HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2001, 2 - RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT council Md" NftMar. 6, 01
j acEnba RepoRt
CITY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Long-range Planning Manager
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner F„ GM
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
CAO.RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendations to:
(1) Adopt a resolution to amend the schedule for phased development of major residential
annexations, allowing the Irish Hills South development to proceed sooner and the Dalidio
area to be completed in one phase, and delaying some development within the Margarita and
Orcutt areas.
(2) Adopt an ordinance to delete an obsolete code provision relating the Residential Growth
Management Regulations to the Water Allocation Regulations.
REPORT IN BRIEF
According to City policy, housing production should keep up with employment growth, while
average annual population growth should not exceed one percent.. These policies are
implemented through the phased development of large residential annexations. While none of the
annexations' owners are ready to start building, several say they want to proceed as soon as all
required approvals are obtained. The Planning Commission and staff recommend a revision of
the citywide phasing schedule that the Council adopted in 1999. The revision responds to
information on building permits for 1999 and 2000, and to a request from an annexation-area
owner. The recommendation aims to allow housing production in the areas that are most ready to
proceed,though there are several options including leaving the schedule as it is.
The Planning Commission and staff also recommend removing a procedural connection between
the rules for residential growth phasing and the rules concerning water for new development,
because it no longer fits the current form of the two sets of rules.
DISCUSSION
Policies and regulations
Since the 1970's,the General Plan has targeted a population growth rate not to exceed an average
of one percent yearly after 1990, and the City has had Residential Growth Management
Regulations to implement that policy. In 1999 the Planning Commission recommended and the
City Council adopted new regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 17.88) and a phasing schedule
(Attachment #4).. The new regulations farther emphasized scheduling of development in the
major annexation areas as the means to implement the policy, while the timing of infill projects
r�
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 2
would not be regulated. New dwellings affordable to residents with very low or low incomes, as .
defined in the General Plan Housing Element, are exempt from the one-percent growth policy
and the regulations. According to the General Plan, expansion areas that will provide the most
affordable housing and other community benefits, such as open space protection, should be first
in line for development.
Because the General Plan also has requirements for housing affordability, open space protection,
and provision of public facilities, differences among the residential expansion areas in terms of
overall community benefit were not seen as major. As a result, the phasing schedule was decided
mainly by the readiness of the identified expansion areas to proceed with development. That in
turn was largely a consequence of where the areas were in the process of adopting development
plans and specific plans, and annexation.
The regulations address allocations among expansion areas, not to different owners within each
area. Any assignment of dwellings within an expansion area is expected to be resolved through
the specific plan for the area.
The regulations call for annual review of the status of residential building in relation to the
adopted schedule, and allow for revisions to the schedule. When the schedule was adopted, it was
recognized that revisions probably would be needed to better match City goals with changing
conditions. The revisions would not affect the policy of one-percent growth. They could allow
allocations to be shifted among areas, or the phasing intervals to be shifted to cover different
periods of three consecutive years.
The schedule sets no limits on building permits for new dwellings within the 1994 city limits and
in some relatively small areas annexed soon after 1994. So, the first step in deciding allocations
for expansion areas was to project the amount of residential construction expected in the exempt
areas, and subtract it from the total that would comprise a one-percent increase. The schedule
also needed to take into account the number of dwellings expected to be lost through demolition
or conversion.
Environmental Determination
Staff has determined, and the Planning Commission has concurred, that revising the phasing
schedule and deleting the code provision are not projects for purposes of environmental.review.
They do not have a potential for physical impacts to the environment. The revision and deletion
deal with procedures to implement policies and plans that have been adopted, or will be adopted,
following environmental review of those policies and plans.
Where we stand
The first interval covered by the schedule is the years 1999 through 2001. Three years of one-
percent annual growth in the number of dwellings that existed at the start of 1999 would result in
a net increase of 570 dwellings. Based on previous years' construction levels and projects in
planning review, the schedule assumed permits would be issued for 270 new dwellings within
the city limits and for 20 dwellings within minor annexations, while 30 dwellings would be lost
�-a
i
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 3
through demolition or conversion. The appropriate additions and subtractions left 310 dwellings
to be allocated among the major expansion areas.
During 1999 and 2000, permits were issued for 178 "in-city" dwellings, not counting affordable
dwellings (Attachment #5). This amount is two-thirds of the.,assumed three-year amount, so the
projection appears to be right on track. The year-to-year trend was down, with permits for 136
dwellings issued in 1999 and 83 issued in the year 2000. However, at the end of 2000 permit
applications for 102 houses in in-city subdivisions were in plan-check. Those permits are
expected to be issued during 2001, along with a few custom houses and small "add-on"
apartment projects. If they are, the 1999-2001 in-city total would be about 290 dwellings, slightly
more than initially projected.
On the other hand, no permits were issued for small "other annexations." No planning
applications for such projects are pending. Also, dwelling losses are running ahead of the
projection, with permits already issued for 33 demolitions or conversions (16 in 1999 and 17 in
2000). If actual activity during 1999 and 2000 were to be combined with projected in-city and
other-annexation activity for 2001, and all dwellings allowable in the phased expansion areas
were permitted in 2001, the resulting net increase in dwellings would be 570, the number
previously projected and equal to annual growth rate of one percent.
Most significantly, no builders have applied for permits in the areas subject to phasing (map,
Attachment#3).
• Irish Hills North (DeVaul Ranch North) in 1999 was close to receiving all its planning
approvals and was anxious to proceed with construction. However, during 2000 the
owners revised the project and sold an interest in the property. Still, they have asked to
maintain the previously approved allocations for this area.
• The Margarita Area Specific Plan, in 1999, appeared to be close to adoption, making
possible a start of construction in 2000. However, adoption of the specific plan has been
delayed by work to reduce public facilities costs, and may be further delayed while issues
of airport land-use compatibility are resolved. Nevertheless, some owners have stated
their intent to proceed under the adopted schedule or one close to it.
• The Irish Hills South representative has asked to build sooner than the adopted schedule
would allow, and has obtained annexation and zoning approvals sooner than foreseen in
1999 (this area is also known as the DeVaul South, Laguna West, or Jet-Ski project).
• Orcutt Area owners have been working with City staff and a consultant on a revised draft
specific plan. No factors have arisen that would accelerate or delay development in this
area compared with the adopted schedule.
