual piping systems from the start. • Installing a spillway gate at the Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), to increase storage and safe yield. The City has a State-approved permit that allows expanded storage at this reservoir, but the reservoir is owned by the Federal government and operated by the County. The proposed project has been controversial, with questions about its effects on natural habitat around the lake and downstream residents, water users, and wildlife. In 2000 the City Council certified an environmental impact report for, and conceptually approved, the project. Actual construction plans have not been approved. • Tapping into a distribution system for Lake Nacimiento water. The County has an entitlement for a large share of the water available from this reservoir, but there is no pipe to bring it to interested agencies. The City has asked for a portion of the water and has helped pay for engineering and environmental studies. However, it has been difficult to reach agreement among all the agencies that would participate in building the delivery system. It is probably too expensive for an individual agency, —O O city of san lues osIsp'b to cencRati plan annual uepotit 2000 especially one farther from the reservoir, to build the system alone. Each year, usually in late spring, the City's Utilities Department presents to the City Council the "Water Resources Status Report." Affordable Housing In 2000, the City did the following in support of affordable housing or special-needs housing: • Dedicated over$500,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funding to this purpose; • Contributed to operation of the Orcutt Road homeless shelter and the Prado Road homeless services center; • Exempted from citywide impact fees non-profit developers' affordable dwellings, and for- profit builders' affordable dwellings exceeding the number required under inclusionary housing; • Began implementing the Inclusionary Housing Requirement, which resulted in legal agreements by for-profit developers to provide three affordable dwellings, and payment of $88,600 in fees to the City's Housing Trust Fund,to be used for affordable housing projects. Capital Projects Capital projects are the City's major investments in facilities and equipment. They are one way to implement the General Plan. During each two-year budget cycle, the City evaluates its list of .proposed capital improvement projects for consistency with the General Plan. During 2000, the City advanced or completed several capital projects. Major projects supporting General Plan goals are listed below, in no particular order. Other items requiring substantial investments are listed under other topic headings. • Completed the extension of Mission Plaza.from Broad Street to Nipomo Street; • Made substantial progress in the challenging reinforcement of the Higuera Street bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek at Osos Street; • Continued to replace old water and sewer lines and to repave streets, through intensive efforts aimed at doing major work within targeted neighborhoods, then avoiding disruptive activities within those neighborhoods for as many years.as practical. A proposed major downtown project, expansion of the Marsh Street garage, was delayed due to construction bids being more expensive than previously estimated, and concerns over cost-saving design revisions and alternate projects. jai crty Of Sail LUIS OBIS 15 geneizal ptan annual RepoRt: 2000 Open Space Protection A basic General Plan goal is protecting the open land outside the City's urban reserve line,which is the adopted growth boundary, as well as sensitive lands within the urban area. The Land Use Element, Open Space Element, and Conservation Element address this subject in detail. Ownership by the City or a land conservation organization provides the most secure protection. In 2000, the City completed acquisition of the following properties(map, page 20). • Union Pacific,49 acres northeast of the Cal Poly campus,by purchase; • Filipponi, 75 acres east of South Higuera Street and south of the urban area, by purchase; • DeVaul, 182 acres in the Irish Hills,westerly from the end of Madonna Road,by dedication. Also, the Nature Conservancy obtained easements over the 1,400-acre Guidetti Ranch south of the Airport Area, in addition to easements previously acquired by the City, to further assure protection of natural conditions there See also the discussion of"County Actions"below. Historic Preservation The City completed the seismic upgrade and other restoration and protection work on the Historical Museum. Work with a citizens' group to rehabilitate and preserve adobes continued. The Council made permanent the City's participation in a pilot program, referred to as the Mills Act, which reduces property taxes for designated historic properties. The Council also allowed expansion of the tax-relief program to additional historic sites. Annexations Annexations expand the area over which the City has land-use authority, which is a fundamental way to implement the General Plan. Annexations can also increase development potential, open space protection, City tax revenues, space for City facilities, and service demands and costs. In general, annexations require approval by the property owner, the City, the County, and a separate countywide body called the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). During 2000, the following annexations were completed(map,page 20): • The Pacific Bell, A&R Welding, and Farm Supply properties at the west end of Tank Farm Road, totalling about 12 acres of commercially designated land, part of which was already developed(all within the Airport Area); • The undeveloped City sports fields site and Lathrop business park site on Broad Street, west and north of the Industrial Way intersection, comprising about 33 acres (in the Margarita Area and Airport Area, respectively). Also, the City Council approved the following annexations, but they had not been completed by the end of the year(map, page 20): • The Creekside property on the west side of Broad Street opposite the El Capitan Way city of San LUIS osispu ib GEnEua.flan annual REpoRt 2000 intersection, a six-acre site that was fully developed