HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2002, 3 - PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW MULTIPLE PLANS FOR council July[1,2002
j acEnaa izEpoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directop*
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW MULTIPLE PLANS FOR THE
ORCUTT AREA (GPA 68-02),AND A REQUEST TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM THE CURRENT SPECIFIC PLANNING EFFORT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Encourage the applicants to withdraw their request and to work with staff on preparing a specific
plan that responds to their concerns, rather than pursuing exclusion from the current effort.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Applicants: Jeanne Anderson, Leo Evans, Jay Farrior, Paul Fiala, Paul Garay, Gamey Hall,
Phyllis Imel, Roland Maddelena, Nick Muick
Representatives: Patti Taylor and Jeanne Anderson
Affected owners: see vicinity map, Attachment#1
Environmental determination: No environmental determination has been proposed at this time.
Action deadline: State law does not set a processing deadline for amending the General Plan.
Background on Process
Usually a general plan amendment application would come to the Council as a hearing item,
following a full staff evaluation and Planning Commission consideration. In this case, staff
suggested and the applicant agreed that earlier review would be desirable (as was done last year
for a similar request by People's Self-Help Housing and Scott Lathrop). Council's early direction
will allow the applicant and staff to avoid unproductive effort if the Council does not anticipate
being able to approve the application. If Council supports further consideration of the request, a
staff evaluation and initial environmental determination will be done, and it will be heard by the
Planning Commission before returning for formal Council action.
Situation
The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires specific plans for the large, mostly
undeveloped areas next to the city where development and open-space protection are intended to
occur (policy LU 1.13.3, in Attachment #2). Specific plans typically show proposed land uses,
public facilities, and design standards in more detail than the General Plan, but in less detail than
subdivision maps and construction plans. For San Luis Obispo, each specific plan also typically
involves several land owners and many years from adoption to full development. Specific plans
are now required for the Margarita Area, the Airport Area, and the Orcutt Area.
3-1
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area Specific Plan exclusions
Page 2
Until the 1994 Land Use Element revision, specific plans were required before annexation or
development in the Irish Hills, Dalidio, Margarita, and Orcutt areas. With the 1994 revision, the
following occurred.
• The Irish Hills Area was identified as a special design area, for which one specific plan
could be done, or one or more development plans would be required, depending on
whether it was annexed as one piece or several. (Development plans often cover the same
topics as specific plans,but usually apply to a single property).
• The Dalidio Area was largely eliminated as a residential expansion area, while a
development plan was required for the commercial part of the Dalidio property.
• The Margarita Area was allowed to be annexed,in whole or parts, as soon as the Council
endorsed a draft specific plan, but development must wait until the specific plan is
adopted.
• For the Orcutt Area, there was no change to the requirement for a specific plan for the
whole area before any part is annexed or developed.
• The Airport Area was identified as an annexation area, for which a specific plan was to be
adopted before it was annexed in whole or in part. However, a following amendment
removed the "TK" (Food-4-Less) project site from the designated Airport Area. Another
amendment created the potential for annexation and development ahead of specific-plan
adoption if certain criteria were met, in the so-called "interim annexations." However,
this approach has been discontinued pending consideration of the specific plan for the
whole area.
The City is working on a specific plan for each of the following areas, with plan status as noted:
Area Status Adoption Anticipated
Margarita Area Council and Airport Land Use Early 2003
418 acres, nearly one-half Commission approved concept
open space and parks; up to plan in March 2002; revised draft
880 dwellings of various being prepared.
types, and a business park
Airport Area Public review draft and EIR Late 2002 or early 2003
1,000 acres; about 1/3 open published February 2002.
space, 1/3 commercial and
industrial; 1/3 airport uses
Orcutt Area Most recent draft from Mid to late 2003
231 acres; about 1/3 open proponents received late 2001;
space; up to 700 dwellings of next step is Council
various types I authorization to prepare EIR.