• Dalidio Area interest has focused on the commercial part, with no specific proposal for
the residential component. However, a Dalidio representative had previously asked that
the schedule allow that area to be developed as one phase, which would be the most
feasible way to construct the intended senior housing project. (The recent Council
direction for open space or agricultural designations on the Dalidio property may result in
reducing or eliminating the residential potential. If that occurs, a further revision of the
phasing schedule would be warranted.)
a-3
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 4
Requested changes
Developers of the Irish Hills South area have asked for 53 dwellings in 2001, and 70 dwellings
for 2002. In support of their request, they have noted the project's affordable housing component
(required by the City's inclusionary housing rules), credit for open space dedication in the Irish
Hills, and completion of the Los Osos Valley Road widening in conjunction with the.
neighboring Froom Ranch and Irish Hills North projects.
Recommended allocations
Staff's recommendation attempts to accommodate the Irish Hills South and Dalidio requests,
with minimal delay for the other areas (Attachment#1,Exhibit A).
Leading up to initial adoption of the schedule, there was discussion of "strict sequence" and
"fully distributed" alternative approaches. "Strict sequence" aimed for starting and essentially
completing one expansion area before starting another. "Fully distributed" aimed for each area to
have some development from the beginning. The General Plan favors a sequential approach, and
the City acknowledged that substantial increments of development in an area may be needed to
fund public facilities. The adopted schedule followed what was called a "partially distributed"
approach, emphasizing sequential development while giving some allocations to multiple
expansion areas. Staff's current recommendation shifts the schedule slightly toward a more
distributed approach.
In comparison with the adopted schedule, the recommended schedule would do the following.
In the period 1999 throw 2001:
• Assume demolition of 40 dwellings rather than 30,based on recent activity
• Assume 290 new in-city dwellings, rather than 270,based on activity over 1999-
2000 and projects in planning review and building plan-check
• Not change allocations for Dalidio (0)
• Not change allocations for Irish Hills North(190)
• Increase the Irish Hills South allocation from 0 to 53
• Not change allocations for Orcutt (0)
• Reduce the Margarita Area allocation from 120 to 77
• Reduce the other-annexations assumption from 20 to 0
In the period 2002 through 2004:
• Assume demolition of 40 dwellings, rather than 30
• Assume 110 new in-city dwellings,rather than 120
• Not change allocations for Dalidio (0)
• Not change allocations for Irish Hills North(80)
• Increase the Irish Hills South allocation from 0 to 70
• Reduce the Orcutt allocation from 90 to 70
• Reduce the Margarita allocation from 290 to 275
• Reduce the other-annexations assumption from 30 to 20
a -�
j
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 5
In the period 2005 through 2007:
• Not change the assumption for demolitions (-30)
• Assume 100 new in-city dwellings, rather than 120
• Increase the Dandio allocation from 100 to 180
• Not change the allocation for Irish Hills North (0)
• Reduce the Irish Hills South allocation from 50 to 0
• Reduce the Orcutt Area allocation from 100 to 90
• Increase the Margarita Area allocation from 230 to 235
• Not change the assumption for other annexations (30)
In the period 2008 through
• Not change the assumption for demolitions (-30)
• Assume 100 new in-city dwellings,rather than 120
• Not change the allocation for Dalidio (0)
• Not change the allocation for Irish Hills North (0)
• Reduce the Irish Hills South allocation from 50 to 0
• Increase the Orcutt allocation from.200 to 215
• Increase the Margarita allocation from 250 to 310
• Not change the assumption for other annexations (30)
There would be other changes in following periods, generally reflecting an acceleration of major
expansion areas and a more even distribution of infill development over time. It should be noted
that all allocations reflect staff's best estimate of maximum development capacity based on the
adopted Land Use Element and zoning, approved and proposed development plans, and draft
specific plans. Changes to land use designations or allowed densities could lead to changes in the
phasing schedule and the"1999—2022 total."
A recurring question has been "why not deduct from the allocations the percentage of dwellings
in each area that must be affordable to low income residents, because they are exempt?" There
are several parts to the answer. While dwelling production is the preferred way to meet the City's
inclusionary housing requirement, there are other options; an area paying housing in-lieu fees or
dedicating land for sites may not end up with five percent of the dwellings being exempt. Actual
project make-up for each area is not known in advance. This uncertainty also applies to the mix
of dwellings in terms of bedroom count. The allocation schedule counts one dwelling as one
dwelling, no matter what its bedroom count. In contrast, the Zoning Regulations and the draft
specific plans assign unit values greater or less than one to dwellings in some designations,
depending on bedroom count. Leaving a small numerical cushion could help avoid penalizing an
area with a higher proportion of studio and one-bedroom dwellings than of three- or four-
bedroom dwellings in such designations.
Citizen Participation
Staff had several informal contacts with expansion-area owners during 2000, mainly to confirm
that there would be an annual status report and opportunity for considering schedule changes
early this year. On December 14, staff sent a letter to all owners of land in expansion areas
subject to phasing, and to all previously identified representatives of those landowners. The letter
summarized the existing regulations and schedule. .It explained that an annual review of
residential construction and consideration of any requests for schedule changes would be
a -s
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 6
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the first three months of 2001: It
invited recipients to talk with staff about questions or proposals concerning the phasing schedule.
The only response was a statement from a Margarita Area representative that he still intended to
begindevelopment in 2001,with a large number of dwellings to be built in 2002—2004.
Once the year 2000 building-permit information was compiled and a formal request for a
schedule change had been received, staff prepared a draft evaluation and recommendation. On
January 18, this too was sent to all owners and representatives, asking for questions or comments
in time to be considered before the Planning Commission staff report was finalized. No
objections were expressed before the staff report was published.
Just before the February 14 Planning Commission meeting, staff received several letters from
Orcutt Area owners (Attachment #9). Some background: During 2000, staff had held several
workshops with Orcutt Area owners. These workshops were intended to involve all the owners in
making choices about land uses, residential densities, roads, and other basic features that could
be used to guide preparation of a revised draft specific plan. During those workshops, the
discussion of internal Orcutt Area phasing, reasonably, assumed little or no change to the
citywide phasing schedule. By year's end, sufficient direction was available for consultants to
redraft the specific plan.
The letters raised the following issues. Staff responses are noted in the indented paragraphs:
• Is the citywide phasing schedule being changed, by taking allocations away from Orcutt Area
owners and giving them to other owners?
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a change to accommodate the
builder who appears to be ready to proceed soonest, which would help meet the City's
housing production goals. This would be accomplished by delaying the construction of 30
dwellings out of 640 in the Orcutt Area,. from the 2002-07 intervals to the 2008-2013
intervals. The decision will be made by the City Council. There are optional ways to
accommodate the request for accelerated development in Irish Hills South, without
delaying Orcutt Area development. However, the options would delay areas other than
the Orcutt Area. These other areas are farther along in the approval process, having been
annexed and zoned, and with Council-approved development plans or a draft specific
plan. (See also the following section"Alternatives?)