with offices (Airport Area); • The Aerovista property, an undeveloped nine-acre site on the west side Broad Street north of Aerovista Drive, on which the County recently approved a commercial subdivision (Airport Area); • The northern part of the Froom Ranch on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road, opposite the Garcia Drive intersection, consisting of about 53 undeveloped acres on which the County had approved a large home-improvement store and sites for other large stores, with an open space easement on part of the ownership extending into the Irish Hills; • The southern part of the DeVaul Ranch on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road, northwest of the Garcia Drive intersection, consisting of about 14 acres planned for residential development. Major Implementation Plans Specific plans, and other types of plans for sub-areas of the city, often bridge between the General Plan and actual subdivisions or construction plans. The General Plan requires specific plans for certain major new development areas. It encourages sub-area plans for some largely developed parts of the city that have particular limitations or opportunities. These plans typically contain more detailed land-use and design standards than the General Plan, and address the timing and financing of public facilities. They can supersede the Zoning Regulations, or lead to changes in them. The process for adopting such a plan is similar to the process for adopting or amending a section of the General Plan. Previously adopted plans of this sort are the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the South Street Specific Plan, the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan, and the Railroad District Plan. ("A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center,"often called simply the Downtown Concept Plan, is a highly condensed and colorfully illustrated vision for part of the downtown; it was accepted by the City Council,but does not have the standing under State law that a specific plan has.) In 2000, the City worked on the following plans for sub-areas (map,page 20). Margarita Area The Margarita Area Specific Plan would cover about 418 acres in the south-central part of the urban area. Nearly half the area would be open space or parks. The rest would accommodate up to 1,200 dwellings of various types, and some commercial and industrial uses. The City Council authorized preparation in 1990, and endorsed a draft in 1998. Since 1998, staff has been working on revisions to carry out Council direction, incorporate new, detailed suggestions from various City departments, and achieve a good fit with the proposed Airport Area Specific Plan. Key issues were resolving the alignment for the Prado Road extension, finding a feasible location for detaining peak storm runoff, and deciding how the cost of major public facilities could be funded by impact fees or by property assessments. The revised draft was completed in December, except for anticipated minor revisions to the public facilities financing component, which is closely tied to the type, timing, and cost of public facilities in this area and in the Airport Area. city of san Luis osispo » cEneuaL Ntan annual.aepoiZt 2000 Airport Area The Airport Area Specific Plan would cover about 1,000 acres in the south-central part of the urban area. Almost one-third of the area would be open space. The rest would be for commercial, industrial, and airport uses. The City Council authorized the current planning effort in 1997, and endorsed land-use and circulation concepts, and alternatives, in 1999. During 2000, work concentrated on finalizing plans for water, sewer, and storm drainage systems (which extend beyond the designated Airport Area), and deciding how the cost of major public facilities could be funded by impact fees or by property assessments. The draft was nearly completed in December,but needed some refinements dealing with the public facilities financing component. Several annexations were in the Airport Area. The General Plan allows annexations in the area ahead of specific plan adoption, if developments on the sites are imminent, they are next to the city limits, services are available, and the resulting projects are consistent with the forthcoming specific plan, including helping to pay for open space protection and major public facilities. Orcutt Area The Orcutt Area Specific Plan would cover about 231 acres in the southeastern part of the urban area. Almost half the area would be open space or parks. The rest would accommodate about 600 dwellings of various types. A consultant representing some of the owners had prepared a draft specific plan in 1998. In 1999, the City Council agreed to supplement City staff so a planning effort involving all area owners could proceed. During 2000, a series of workshops allowed owners, staff, and consultants to make preliminary choices on major land-use and circulation features, in the context set by the General Plan. Key issues were how to connect with surrounding streets, and locating sites for higher density housing and parks. Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan would cover about 89 acres along Higuera Street, between Marsh Street and Elks Lane. This is an important corridor, linking the downtown core with the Madonna Road area. Its assets include its convenient location, long-established businesses, San Luis Obispo Creek, historic sites, and architecturally diverse buildings. Its challenges include traffic congestion, flooding, and a sometimes awkward mix of land uses. The area has been seen as ripe for carefully considered re-development. The enhancement plan is intended to guide this process. During 2000, workshops were held with area owners,,neighbors, and other community members interested in the area. A plan was drafted, and the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission held hearings on it. Key issues were maintenance or replacement of affordable housing, the Caltrans property's long-term potential for use as a conference center, providing medians in Higuera Street, and locating a pedestrian and bicycle path through the area. By year's end, a revised draft plan was ready for City Council consideration. i city of san lues