As with all specific plans previously adopted by the City or currently proposed (except the
Airport Area), the specific planning effort for the Orcutt Area began with a representative of
owners submitting an application and proposing a draft plan. That representative, Cannon
Associates, had been retained by three of the Orcutt Area owners: Barbara Parsons (Righetti),
Charles Pratt, and Dr. Ernest Jones. Cannon Associates had early discussions with the other
owners,before submitting a proposal,but City staff was not party to those discussions.
3-2
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area Specific Plan exclusions
Page 3
Cannon Associate's draft specific plan has now been through two revisions, partly in response to
extensive comments by City staff of all departments. The latest draft has not been recommended
or rejected by City staff, and is not the subject of this agenda item.
As work on the draft plan progressed, several owners in addition to the three original proponents
became very concerned about the contents. The proposed connection of the Prado Road
extension to Johnson Avenue, through the Orcutt Area, was a catalyst for property-owner
involvement. (That proposed connection has been rejected by the City Council, by action on a
proposed amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element.) Proposed land uses, street
alignments, park and open space dedications, drainage solutions, and costs of public facilities all
became topics of discussion among the owners and staff. Several meetings were held throughout
2001 in an effort to reach consensus.
The applicants for the request that is the subject of this report want to have the General Plan
Land Use Element text amended, to allow more than one specific plan or development plan for
the Orcutt Area. If the amendment were approved, it would be possible for:
• those owners wishing to proceed with planning and development now to do so;
• those owners not wanting near-term development to wait to submit their own plans;
• those owners who would never desire further development with City services to not be
subject to specific plans or development plans.
The applicants also request Council direction that their properties be excluded from the current
specific-planning effort. They do not object to the original proponents having a City-approved
plan and developing in ways that do not adversely affect the applicants' properties. The
applicants do not believe that the current specific plan will be revised to adequately address their
concerns.
Applicant's Concerns
Following is staff's summary of the applicants' major concerns, as presented in several
conversations and in letters received before the application was filed. Staff also offers brief
comments.
1. Applicants' concern: Some properties already have dwellings, accessory buildings, and
gardens on them. They are the owners' family homes, and the owners have no desire to
develop. The specific plan shows roads, paths, building sites, and parks in place of the
current uses. A specific plan would be a "cloud on the property," lowering its value, making
it difficult to sell or to use as securityfor a loan (including refinancing), and causing anxiety
for the occupants.
Staff comment: Adoption of a specific plan does not compel an owner to be annexed or to
initiate development. (However, it is possible for a parcel that is part of a
larger annexation to be annexed against the will of that parcel's owner. Also,
while it rarely happens, it is legally possible for eminent domain to be used
to acquire right-of-way over one property to enable development of another,
3-3
i
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area Specific Plan exclusions
Page 4
or to allow installation of public facilities.) Staff believes the best way to
address this concern is to keep the properties within the specific plan, but to
have the plan respect their current use as much as possible—to design around
them. They would be shown as either simply maintaining what they have, or
as a future phase requiring a specific plan amendment to have urban
development. Given the overall objectives for the area and its layout, this
approach is easier for properties with frontage on the eastern leg of Orcutt
Road than for properties along the railroad or the northern leg of Orcutt
Road.
2. Applicants' concern: The draft plan calls for other property owners to compensate the one
owner who would be dedicating Righetti Hill (also known as Mine Hill) as open space. This
isnot fair.
Staff comment: Payment for open space is not consistent with what has occurred or is
proposed in other areas involving development and open-space protection,
such as the Irish Hills, Margarita, and Edna-Islay areas. The City's General
Plan distinguishes between parks, which each owner has an obligation to
contribute toward based on residential development, and open space, which
is to remain undeveloped due to the character of the land. Reimbursement
for open space dedication in the Orcutt Area is a policy issue that will be
resolved by adoption of the specific plan. Because the City has not made a
practice of reimbursement among owners, and a majority of Orcutt Area
property owners oppose reimbursement, staff will not recommend such a
program.