• The changed schedule would mean no building for most owners for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Both the adopted and recommended citywide schedules would allow the Orcutt Area to
start construction in 2002 and to complete its anticipated 640 dwellings by 2015.
• Recent work on the draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan would be wasted if the phasing schedule
were changed.
Changing the citywide phasing schedule will not affect any of the basic design choices,
such as roads and trails, residential densities, parks and open space, or architectural
standards. It could require an adjustment to the Orcutt Area's tentatively proposed
internal phasing.
a -�
C :J
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 7 ,
• I may not want to be annexed if I cannot build under the adopted schedule, especially if it
means paying fees or taxes without being able to develop. (Or, I never wanted to be
annexed.)
Each owner will need to decide whether or not annexation is in his or her best interest.
Staff intends that the draft specific plan minimize the financial burden for any properties
annexed far ahead of development occurring. Staff anticipates that a revised internal
phasing schedule will include adjustments to timing of at least some of the required
infrastructure. Deferring five percent of the Orcutt Area's build-out capacity, as
recommended, is not expected to make a substantial difference in financial feasibility._
Overlap with water allocation rules
The City adopted Water Allocation Regulations in the late 1980's, to help keep normal levels of
water demand in line with the amount of water that can be supplied during droughts. The
regulations currently require nearly all new development.to offset its projected water usage, by
replacing old fixtures in existing development with more efficient fixtures. However, during the
first few years that the water regulations were in effect, projects sometimes waited for water
allocations to become available. At that time, the Residential Growth Management Regulations
used an accounting system based on calendar quarters. By intent and circumstance, their effect
was mainly on infill development. Partly in recognition of the awkwardness of administering two
development-timing mechanisms concurrently and partly in recognition of the recession and
expected lower construction rates, the Water Allocation Regulations contained a provision that
"During any calendar quarter-in which water-use allocations are limited pursuant to this chapter,
the residential growth management regulations (Chapter 17.88 of this code) shall be suspended."
As a result, there was no effort to administer the Residential Growth Management Regulations
during the 1990's. (The decade saw relatively low city housing and population increases
anyway.)
The quoted provision, Part 17.89.070.A, is obsolete and ambiguous. Staff had intended that it be
removed concurrently with adopting the new Residential Growth Management Regulations in
1999. That action was overlooked. It should be done now as a clean-up item.
CONCURRENCES
On February 14, 2001, the Planning Commission voted six to none (one vacancy) to recommend
the revision to the phasing schedule as shown in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. Commission
discussion focused on whether the schedule should also be changed to reflect lower capacity for
the Dalidio property (due to recent Council direction), lower capacity in the Margarita Area (due
to airport compatibility concerns), and more in-city capacity due to higher densities possibly
being allowed in the upper Monterey Street area and due to more mixed-use projects. The
Commission agreed with staff that it would be premature to change the schedule based on those
other factors, and that there will be ample opportunity to further revise the schedule if changes to
residential capacity are made through the General Plan and zoning.
One person, representing the Irish Hills South area, testified; he supported the recommended
change. (See also the preceding"Citizen Participation"section.)
i l
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 8
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action and the options outlined below will have no substantial affect on City
costs or revenues.
ALTERNATIVES
Environmental Determination
The Council may determine that the proposed changes are projects under the California
Environmental Quality Act. This determination would require a second action finding them
categorically exempt or approving a negative declaration,before approving them.
Phasing Schedule
Any changes to the adopted schedule should be based on better implementation of General Plan
policies. As discussed when the schedule was adopted, the various areas have very similar
benefits in terms of affordable housing components, open space protection, and public facilities,
and so it makes sense to allow those ready to begin development to proceed. The City has three
basic approaches to dealing with the schedule.
No Action
The first approach is to make no changes..Not allowing developments containing modest
dwellings to proceed when ready would result in a greater imbalance between jobs and
housing. It is appropriate to use the schedule to facilitate residential development, because
housing construction has not met the City's residential development objectives.
Shift Intervals
The second approach is to shift the three-year intervals. However, this would do little by
itself to accommodate timely development, because the adopted schedule had Irish Hills
South's development starting four years from now and occurring over nine years, and the
Dalidio development occurring in two discontinuous intervals.
Shift Allocations
The third approach is to shift some allocations among areas. This is the recommended
action, along with minor adjustments to assumptions. There are several ways in addition to
the specific recommendation to re-allocate dwellings among the expansion areas. In
response to the Orcutt Area owners' concerns, staff has prepared two options:
■ "Irish Hills transfer" would .give Irish Hills South its requested allocation, by
making a corresponding reduction for Irish Hills North (Attachment #6). The
rationale would be that Irish Hills North has not proceeded on its previously stated
schedule.
a -g'
Council Agenda Report—residential growth management
Page 9
■ "Some from each" would give Irish Hills South nearly all its requested allocation,
by making small reductions in all the other areas' allocations (Attachment#7).
Both options keep the Dalidio site in consecutive intervals, so it could get permits
essentially at one time. Both options also reflect the minor adjustments to assumptions
shown in the recommended revision.
OverlgR with water allocation rules
The Council may take no action on the recommended Municipal Code amendment. This could
result in annexation area owners asserting that the phasing schedule need not be followed.
Attachments
#1 —Draft resolution amending the phasing schedule, as recommended
#2—Draft ordinance amending the Municipal Code, as recommended
#3 —Map showing residential development areas subject to phasing
#4—Adopted Phasing Schedule
#5 —Phasing Status table
#6—Optional phasing schedule"Irish Hills transfer"
#7—Optional phasing schedule"some from each"
48—Planning Commission minutes for Feb. 14,2001
#9—Correspondence received
resgrow\Car 2000
a- 9
U Attachment#1
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PHASING SCHEDULE (GPI 21-01)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the
proposed amendment on February 14, 2001,and March 6, 2001, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined and the Planning
Commission has concurred that the proposed amendment is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act, because it has no potential for physical changes to the environment;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the
Residential Growth Management Regulations, specifically by:
Encouraging the timely production of housing, including affordable housing;
Encouraging the completion of public facilities, including road improvements;
Recognizing the dedication of open space;
Allowing development consistent with land use designations, zoning, and approved
development plans, and subject to availability of resources and services; and
Maintaining a citywide population growth rate not exceeding an annual average of one
percent.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
The Residential Growth Management Phasing Schedule, first adopted October 5, 1999,
by Resolution No. 8972, is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2001.
a /D
Attachment #1
Resolution No.