osispo is cenevA..plan annual aEpout 2000 Other Agencies' Activities The City's plans must take into account what other agencies' plans have allowed. The City often tries to influence other agencies' plans and programs, so they will help rather than hinder attainment of the City's goals. In 2000,there were significant activities involving Cal Poly's plan and a plan for compatible land uses near the airport. Cal Poly's Plan The Cal Poly campus is within the City's planning area, and the presence of the university exerts strong influences on the community. However; nearly all of the campus is outside the city limits (map, page 20). Even more significant, as a State agency, Cal Poly is not bound by City or County general plans or land-use rules. Cal Poly has a Master Plan for its programs, enrollment, and campus facilities. The plan is drafted by Cal Poly personnel and presented to State officials for adoption. In.2000, Cal Poly released a draft update of its Master Plan, the first comprehensive revision since 1970. Major features of the proposed plan include increasing Fall-quarter, head- count enrollment from about 17,000 to 20,900 over 20 years,providing housing for an additional 3,000 students on campus, and reducing the ratio of on-campus parking spaces to students. The General Plan says the City will seek to minimize growth of housing demand from Cal Poly enrollment increases. However, Cal Poly's plan would help address the underlying concerns by providing enough housing on campus for most of the new enrollment, developing some new housing for faculty and staff close to the campus, and encouraging alternatives to individual vehicles for home-to-campus trips. The Airport's Land Use Plan ■Planning to be good neighbors The airport is a major influence on the community, particularly the southern part of the urban area where most future development has been planned to occur. Under State law, a countywide, independent Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopts a plan identifying land uses that are compatible with present and future airport noise and safety conditions. The area subject to this Airport Land Use Plan extends beyond the City's designated airport specific plan area, and includes land under City jurisdiction and under County jurisdiction (map,page 20). Proposed specific plans and amendments to the General Plan and zoning must be referred to the ALUC for a determination of compatibility. The ALUC uses its plan as a basis for the determination. For the City to override a finding of incompatibility, a four-fifths vote of the City Council and certain findings are required. A General Plan policy calls for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Airport Land Use Pian was adopted in 1973, and had some minor amendments during the late 1970's. (The Airport Land Use Plan is different from the Airport Master Plan, a plan for airport facilities adopted by the County and most recently revised in 1998.) State law requires the Airport Land Use Plan, like the City's General Plan, to address certain topics. While the State provides guidelines for the designation of compatible uses, it does not prescribe certain use listings or zones. city of san Luis owspo' 19 cenEUAL Mian annual uspout 2000 ■Update in the works The ALUC has been working on an update of the Airport Land Use Plan for many years, assisted by County staff. The City's 1994 Land Use Element update and the 1998 draft Margarita Area Specific Plan were consistent with a draft update of the Airport Land Use Plan in progress at the time, though they differed in some respects from the adopted 1973 Airport Land Use Plan. However, in 2000 the ALUC rejected the draft Airport Land Use Plan update prepared by County staff and endorsed a new draft prepared by an advisory committee. The new draft would restrict development, particularly residential uses, more than the adopted plan. The full effects of the proposed plan were not entirely clear at the end of 2000, but it appeared that they could, at most, reduce the citywide capacity for new dwellings by about half. Such a reduction would make it more difficult to prevent the jobs/housing imbalance from becoming worse. The changes could affect the Margarita, Orcutt, Irish Hills, and Dalidio areas. The jobs-housing imbalance would be further worsened if the area now shown in the City's General Plan for residential use were to be designated for commercial or industrial uses, which are usually seen as more compatible with airport operations. ®City choices The City's initial response was to inform the ALUC of the City's need to consider airport compatibility along with other community goals in deciding land use, and to ask for clarification of the proposed airport land use policies. If the ALUC adopts a plan that restricts residential development substantially more than the adopted one,the City will need to decide whether to: • Accept the ALUC determination and amend the General Plan to reduce residential capacity; • Accept the ALUC determination and amend the General Plan, shifting the residential development capacity to other locations, possibly including some now shown as open space, and designating higher densities for areas already shown as residential; • Override the ALUC determination and keep the General Plan land use designations largely intact. County Actions ■Development extending into the Los Osos Valley In 1998 and 1999, the County amended its General Plan and approved a subdivision to create. large residential lots on agricultural land, west of Los Osos Valley Road and north of the City's urban growth boundary(map, page 20). The City had objected to this change for an area that the City's General Plan showed as open space. Use of on-site water supply and sewage disposal were among the concerns. The County had not required an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. A citizen challenged the lack of an EIR in court, and the City filed a brief in support of the citizen's complaint. In 2000, the court ruled in favor of the citizen, requiring an EIR before the project can proceed. «rte �. NMI lE ,`one is !$'v . :�`' r .