3. Applicants' concerns: (A) The cost of public facilities would be too much. (B) Unwilling
owners could be annexed and forced to be pan of an assessment district, or to pay impact
fees for minor additions, and thereby be required to pay for facilities they do not need or
want, or cannot afford, and as a result possibly be forced to sell homes. (C) The fees would
be so high they would prevent development.
Staff comment: (A) Costs of public facilities are a concern throughout the City. The City has
identified several things needed to support development and keep this a
livable place. City policy is to have development pay for facilities needed to
serve it and to mitigate its impacts. Staff is constantly looking for ways to
provide facilities more efficiently and to obtain sources of funding other
than fees, such as grants.
(B) Staff suggests that the specific plan assure that funds would be collected
no sooner than when subdivision or development occur, or when property
owners obtain City services, and that minor additions to existing dwellings
or construction of accessory buildings would not be subject to impact fees.
(C) Avoiding fees for those who choose not to develop is one thing.
Allowing properties to develop just outside the planning area, without
contributing to City facilities, is another. The City's goal is to facilitate
creation of a new neighborhood. Any proposed fees will be recommended as
a vehicle to achieve this goal. Realistic, feasible fees will be the objective.
3-4
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area Specific Plan exclusions
Page 5
4. Applicants' concern: The draft plan is not environmentally sensitive, particularly with regard
to creek crossings and wetlands. The plan-review and environmental-review procedures are
not expected to adequately address environmental concerns.
Staff comment: In the long term, the City's review process and jurisdiction appear to offer
better environmental protection than having property under County jurisdiction.
Evaluation
The Orcutt Area as now defined makes sense, considering existing roads, drainage patterns, and
development. In fact, enlarging the planning area to include the hill also makes sense. Including
the hill in the planning area is a separate issue from whether there should be any development on
the hill, or any compensation for its dedication to the City as open space. The following are the
principle factors that support the requirement for a single specific plan.
• Providing multiple access routes to substantial development, as called for by the General
Plan Safety Element;
• Planning for creek-corridor habitat protection and storm-water management, for as large a
section of a watershed as feasible;
• Having a gravity-flow sewer system.
Designing systems for traffic circulation, water distribution, sewage collection, and storm
drainage without an areawide specific plan is inefficient and problematic. The City's Utilities
Department, in particular, believes that staff resources are used more efficiently in preparing one
specific plan than in responding to individual annexations.
It is possible to shift density from what is shown in Cannon Associates' draft plan, away from
those properties least desiring and least conducive to additional development, to properties
desiring and better suited to development. A revised plan could accommodate the same number
of dwellings, or perhaps more, making up some of the capacity lost in the Margarita Area.
Not all parties will get exactly what they want from the specific-planning process. However, the
specific plan can be written to avoid or minimize impacts to existing occupants. The property
owners who applied for the specific plan have no relative advantage in the planning process now
that there is an objective third-party planner supervising consensus building, based on
participation of all property owners. So long as the opposing property owners participate, their
concerns will be considered in the planning process. Staff would like a chance to make the
current process work.
Final Added Comment From the CAO
The City of San Luis Obispo prides itself on good long-range planning. On the other hand, issues
like the one now before the Council show how hard it can be to follow long-range planning
principles that may conflict with more immediate, personal preferences. This is because such
issues require the Council to weigh the strong feelings of some property owners against the long-
term interests of the community as a whole, interests that often do not have an immediate voice
or constituency other than the City Council and staff. In this case, splitting an essentially unified
land area into parts and planning them separately at different times is simply not good planning.
Therefore, it is my strong recommendation that the Council support proceeding in a unified way,
with a maximum, good faith effort to address the interests of all parties involved, including those
of the City as a whole.
3-5
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area Specific Plan exclusions
Page 6
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action will have no fiscal impacts. The alternative of allowing multiple plans
could increase City costs, because application fees do not cover the full cost of application
processing.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council may encourage the applicant to proceed with the amendment process. Staff does not
recommend this approach because: (a) it appears inconsistent with the General Plan and
previous Council direction, and (b) if Council ultimately denies the amendment, then staff,
owners, and consultants would have invested substantial effort in that amendment process
that otherwise could have gone into resolving the specific plan.