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
mc?/W/&7b.
"z44dz4^-
C'6111ml
Jeff J en n
resgrow/ccres2001.doc
N o 0 0 o CO o O o c� Attachment #1
N NOCnf� N � 00 M
O Nor Nr CONN M
C Exhibit A
rn F-
Cu
rn z
r a)
0000000010 M
CM Ch N N
N T r C7 3
O 0
_
O0)
N c 0
00000000 O p 5
d
CA N O @7T r 30 -r- p p 0
O O ' am m
' 0 � yEOaf
N p p c m
� 0000004o N mcc
Cfl05 o
as
rr r O X = CO O C
rr•, 4 N f6 E E L 'O
r_ E L T E
`� O L Ca a)
EN COCo � 0 N
a 00000 CA MO 00 CT c ACL mO Co
C7. CO O, M O CO CO CA N O . C p E `7
N M
CO C3 E E
-o rn 3 .>_ •
r, m o 0 o 'D Co -
= r w N C 2 M E
3 N N E O cNa f0
Z 0 O0000C) N O o C c p
Q C L
C O '_ . r N M CO r = 0 rn c > .s
rn L �
p � L 0 .a� ns. r.. 3 =o o c
� t m0 rn - E ,.
0 X .0 0 a) a c_cu c 3 5
rnw EN _ _ _ _ d::CD 0 N N
000000 toO Lo 0 C Cr 0 - as
Cr Z I� CoOOO OAMCO O O CD 00 0
r r N 0 r a N 7 o
p
O (D U) CD 3
N
N m c m 0 m
O 'OOOOOtoO co O E (D N E m a
,- OO 1*- ti n N 00 0 0 -
Z x cC c c
O r N L r c d o o •- N
N 0
C w m
0 o as a) i >
N (CC C.« N 0
oo00Mor• o 0 0 3 E m o uo : w
... O �' N r Co ~ O 0 c v m E coo
CA 0) Co
c c
.a >
0) r - - .L.. Co is O
3 cn � E m
aft iA L.._
C VM t C C = Co 5 n a> 'Do
Ri N M CD O (D -5 a) LL L CL
'o3c6 -oS) cE
t C W CO v Z N x c y o o C 0
" fA G C .. N w «
t cC O ) 3 'o m
0 oCo o v
0 -oo �
= COC0_ a
CL `c - v
lfl mm R W W L a? 7 o a c o a� d m
d -0 cG = = O � o c m E. m � v ° ° m
-0 -0 -a C 13
CCS m a3 y ;a R m
NO d CD N •a •a •a •a •a CD .�. m •N 'a u C 0 ar
(A E E E CU O) CD d d E c0 CcD m n ? Cj as m cEa
4) 3 3 3 3 3 3L � _
ac Q U) Co 0 0 0 0 0 �, a, g � Cwa � a Co
,.
ascNa .0wMcctoM Co .0C.) a a) p
07-��
Attachment#2
ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE WATER ALLOCATION REGULATIONS
TO DELETE A REFERENCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Marsh 6, 2001, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined and the Planning
Commission has concurred that the proposed amendment is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act, because it has no potential for physical changes to the environment;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and with the
purposes of the Residential Growth Management Regulations and the Water Allocation
Regulations.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment. Chapter 17.89 of the Municipal Code is
hereby amended by the deletion of part 17.89.070.A, which reads as follows:
A. During any calendar quarter in which water-use allocations are limited pursuant to
this chapter, the residential growth management regulations (Chapter 17.88 of this
code) shall be suspended.
SECTION 3. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of
Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage, but no
sooner than the effective date of annexation of the subject site.
Attachment#2
Ordinance No.
Page 2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 2001, on a motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C' A ney Jeff , ge en
resgrow/WARord.doc
a i�
Attachment#3
Areas Subject to
Residential Growth Phasing
A
N
0 0.5 1 Miles
0 0.5 1 Kilometers
F
COs
Os
�L
m�
Q,a
aao��
Dalldio
Oroutt
Irish Hills North
�a
Irish Hills South Margarita o,
a
Tank Farm Rd t!
GA
M ��
j
0�' N N O a0o O , L O N m Attachment #4
cA Cc of O NOrN T NIm 'T 0
N
m CA i � � r r C7 CD O
O m O m
O O U O
C\ Z O r
OU
100 0 0 0 0 0 O r
c N N 1� I� r 0
ca
O C N
N
Z o O Y
c 0 N vi
O O rn c >
N 0 .0
vi
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Cn w ca
ONO O T 3 = OO :p Z
TT ' T r 0
Q
C T CN C N
O N C7
ami c L N .5 iri E T O
0CL -
o0 c � t� cO9OOOOU) O 1* co Cno a
Q - ' r N X c 2 co j c
CU Z OEav
E O " v 2 L ^�
i N m d 0 c m m
(Z 0000000 O r_ C cCL rn U m
C7Ch0co COO r � O w O c — td
y r ' r N N CO r E 0 3 6 m e
m O '0 O
T LLJ •� U) '00 rn m
N c E O Ow c c4
y cn f/J t — O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r C L E E O
� C) Cf) N LO0LO M N O O
Or ' r NN COr 2000 V C s cCy
rn o E
N O T 3 U 0 C
O C N 7 C .=y+ .�
E N Cc rn a c m w
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O a) C71r O E E
zNcr) NO Ln 0 Mn OO Ec rn 9 a)
O ' r r r N CO r N O ,c $ 3't..,
7
O m N a L c M 3
O
cis � v = (n
. c a
NOOOOOOO OO � � � cd E >
p � r 0 ON yx cO W Na
T C i c c a W N
c a y c�
NO $ °.c W
N c0 a) c CEI � '�0 0
co ._ �- .
TOco
O0OON n E y '
0) 'a
NT T Ir c ca
C Z
amm
r > N 'O C
rCO C L O
E cn 3 0
W L co �� y �,C Cc Q
cc0 N >
U O O ca ... y 3 `E o ami 5 E
ca Z Cl) x c 22 -0 � 0 �
t C C «. MJ (A w p L O O N OLS m
LL M
0 CtS � C 2 _ _ .+ •CO cC co O .8 O 00- C = �_
� Z
75 .2
? _\ c000om0r�n
93 (L Ed U —
d N W 2 N CC f� O a c O m = d
Wa _ 02B 9c REO � o � v
55 -.E CF m ._ D
CL cu Rf ca to CO
75 cm 75
m m d d d d d 0 C N v ca c
h � E E ECD `° � � �
Q can 00 0 0 0 00 a) 3: :E
= wa •a <
.. r.
cUc is is ea ion cca Ca -0 m
Attachment#5
Residential Growth Management Phasing Status
Number of Dwellings Authorized by Buildin Permits a, b 1999 - 2022
calendar year intervals: 1999-01 2002-04 2005-07 2008-10 Total f
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 178
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 0
remaining for 2001 190
Irish Hills South allowed 0 0 50 50 150
actual 1999 -2000 0
remaining for 2001 0
Orcutt allowed 0 90 100 200 " 640
actual 1999-2000 0
remaining for 2001 0
Mar arita allowed 120 290 230 250 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 200.1- 425
Annual percent change (d) 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.69
Exempt dwellings permitted, actual 1999 -2000 (a) 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 Specific Plan, which has its
own growth management provisions).