• `. %I�i�11G�i �I ��I•1 i��1i11 '•Ii1i2:•iii ���� m■■■■■■mass M 0 ►•'�`� ■L jm `b!6AY 30 m and - 4 _ i crty of san Luis ow po` 21 geneuaL plan annual uEpout 2000 s Industrial land expanding into the Edna Valley In 1996, the County amended its General Plan to show about 300 acres for commercial and industrial uses, outside the City's urban-growth boundary and in addition to land already designated for those uses in the Airport Area. The City objected on the basis of jobs-housing balance, protection of farmland and habitat, and the likely eventual need for urban services. In 2000, the County began processing subdivision requests for the Avila Ranch, located west of the airport, and for a large part of the land east of the airport (map,page 20). City comments on these applications focused on minimizing impacts to views, waterways, traffic congestion, and airport safety. The County did not act on these proposals during the year. ■Another residential proposal next to the city Amending the County's General Plan is a two-step process. An Applicant first requests authorization from the Board of Supervisors; if authorization is given, environmental and staff reports are prepared and the proposed amendment proceeds through hearings at the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In 2000, the Board authorized processing of a request to re-designate land outside the urban growth boundary next to the Edna-Islay Area, from agriculture to suburban residential (map,page 20). The City objected to this request. ■City and County SOAR Initiatives Aware of the types of actions that encourage urban sprawl, the City in 1994 adopted a policy saying significant changes from open space, agricultural, or rural uses to urban uses should be subject to voter approval. A citizens' initiative placed a measure that would have required such votes ("SOAR") on the November 2000 ballot. The measure was defeated in the election, but the City policy remains in effect. s City-County cooperation Despite the events noted above, the City and the County share many goals, and often agree on how best to implement them. San Luis Obispo's thriving downtown, location for many government services including courts and the library, reflects cooperation between the City and the County. The City continues to work with the County on accommodating additional downtown space for courts, offices, parking, and transit. Also, through the "Zone 9" flood control district, the City and the County are jointly working on ways to avoid flood damage, protect streamside properties from erosion, and enhance and protect natural habitat along creeks. Both agencies are preparing a Waterways Management Plan intended to update flood policies and streamline required approvals by State and Federal agencies for relatively small and routine creek-bank protection projects. ■Avoiding fights over taxes Each annexation approved in recent years required City and County agreement to share a set amount of property tax. A framework agreement for annexations worked out by the City and the County has avoided the squabbles over sales tax that have marked relationships between neighboring jurisdictions in many parts of the state. Sales tax is a major revenue source for the City's .general fund, which pays for many police, fire, and parks and recreation services. A notable event in 2000 was agreement by the City, the County, and the Local Agency Formation Commission that sales tax from the County-approved Froom Ranch development would accrue city of san Luis omipv 22 gene%%. Lan annual aepoat 2000 to the City if construction started and the annexation were completed in a timely way. Program Status The General Plan contains an ambitious array of programs covering many types of City activities. The Housing Element, in particular, includes many programs with specific time frames. This report touches only on the major programs that saw activity in 2000. (A separate list of all General Plan programs is available form the Community Development Department.) The City Council formally reconsiders program priorities and support levels every two years, as part of the budget cycle, while General Plan elements are usually revised only every five years or more. The two-year priority determinations made by the City Council supersede the target program- completion dates in the General Plan. Also, some programs depend on other agencies. As a result, the actual program work often varies from the originally targeted completion dates. �a9 rh -\ city of san Luis osisoo 23 Geneuar-Olan annual aEPout 2000 For More Information Community Development Department offices are in the lower level of City Hall,which is downtown at the comer of Palm and Osos streets. Office hours are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The location and mailing address are: 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 U.S.A. ® A few short-term parking spaces are available at the curb in front of the building and behind the building. Additional parking is available in a structure one block west on Palm Street. The department's main entry is wheelchair accessible, and there is a curbside, disabled parking space in front of the building. There are also wheelchair-accessible entries to City Hall's upper level and a disabled parking space behind the building, with access from Osos Street,but there is no elevator or indoor ramp between the levels of City Hall. 0 Osos Street at Palm Street is a meeting point for local and county bus routes. Maps and publications may be viewed or purchased at the Community Development Department (purchase prices reflect only the cost of printing). Most items are also available for reference at the City-County Library across the street from City Hall, and at the Documents and Maps Section of the Cal Poly Library. The libraries generally have evening and Saturday hours. The department phone number is 805 781-7172; the fax number is 805 781-7173. TDD The City's Telecommunications Device for the Deaf number is 805 781-7410. Through the City's web site you can read or download the Digest General Plan and City regulations, learn more about City services, and check on some meeting agendas and meeting updates. The Web site is http://www.slocity.org. This report's author receives e-mail at gmatteso@slocity.org. Se puede hater preparativos para traducir en espanol. gp annual repord2000 rev