2. Council may continue action. Staff does not recommend continuance because all parties
involved desire timely direction. However, continuance leading to clear direction on a
majority vote would be preferable to an evenly divided vote at this meeting.
Attachments
#1 - Orcutt Area Vicinity Map with owners' status
#2 -Legislative draft of text amendment reflecting applicants' proposal
#3 -Letter from applicants
Orcutt/gpa6802.doc
3-6
: ■ �
ca CL
•
i
�i
I
I
I
-
I
-
-
4.0
n
-
CL CL
1► .
:>:::::: D �� •0
-
- -
VIII
•
IN
ULMMUL
J
..�.�.'.�.'.'.'.'.�.����"i:::':'i�':�i•':'is�i��:�:� !:Cjs4::::i::ii::::�:�':%'>ii'�":v�!i�:'>:<'�?ii?���:��j;:j:Cii::i:::'
I
111
- s I
II
11 � .
II •
I
1 It1 �
11�
1
1
1 �
1
1
1 �
•
■
i
■
i
i
Iz
r
, s
IN
s
I 1 •
r
•
•
11
8
r 11
1 ,
♦
♦ N ♦♦ ♦• •.
IS
FI/ 11111
��II IIIA
ME� i �♦ �♦ s '`
IIS �♦�_ ►`� G � �I ��� �►
IMF ���•
_11111 =
Attachment 2
GPA 68-02: Legislative Draft
(The following wording is suggested by City staff as a way to achieve the applicant's intent,
while maintaining the requirement for some type of plan prior to annexation. Staff does not
recommend this change. Words that would be eliminated are lined through. Words that would be
added are shaded.)
Land Use Element
LU 1.13.3: Required Plans
Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted
a plan for land uses, roads,utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public
facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with LU policy
1.13.5.
A) For the Airport area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the area. Until a specific plan is
adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria:
1)The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and
2)The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and
3)The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and
4)Existing Infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development; and
5) A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the
application for annexation; and
6) The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and
constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost sharing plan
maintained by the City.
B) Fer-the Greutt e*pansien area, a speeifie plan shall be adepted fer-.the whole area before any
pai4 of it is aane*ed.
,B4For the Orcutt expansion area,:a specific plari or develo,Fment plan;must be adopted for an.,
part of it before that partis annexed']
C) For the Margarita Area, annexation may not occur until the City Council has approved, as the
project description for environmental review, a draft specific plan. Further development shall
not occur until the City has completed environmental review and adopted a specific plan.
(This area shall be zoned Conservation/Open Space upon annexation, and shall be zoned
consistent with the adopted specific plan upon adoption of the specific plan.) [amendment
pending]
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under
"PD"zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
Orcutdgpa68021egis.doc
3-8
Att7LUIS
achment 3
CApril30, 2002 Michael Draze C
John Mandeville
Community Development Dept
City San Luis Obipso, Calif 93401
Regarding,- Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Dear Sirs,
After all these years you should be fully aware that there are nine (9) Orcutt Area property
owners wanting to be removed from the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Referring to the nine as
".-..several of you..." in your letter dated; 4-26-02 is misleading. It must have been a typo error as
all of us have signed many letters addressed to you expressing concern over the GASP.
We do not agree with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. We think quickly removing us would:
(1) escalate the processing for the applicant and those wanting to develop.
(2) escalate the city's ability to provide more affordable housing.
(3) escalate and offer opportunity to increase densities for more housing.
(4) allow the applicant to begin the EIR process with their choice of consultant and not be
delayed by opposition.
(5) remove those not wanting to be part of the specific plan.
(6) saves staff tons of time.
(7) saves taxpayers money.
(8) allow the applicant to work an agreement (with the City)to dedicate Mine Hill, which will
allow the City to acquire Mine Hill as additional Open Space and keep other property owners out
of the situation.
(9) protect the rural view corridor.
(10)protect the Waal life style of those not wanting to develop.