(d) A calculated result, assuming 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.
I
N 0 0 0 0 CO0 0 0 c0m Attachment #6
N NOc01l_ Ner00 O
O CMC NT (DNN cO O
N (O r T C6 Cp
F O ui
O 2
T
00000000 O OD C
NTO CO N T N
N ' r r 0 O
04
O m c
N c O a
CA N 00 0 0 0 0 0 O T > c
m '
m '> 0o
T T r �'^ O ;
C, _J
N o 0 0 o m o o o m Attachment #7
NN O 00 1- N IT 0 0 CA .�
ONOTNTCONN m O
N r T C*1 CO
O ui
0)
T m
O O O O O O O 0 , 0 00 c
N r 0 m N T y
N
O
cm 2
O rn c
N c o n
O N0 O O O O O M O T m y S
m > oo
a L >
n v m m
C c c r
O o m m E cpa
m
caN00000000 O N a E o�ia co
(ONO Cl) m It N E m p CO o w
-a T ' T• T O m C = m "' C
d m O E c O
C L >. E
E N c0 �4 N A cc N
O tlJ
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O c " a O m : y
m m o N m d- O m o m c .° E a)
O r ' r N C'7 CO E O� >_ O
C w L C
r m2c7 E m
O
cm m C - >, m e
3. N c E
� 2 c a
0000 � NO oJ� L 0ca cOC700V C
p
L
p ' r N N CO r = '� CD 'v >
im m a) L - m
d1 p t o T 3 °� c
C:) d v cCa c y
0 3
000InMLO00 m )o (D m
ZNmo0CM CV V CO O O � � p0 p
r T T N CO T 'a) c oi aE 6 o
a
O cmv. CLDx3
N vi y c
mc m
OOOMOMLOo LO E � ° NE (D >1
O CO CO N N co O v Co m c � a
r C ►. m C 0 •- N
C
N $ c w O Y m
Oo o . ca 2 � >
N m S = N p p
r � 00 ti 0000 N 0 3 o E ami LO) � sm.
ON r r In r o oc -o C r m
_ a) N m CCO O"C''L L
Cn > 'O � 'O V ►+
CO
m r E � � o Z f0 O
0
E l m
C cis
ottS t C c '� ca 5 a m
l0 CD O m d m Il N a
U O O ._. 03ca -omc_ E
L = co 0 Z N x �D O cco m coy
V C O , (A (A cc C p co o is v 3 )
O =_ __ = O «- m c p
N ._ U U O :E
t0 — C O = _ O co c0 , a o a `c = 'pc
U O .— ,a m c 7 �1 ? ° m U O 0 y 2 z v
m U — L
l0 O L. (D m R N W L Cc = N 3 0 — o �,m c
oi *55LCF m 0- 2
m -0 f0 m y 0 m N M 0
tl/ O 75 E
O O d d d d d d cC ZT C y v ca U � U o
EE E my = vma� m
to
:3 :3 3 3 3 3 3 = � 3r U _ U
= N O O O O O O cn v m F- 5.w Q a Q E
_ o
cOC co R 0 c0 l0 <0 cc00 U ca co� 0 'a m
i
Attachment #8
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Portion)
FEBRUARY 14, 2001
2. Residential Growth Management: Consideration of changing the schedule that
allocates dwelling construction among large annexation areas, consistent with
adopted growth policies, and removing an obsolete provision relating the Residential
Growth Management Regulations to the Water Allocation Regulations.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) amend the schedule to allow
the Irish Hills South development to proceed sooner, the Dalidio area to be completed in
one phase, and the Margarita Area to be slightly delayed, as shown in the attached
table, and (2) delete an obsolete code provision relating the Residential Growth
Management Regulations to the Water Allocation Regulations.
Commr. Loh complimented staff on their report and supported their recommendations.
Commr. Cooper suggested including a map for the Council's convenience when
reviewing this item.
Commr. Peterson asked if infill calculations are a limit or a projection.
Associate Planner Matteson replied they are projections.
Commr. Peterson asked if the newly approved mixed-use overlays with housing
components would be included in the in-city figures.
Associate Planner Matteson replied yes.
Commr. Peterson asked if in-city projections considered the potential up-zoning of
Monterey and Marsh Streets from C-R to C-C.
Associate Planner Matteson replied no, this was not considered.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dick Komorowski, Jet-Ski Land Development, said the request to move allocations
forward simply reflects where his project [Irish Hills South] is in the approval process.
He noted they have worked closely with DeVaul North and are moving ahead on inter-
project issues. He further noted they have dedicated their portion of Los Osos Valley
Attachment #8
Road 'improvements, are prepared to sign a reimbursement agreement, and are
scheduled to go to Council next month.
Commr. Loh asked if Mr. Komorowski is aware that the recommended number of
allocations is dwellings, instead of 150 as in the adopted schedule.
Mr. Komorowski replied that the project is designed^to have 130 dwellings, seven of
which would be affordable to low-income and therefore exempt-from the phasing limit.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Loh moved to recommend that the City Council (1) amend the schedule to
allow the Irish Hills South Development to proceed sooner, the Dalidio Area to be
completed in one phase, and the Margarita Area to be slightly delayed, as shown in the
table attached to the staff report, and (2) delete an obsolete code provision relating the
Residential Growth Management Regulations to the Water Allocation Regulations.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Aiken, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Peterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried 6-0. There was one vacant seat.
/.' TAYLOR PHONE NO. 865 544 6510 Feb. 13 2001 04:07PM P2
At f u cIn vY)=eviT � 9
February 13, 2001
Glen Matteson, Planning Department
San t nit()hignn Plapnine Commissioners: aim Aiken Mary Whittlesey, Allen Cooper,
AUra I ^h (lural OchnrnP Anil Ctenhen Pet,cMn
Subject: Potential changes to the Resident6»l C-.-OW ragesnes:t phassing
Dear Mr. Matteson and Commissioners,
After reading the packet of information regarding this draft proposal, I have questions.
What is being done here? Is the city taking away building units allocated to the Orcutt
Area Specific Pian property owners and giving them to other property owners? If this is
true, how.come it is being done? if true, then why did the City waste$60,000 to hire a
consultant to work with the Orcutt property owners regarding the OASP annexation?
Many of the property owners in the OASP have been attending meetings for the past few
months. This is costly for all in both time and money. To date, the basic question is what
has really been accomplished? Have there been any changes? If so, where are those
changes recorded in writing?
This draft proposal regarding changing the residential growth management phasing will
hurt many of the property owners in the OASP. The building allocations will be reduced
and that means for most owners probably no building for 10 to 20 years. This is not what
we were told by city staff. This is not why the city spent$60,000 to hire a consultant to
work with us. What has happened? Why does city staff now want to put our units
somewhere else?
By taking away some of our units, many of us have been thinking over the possibility of
not wanting to annex to the city at all. 'Why would anyone want to be annexed into the
city,pay city taxes, be under city guidelines and rules, be policed by city staff. run the risk
of assessments and bonds, and not be able to build to finance all these changes? Why
would anyone want to become Parc of a process that is detrimental to their financial well
being?
Many of us attended meetings in good faith, willing to listen, learn, and be a good
neighbors. Taking away some of our units came as a surprise. Something is wrong here.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you Glenn for delivering this letter to
the Planning Commissioners in A timely fashion.
Patti Taylor
3731 Orcutt Ro 4
San Luis Obispo, Calif 93401
A` d 4c-�2mScy� 1
February 14,2001 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
14 2001
i
Glen Matteson m*VIN UNITY DEVELOPMENT
Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Subject: Potential changes to Residential Growth Management Phasing.
Dear Mr.Matteson
I have lived on my property sense 1941. I have never been interested in going into the
city or developing my land. I have only wanted to be left alone, and want no part of the
Orcutt Area annexation.
I received the information package from the city and have been going to the meetings
with John Rickenbach, consultant for the city. I have gone to these meetings only to be
kept informed. There are questions that have never been answered. I feel that I have been
pushed into something I have not wanted. I do not want to go into the city and will be
sending a letter to various city departments stating I do not want to go into the city.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Imel
3777 Orcutt Road
San Luis Obispo
CA. 93401
i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP
February 13,2001
FEB,1 3 2001
Glen Matteson
Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN
City Of San Luis Obispo
Subject: Potential changes to Residential Growth Management Phasing
Dear Mr. Matteson:
I received the packet from the city explaining the changes in the building allocations. We
have been going to meetings with city staff and John Rickenbach for months. It doesn't
seem that we have accomplished anything except run up consultant fees. We have many
question that have gone unanswered. By changing the amount of units we will have in the
beginning, we will be unable to build for 10 or 15 years. This plan is counter to what we
were led to believe. I feel that the Parson property is,being favored over the rest of the
Orcutt Area owners. I have never been interested in going into the city and I haven't
changed my mind. I will be sending a letter so stating my intentions. I will be asking
NOT to go into the city at this time.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Anderson
3580 Bullock Lane
San Luis Obispo
CA. 93401
[CIT[YOF SAN LUIS BBISPO
Ca X32001
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Planning Commission Members
Re: Changes to Growth Management.Phasing - Meeting February 14?
Subject: Orcutt Expansion Area- Orcutt Area Specific Plan (GASP)
Dear Member:
The City spent$60,000 for a consultant who has been meeting regularly for months with the
owners of the Orcutt Expansion Area. The owners in the"to be"OrcuttArea Specific Plan were
asked to participate so they would not be surprised later or left out of the specific plan process.
Why was I not informed in the meetings or earlier, or asked to participate in, a new allocation
proposal by staff pursuant to January 18, 2001 letter from the Associate Planner(G.M.)? In the
"sapirit"of why the $60,000 was spent, I think staff should have called a meeting for all the
OASP owners.
I do not agree with the proposed taking of approximately 30 units from the OASP for 2002-2007.
This represents a taking of approximately 16% from all owners. I request that the current
phasing schedule be maintained.
I am tempted to vote against annexation if this or other similar attempts are made to take from
me those allocations that have been represented and which are currently approved for the Orcutt
Expansion Area.
Nick Nhick Date
Land Owner in Orcutt Expansion Area- OASP
3731 Orcutt Road
MEEn3 -off AGENDA .
��REM #____
Richard J. Komorowsld
Land Development
484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 Camarillo,CA 93010 Tel: (805) 383-3377 • Fax (805)987-5068
March 5, 2001
Mayor Allen Settle _ LE
an rnl ECity of San Luis Obispo Qd AI:I C':'990 Palm StreetFO-.1Ai�C��:iSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Uc=CHF❑LEC DIRTIL DUlRe: DeVaul Ranch South Planned DevelopmentRE DUi
Dear Mayor Settle, naa ,
Thank you for expressing your confidence in the analysis, findings, and
recommendations of the Planning Commission. For over a year we have worked with and
relied on the collective input of the Planning and Public Works Staffs and the Architectural
Review Commission. That input is the basis for designing the project under the Planned
Development (PD) standards and policies of the General Plan. We appreciate the
Planning Commission support of that effort and their recommendation for approval.
We also appreciate your comments about mixed use housing and the.quality of the
project. We acknowledge your request for an updated analysis of the impact of
development on traffic and of the corresponding mitigation measures of that development
on the ultimate level of service on L.O.V.R. and cumulatively at the overpass. The scope
of that update and analysis has been defined by Staff and is being completed.
We will demonstrate that all your questions and concerns and those raised by the
other Council Members, especially regarding traffic on L.O.V.R. and at the overpass have
been satisfactorily addressed and answered. We do believe that Mr. Moss fully addressed
the question of water and waste disposal capacity. We accept all those conditions and fees
as required and will comply with all mitigation measures as regards those services.
Noise Mitigation Measures are incorporated into the design and are reflected in
building set backs, landscape screening, and in the construction features of the buildings.
Compliance with the City's Noise Element is a condition for issuance of a building permit.