(11) protect large wetlands areas and creeks, important because the Orcutt area has a very
significant amount of wetlands and creeks to consider.
(12) end this time consuming and waste of taxpayers money dilemma.
Tne nine of us did not sign or submit the city application to begin the GASP process as we have
objected to the specific plan since it's inception. We do understand that the"..:city must process
most requests provided the applicant is willing to submit all the required information and pay for
the process as established in the fee schedules." The applicant has the full responsibility for
payment as stated. However we still have concerns over the OASP as it provides one property
owner more control than all the other property owners. The specific plan simply doubles one
property owners acreage by bringing in 70 acres from outside the Urban Reserve Line. Isn't Mine
Hill all ready designated permanent Open Space in County and City General Plans?
3-9
Attachment 3
Page 2
We believe the city is participating in a discriminatory action by accepting an application and
assisting in the adoption process of the GASP. The city wants Mine Hill (basically the 70 acres
outside the URL) and according to OASP discussion, the property owner/applicant will dedicate
Mine Hill to the city. Staff is fully aware that the OASP then proposes to allow the property
owner to develop residential suburban estate lots on this open space hillside. Couldn't that
development be construed as a trade-off for dedicating"the outside of URL" 70 acres of Mine
Hill?
The Orcutt Expansion Area boundaries were delineated in the General Plan in 1994. Those
boundary designations are the URL. Your letter dated 4-26-02 was misleading in reference that
we could still develop to County Standards. That is not true. We are in the URL, we are tied to
the County's SLO Area Plan. The County states: 40 acre minimum.lot sizes, 2 homes maximum
per existing parcel and most of us reached that maximum number years ago. Development is not
our intent and never has been. We do not believe adding property from outside the URL was the
intent of those creating the 1994 General Plan wording and guidelines for the Orcutt Expansion
Area. Your attempting to change what was intended and what was voted upon in 1994.
The OASP is in the best interest of only one of the applicants and the city. What about the
remaining property owners? Weare objecting to the city and applicant attempting to encumber
our properties through the OASP with financial obligations such as assessment districts,
development fees and applicant compensations. We are objecting to the fact that the OASP does
not provide policy by policy discussions especially in those subject areas that are not consistent
with the General Plan It is our assumption that if City Council were provided with a policy by
policy discussion today, it would become quite obvious to them that the OASP is drastically out
of conformance with the General Plan. It would become obvious that the General Plan would
have to undergo a substantial overhaul to accommodate the OASP as presented. The wetlands,
creek crossings and setbacks impacts will require serious considerations. Please ask the applicant
to submit statements that certify, as true and correct, all discussions within the OASP. This will
help reduce city staff time and tax payers money and help the applicant to demonstrate whether
the statements submitted do or do not conform.
We also strongly disagree with your continuous reference that"...the plan will not have a direct
effect on a property owner." That is not true. The specific plan will have direct and indirect
effects on our property. (1) Quoted from Curtin California Land Use and Planning Law book,
"a property owner should always check to see if a specific plan covers the property since that plan
will govern development." An unequitable plan, like the OASP, equates loss of property value to
us because it will govern. No future buyer would want to become involved with the demands of
the OASP because the risk is too high for failure and the numbers are skewed in favor of one
property owner. This plan basically heightens the risk for first time developers of other properties
within the plan to go broke.
3-10
Attachment 3
Page 3
We feel the city will not be able to get this project off the ground for another 8 -10 years, even if
all goes well. There does not appear to be enough water to supply this project today or in the
near future even if all the aspects of the OASP were completed and ready for implementation and
development tomorrow. It also appears that the OASP public utilities discussions are based
primarily on future projects and participations of others outside the OASP. Example: "The
existing Broad Street wastewater lift stations are near or at capacity and would need to be
upgraded before they could handle additional flows from the Orcutt Area. The Orcutt Area
developers will join with other annexation developers to fund upgrades....''. Before moving
forward with the EIR or any other aspect of the OASP, city staff should require the applicant to
provide service availability for all utilities. Before expending money for an EIR the applicant
should seriously question whether the EIR will even be useable, as it could be years before the
availability of utilities comes forth for the Orcutt area.