During the conceptual development phase of the project,we relied on the findings
of the Final E.I.R. for the DeVaul Ranch North PD because logically most of those
impacts and mitigation measures would be applicable to DeVaul Ranch South We accept
those pertinent conditions and will comply with the same mitigation and monitoring
programs. It should be noted that the consultant for that report concurs with Staffs
Environmental Determination and concludes that an E.I.R. for DeV
necessary. RECEIVED
MAR 0 5 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
The design of this project has been extremely influenced by the site plan for
DeVaul North, the requirement to create a connected and compatible neighborhood, the
General Plan requirement to provide a balanced mix of housing types by net area of the
site, and by the dimensions of the parcel itself. The project successfully responds to these
factors and complies with all the guidelines and city policy for development in an
expansion area. Accordingly, We respectfully request your support and vote for approval
on April 3rd.
The approval of this project is very important to us, so if you have any other
questions or concerns, please give us the opportunity to address them We will meet with
you or reply by phone, fax or e-mail.
As regards Growth Management, Staff has recommended and Planning
Commission has concurred with moving allocations for DeVaul South into the current
period and next year. This modification to the residential allocation distribution will
enable a more coordinated development of DeVaul Ranch and timely build out of the
Irish Hills Expansion Area. Additionally, it will expedite the completion of the Los Osos
Valley Road improvements and make an immediate contribution to housing goals. Please
support their recommendation. To do so will ensure that we can move ahead if Council
approves the project on April 3rd.
Yours truly,
( 4 -
R.J. Komorowski
Jet-Ski Land Development#3, LLC
Managing Members
e-mail - gedets218@aol.com
(805) 383-3377
(805) 987-5068 fax
Richard J. Komorowsld
Land Development
484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 Camarillo,CA 93010 • Tel:(805)383-3377 Fax: (805)987-5068
March 5, 2001
Council Member Schwartz
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development
Dear Council Member Schwartz,
Thank you for expressing your confidence in the analysis, findings, and
recommendations of the Planning Commission. For over a year we have worked with and
relied on the collective input of the Planning and Public Works Staffs and the Architectural
Review Commission. That input is the basis for designing the project under the Planned
Development (PD) standards and policies of the General Plan. We appreciate the
Planning Commission support of that effort and their recommendation for approval.
We also appreciate your request for clarification as regard the Froom Ranch
property line and landscape profile on Los Osos Valley Road. Both items have been
reviewed with Staff and have been more clearly defined.
We will demonstrate that all your questions and concerns and those raised by the
other Council Members, especially regarding traffic on L.O.V.R. and at the overpass have
been satisfactorily addressed and answered. We do believe that Mr. Moss fully addressed
the question of water and waste disposal capacity. We accept all those conditions and fees
as required and will comply with all mitigation measures as regards those services.
Noise Mitigation Measures are incorporated into the design and are reflected in
building set backs, landscape screening, and in the construction features of the buildings.
Compliance with the City's Noise Element is a condition for issuance of a building permit.
During the conceptual development phase of the project, we relied on the findings
of the Final E.I.R. for the DeVaul Ranch North PD because logically most of those
impacts and mitigation measures would be applicable to DeVaul Ranch South. We accept
those pertinent conditions and will comply with the same mitigation and monitoring
programs. It should be noted that the consultant for that report concurs with Stairs
Envirogmental Determination and concludes that an E.I.R. for DeVaul South is not
necessary.
The design of this project has been extremely influenced by the site plan for
DeVaul North, the requirement to create a connected and compatible neighborhood, the
General Plan requirement to provide a balanced mix of housing types by net area of the
site, and by the dimensions of the parcel itself. The project successfully responds to these
factors and complies with all the guidelines and city policy for development in an
expansion area Accordingly, We respectfully request your support and vote for approval
on April 3rd.
The approval of this project is very important to us, so if you have any other
questions or concerns, please give us the opportunity to address them We will meet with
you or reply by phone, fax or e-mail.
As regards Growth Management, Staff has recommended and Planning
Commission has concurred with moving allocations for DeVaul South into the current
period and next year. This modification to the residential allocation distribution will
enable a more coordinated development of DeVaul Ranch and timely build out of the
Irish Hills Expansion Area Additionally, it will expedite the completion of the Los Osos
Valley Road improvements and make an immediate contribution to housing goals. Please
support their recommendation. To do so will ensure that we can move ahead if Council
approves the project on April 3rd.
Yours truly,
R.J. Komorowski
Jet-Ski Land Development #3, LLC
Managing Members
e-mail - gerjets218@aol.com
(805) 383-3377
(805) 987-5068 fax
Richard J. Komorowski
Land Development
484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 Camarillo,CA 93010 Tel:(805)383-3377 Fax(805)987-5068
March 5, 2001
Council Member Ewan
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Paha Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development
Dear Council Member Ewan,
Thank you for expressing your confidence in the analysis, findings, and
recommendations of the Planning Commission. For over a year we have worked with and
relied on the collective input of the Planning and Public Works Staffs and the Architectural
Review Commission. That input is the basis for designing the project under the Planned
Development (PD) standards and policies of the General Plan. We appreciate the
Planning Commission support of that effort and their recommendation for approval
We also appreciate your request for clarification as regards the Los Osos Valley
Road cross-section,the DeVaul North link up on L.O.V.R. and cul-de-sac connections
between both projects. These items have been reviewed with Staff and have been more
clearly defined.
We will demonstrate that all your questions and concerns and those raised by the
other Council Members, especially regarding traffic on L.O.V.R. and at the overpass have
been satisfactorily addressed and answered. We do believe that Mr. Moss fully addressed
the question of water and waste disposal capacity. We accept all those conditions and fees
as required and will comply with all mitigation measures as regards those services.
Noise Mitigation Measures are incorporated into the design and are reflected in
building set backs, landscape screening, and in the construction features of the buildings.
Compliance with the City's Noise Element is a condition for issuance of a building permit.
During the conceptual development phase of the project,we relied on the findings
of the Final E.I.R. for the DeVaul Ranch North PD because logically most of those
impacts and mitigation measures would be applicable to DeVaul Ranch South. We accept
those pertinent conditions and will comply with the same mitigation and monitoring
programs. It should be noted that the consultant for that report concurs with Staff's
Environmental Determination and concludes that an E.I.R. for DeVaul South is not
necessary.
The design of this project has been extremely influenced by the site plan for
DeVaul North, the requirement to create a connected and compatible neighborhood, the
General Plan requirement to provide a balanced mix of housing types by net area of the
site, and by the dimensions of the parcel itself. The project successfully responds to these
factors and complies with all the guidelines and city policy for development in an
expansion area. Accordingly, We respectfully request your support and vote for approval
on April 3rd.
The approval of this project is very important to us, so if you have any other
questions or concerns, please give us the opportunity to address them We will meet with
you or reply by phone, fax or e-mail.