The OASP should include a full analysis of Mine Hill. If the OASP is proposing to change the
URL and include this parcel, then the property owner should include a full analysis of Mine Hill
prior to the undertaking of an EIR. The OASP is quite vague on the subject. One might
interpret the absence of discussion to be a form of nondisclosure to other property owners.
We understand that there is an old chromium mine on the property. What kind of mine is there
and has the Dept. of Mining been contacted?
As demonstrated in the above discussions, the OASP is not ready for an EIR. There are far too
many unanswered questions, too much reliance on outside events, too many unresolved issues and
alot of inconsistency to the General Plan. It might behoove the applicant to question why the city
is promoting an EIR for this project when their own project at the Margarita Specific Plan took
18 yrs to get an EIR and which to date still has not been certified.
We object to the selection of Rincon Consultants to prepare the Environmental Impact Report
for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. If the applicant authorizes the selection, the cost is their
problem not ours. We will not be responsible for any Rincon related FIR costs being deferred to
our properly now or in the future. We object to Rincon because:
(1) in our opinion, Rincon cannot produce an unbaised analysis of the Orcutt project
nor are they environmentally sensitive as evidenced in their lack of response for having knowledge
of the wetland degradation of the Lathrop/MidState LLC property within the GASP.
Agencies do have responsibility to notify other responsible agencies when such pertinent
information is learned.
(2) in our opinion, Rincon has demonstrated baised and questionable responses in
other projects we have read.
(3) we take offense to a letter dated 4-2-02 where Rincon advised us "It is not
productive(in my opinion) to send letters to the City Council suggesting dissent...". We believe
that Rincon was attempting to directly impede the public participation processs and the vital
exchange of information related to this project.
3-11
Attachment 3
Page 4
(4) we have politely expressed that the Rincon OASP meetings were a waste of time,
such as playing "checkers" and silly games to determine phasing and density was not professional
or productive. City staff sat right there and encouraged us to participate. Many quit attending
the meetings after that experience.
City staff selected Rincon for consulting services to process the OASP at a cost of$60,000. In
our opinion the city should ask for a refund. In the beginning we cooperatively attended the
meetings with the hopes of resolving our concerns. That did not happen. The meetings did create
a nice paper package for Rincon to show everyone about the meetings they had conducted. In
reality nothing happened, many property owners quit attending out of frustration and things
actually got worse.
We have more than adequately substantiated our objections to having Rincon contract for the
OASP EIR. No parties are allowed to trespress on our properties. Please send us a written
update of the status of the selection of the EIR consultant and the process utilitzed to select the
EIR consultant. If any draft scoping has been completed please send us a copy of that as well.
Once again, we wish to express that we are the majority of property owners within the OASP
and hold 33% of the acreage within URL. We absolutely object to this or any other project being
proposed on our property. Again, we are requesting to be removed from the OASP.
Sin rel
V
c
ss t 3-12
� �� o��2s� h
-- RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
memoRanoum 34 14
DATE: July 12, 2002
OUNCIL O CDD DIR
TO: City Council R�ffAO ❑ FIN DIR
WACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
V,ATTORNEY 11 PW DIR
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO UZCLEAKVCRIa C1 POLICE CHF
❑p T 12 EAOS 17 RECDIR
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director I D UTIL DIP
n HR OIR
SUBJECT: Red File for Business Agenda Items 3 and 4
Request to Continue
Attached is a copy of the letter from the property owners involved in the Orcutt Area Specific
Plan. This request to continue both items to the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting has
been agreed to by all of the property owners in an effort to work cooperatively toward an
acceptable plan for the entire Orcutt Plan area. At a meeting with staff on July 11, 2002, the
group agreed to aggressively pursue a common plan rather than separate specific plans provided
the project description your Council endorses for CEQA purposes more closely follows their
desires. The planning process has always been designed to implement as many of the desires of
the property owners as possible, within the framework of the General Plan policies for the area..
The renewed interest to work together among all of the property owners is encouraging and will
hopefully lead to mutually acceptable compromises.
REVISED CAO RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Council action on July 16, 2002, be to "affirm the desirability of
planning the Orcutt Area in a comprehensive way; and continue both business items 3 and 4 to
Sept. 17,2002, with direction to revise the EIR workscope and project description to generally
follow the consensus of property owners, within City standards; and include minor unresolved
issues as alternatives in the EIR".
RECEIVED
L:\Specific Plans\0ASPRedfile07-16-02.doc
JUL 15 2002
SLO CfTY CLERK
Fill i U:".7 All. FF;,N,:l'i D-;'TATE FEALTY FAX: -(
ORCUTT SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY OWNERS
July 11, 2002
San Luis Obispo City Council
Attn: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Michael Draze, Deputy Director for Long-Range Planning .
Re: City Council Agenda Items A.; (Multiple Plans for te OFcutt Area (GPA 68-02)
and A.4(Authorization to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan(ER209-98)
Gentlemen:
We, all of the owners of the land included in the Orem Area Specific Plan,hereby request that
subject agenda items be withdrawn from the Council's July 16th agenda, and continued to the
September 17th meeting.
In recent meetings, the owners have achieved a high degree of agreement on Plan issues but these
require refinements to the Plan as currently drafted.
It is anticipated that these refinements can be ready for City review, and for the September 17th
Council Agenda.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Paul Fiala
C. Pratt
Paul Garay
Phyllis and J. Imel
Jeanne Anderson
Patti Taylor
Leo Evans Jr.
Barbara Parsons
Vicky Hall
Mrs. Jones
Mr. Farrior
Roland Maddalena(consent given per letter sent to the City Council 1 Draie,
dated June 27th, 2002) ;
Mid-State Properties-Carol, Phil and David Gray,James Smith
f
mspCiryCouncIkSendawps
MEETING AGENDA.
DATE - b-D Z ITEM # 3�'
From: <taylor805@aol.com>
To: <kschwart@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: Mon,Jul 15, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: Orcutt Specific Plan
Hi,this is Patti Taylor, in regards to the Orcutt Specific Plan and
Council agenda items#3 &4 Mr.h dv 1 Rth ;-0UNCIL ❑ cOD DIR
Last Wednesday, 7-10-02,the Orcutt property owners met for a few hours ,� ❑ FIN DIR
without city staff, planners, or anyone else. The 13 Orcutt owners do not ::o ❑ FIRE CHIEF
have dissention among themselves. In fact, all 13 are unanimous in thought, I ✓ --na�!r [iPW DIR
plans, goals, desires, and understanding of each other's position. We ; �/;.,-r;t0RIG ❑ POUCE CHF
jokingly adopted the motto: "United we stand". It was the best meeting. -.EA-EA ❑ REC DIR
The Orcutt area is within the Urban Reserve Line and is intended for i V, 818400i ❑ LfiL DIR
development. The dissention has not been about development, it has been ✓1 Q� N CI HR DIR
about development under what is written into the Specific Plan. Specific
plans govern the land and it is best for all to address these concerns prior
to adoption rather than after. This will expedite the planning process and
in tum that will expedite providing housing.
The next morning, we met with City staff members, M. Draze and G.
Mattison. We submitted the "minutes"from our meeting which included a
request to withdraw the Orcutt agenda items 3&4 from your July 16th agenda
and to continue them on your September 17th agenda.
The Orcutt owners meeting easily achieved a unanimous agreement on
planning issues, but we need time to refine some issues as currently drafted.
If the refinement is successful,then there should be no need for item #3,
requesting more than one specific plan for the Orcutt area and the
application will be formally withdrawn. Hopefully this extra time will allow
the owners, planners, and city staff an opportunity to.achieve a quality
document/project that will come before you with total support and enthusiasm.
Thanks -we have high hopes for success!
CC: <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
RECEIVED
JUL 16 200::
SLO CITY CLERK