As regards Growth Management, Staff has recommended and Planning
Commission has concurred with moving allocations for DeVaul South into the current
period and next year. This modification to the residential allocation distribution will
enable a more coordinated development of DeVaul Ranch and timely build out of the
Irish Hills Expansion Area. Additionally, it will expedite the completion of the Los Osos
Valley Road improvements and make an immediate contribution to housing goals. Please
support their recommendation. To do so will ensure that we can move ahead if Council
approves the project on April 3rd.
Yours truly,
(:Q: -
R.J. Komorowski
Jet-Ski Land Development#3,LLC
Managing Members
e-mail - gerjets218@aol.com
(805) 383-3377
(805) 987-5068 fax
Richard J. Komorowsld
Land Development
484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 Camarillo, CA 93010 • Tel: (805)383-3377 Fax:(805)987-5068
March 5, 2001
Council Member Mulholland
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development
Dear Council Member Mulholland,
For over a year we have worked with and relied on the collective input of the
Planning and Public Works Staffs and the Architectural Review Commission. That input
is the basis for designing the project under the Planned Development (PD) standards and
policies of the General Plan. We appreciate the Planning Commission support of that
effort and their recommendation for approval.
We also appreciate your comments regarding water, noise, the loss of Ag
resource, and the PD fording criteria We acknowledge your request for an updated
analysis of the impact of development on traffic and of the corresponding mitigation
measures of that development on the ultimate level of service on L.O.V.R. and
cumulatively at the overpass. The scope of that update and analysis has been defined by
Staff and is being completed.
We will demonstrate that all your questions and concerns and those raised by the
other Council Members, especially regarding traffic on L.O.V.R. and at the overpass have
been satisfactorily addressed and answered. We do believe that Mr. Moss fully addressed
the question of water and waste disposal capacity. We accept all those conditions and fees
as required and will comply with all mitigation measures as regards those services.
Noise Mitigation Measures are incorporated into the design and are reflected in
building set backs, landscape screening, and in the construction features of the buildings.
Compliance with the City's Noise Element is a condition for issuance of a building permit.
During the conceptual development phase of the project, we relied on the findings
of the Final E.I.R. for the DeVaul Ranch North PD because logically most of those
impacts and mitigation measures would be applicable to DeVaul Ranch South. We accept
those pertinent conditions and will comply with the same mitigation and monitoring
programs. It should be noted that the consultant for that report concurs with Staffs
Environmental Determination and concludes that an E.I.R. for DeVaul South is not
necessary.
The design of this project has been extremely influenced by the site plan for
DeVaul North, the requirement to create a connected and compatible neighborhood, the
General Plan requirement to provide a balanced mix of housing types by net area of the
site, and by the dimensions of the parcel itself. The project successfully responds to these
factors and complies with all the guidelines and city policy for development in an
expansion area. Accordingly, We respectfully request your support and vote for approval
on April 3rd.
The approval of this project is very important to us, so if you have any other
questions or concerns, please give us the opportunity to address them We will meet with
you or reply by phone, fax or e-mail.
As regards Growth Management, Staff has recommended and Planning
Commission has concurred with moving allocations for DeVaul South into the current
period and next year. This modification to the residential allocation distribution will
enable a more coordinated development of DeVaul Ranch and timely build out of the
Irish Hills Expansion Area Additionally, it will expedite the completion of the Los Osos
Valley Road improvements and make an immediate contribution to housing goals. Please
support their recommendation. To do so will ensure that we can move ahead if Council
approves the project on April 3rd.
Yours truly,
R.J. Komorowski
Jet-Ski Land Development# 3, LLC
Managing Members
e-mail - ger ets218@aol.com
(805) 383-3377
(805) 987-5068 fax
I
Richard J. Komorowski
Land Development
484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 Camarillo, CA 93010 • Tel: (805)383-3377 Fax:(805)987-5068
March 5, 2001
Council Member Marx
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development
Dear Council Member Marx,
For over a year we have worked with and relied on the collective input of the
Planning and Public Works Stags and the Architectural Review Commission. That input
is the basis for designing the project under the Planned Development (PD) standards and
policies of the General Plan. We appreciate the Planning Commission support of that
effort and their recommendation for approval.
We also appreciate your comments regarding water,waste disposal, noise and the
use of drought tolerant vegetation. We acknowledge your request for an updated analysis
of the impact of development on traffic and of the corresponding mitigation measures of
that development on the ultimate level of service on L.O.V.R. and cumulatively at the
overpass. The scope of that update and analysis has been defined by Staff and is being
completed.
We will demonstrate that all your questions and concerns and those raised by the
other Council Members, especially regarding traffic on L.O.V.R. and at the overpass have
been satisfactorily addressed and answered. We do believe that Mr. Moss fully addressed
the question of water and waste disposal capacity. We accept all those conditions and fees
as required and will comply with all mitigation measures as regards those services.
Noise Mitigation Measures are incorporated into the design and are reflected in
building set backs, landscape screening, and in the construction features of the buildings.
Compliance with the City's Noise Element is a condition for issuance of a building permit.
During the conceptual development phase of the project, we relied on the findings
of the Final E.I.R. for the DeVaul Ranch North PD because logically most of those
impacts and mitigation measures would be applicable to DeVaul Ranch South. We accept
those pertinent conditions and will comply with the same mitigation and monitoring
programs. It should be noted that the consultant for that report concurs with Staffis
Environmental Determination and concludes that an E.I.R. for DeVaul South is not
necessary.
The design of this project has been extremely influenced by the site plan for
DeVaul North, the requirement to create a connected and compatible neighborhood, the
General Plan requirement to provide a balanced mix of housing types by net area of the
site, and by the dimensions of the parcel itself. The project successfully responds to these
factors and complies with all the guidelines and city policy for development in an
expansion area Accordingly, We respectfully request your support and vote for approval
on April 3rd.
The approval of this project is very important to us, so if you have any other
questions or concerns, please give us the opportunity to address them. We will meet with
you or reply by phone, fax or e-mail.
As regards Growth Management, Staff has recommended and Planning
Commission has concurred with moving allocations for DeVaul South into the current
period and next year. This modification to the residential allocation distribution will
enable a more coordinated development of DeVaul Ranch and timely build out of the
Irish Hills Expansion Area Additionally, it will expedite the completion of the Los Osos
Valley Road improvements and make an immediate contribution to housing goals. Please
support their recommendation. To do so will ensure that we can move ahead if Council
approves the project on April 3rd.
Yours truly,
R.J. Komorowski
Jet-Ski Land Development# 3, LLC
Managing Members
e-mail - ger ets218@aol.com
(805) 383-3377
(805) 987-5068 fax