HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/2004, PH2 - DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND MEETING SCHEDULE r
council Mn6,Dw 9-7-04
j agenda Report a
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Director of Community Developmeylt
Prepared By: Michael Draze, Deputy Director, Long-j ge Planning
SUBJECT: DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND MEETING SCHEDULE.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Discuss the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), receive public testimony, approve subsequent hearing dates, and provide direction
to staff, as appropriate and continue the public hearing to September 28, 2004.
2) As recommended by the Planning Commission, certify the EIR and approve the plan in
subsequent hearings, with Council amendments, as appropriate.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan — A Transit Oriented Development (MASP) and Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been endorsed by the Planning Commission
and are now ready for Council review. This report introduces the plan and identifies key issues
encountered thus far through the hearing process. The Plan is the culmination of close to 25
years of study, citizen and public agency input, and plan preparation, and its adoption is an
important General Plan objective. The Plan will serve .as the "blueprint" for a 416-acre
expansion area in southern San Luis Obispo that will include residential, commercial, open space
and parkland uses. The General Plan requires adoption of a specific plan before the area can be
developed. City Council action will address the Final Environmental Impact Report and specific
plan, amendments to the General Plan and Citywide zoning maps, and initiation of the
annexation process.
To facilitate the hearing process, the report includes a tentative list of Council hearing dates and
topics to be discussed. Council members should approve the hearing dates, with or without
changes as appropriate.
DISCUSSION TOPICS
Meeting Purpose
At tonight's meeting, Council members will begin reviewing the Planning Commission's
recommendations including the revised draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, Final Environmental
Impact Report, and General Plan and Zoning amendments. Staff will provide an overview of the
recommended plan including a presentation on the EIR by a member of the consultant's team..
The meeting is an opportunity for Council members to become familiar with the Plan's features,
and with the issues that generated the most discussion at the Commission's hearings. This
4" (
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page 2
meeting is primarily informational, with an opportunity for Council to receive public comments
and provide direction to staff or request additional clarification.
Planning Commission's Action
On June 9`s, after eight hearings, additional public testimony, and reaching consensus on about a
dozen minor changes, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the City Council certify the EIR,
adopt the specific plan, amend the Land Use Element to reflect the specific plan map, and amend
the zoning for those properties currently within the City. Council approval will also establish
prezoning for those properties not yet in the City but intended to be annexed.
Specific Plan Overview
The Draft Specific Plan and EIR have been endorsed by the Planning Commission and are now
ready for Council review, leading to adoption: Once the specific plan is adopted, annexation and
development can proceed, pursuant to the Plan's standards. Development of the Margarita Area
will occur gradually over about a 15 — year period, and create new transit-friendly
neighborhoods linked by existing and new streets, bikeways, open space corridors and parkland.
The Margarita Area Specific Plan guides the development of a 416 acre area in southern San
Luis Obispo and the largest single annexation in the City's history. It includes much of the land
bounded by South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, and the ridge of the South
Hills. According to San Luis Obispo's General Plan, this area should include permanent open
space, a residential neighborhood with supporting services, and a business park. This Specific
Plan bridges between the broad policies of the General Plan and the details of subdivisions,
building permits, and City budgets.
It provides for about 870 new homes of various sizes and types on 70 acres, including single-
family detached and attached houses, apartments, and mixed uses with office and commercial in
a transit-friendly neighborhood. Table 1 below lists the uses planned and land area and/or
residential density of each. The area will also include about 3 acres of commercial uses, 69 acres
of business park, 26 acres of parkland, and 190 acres of open space. The plan emphasizes
transit-oriented development (TOD). It does this by combining mixed use development in a
compact urban form close to public transit stops, with emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian paths
linking the centralized transit facility to encourage residents and workers to rely less on the
automobile..
The tables and fees shown in Chapter 9 on Public Facilities Financing continue to be revised as
refined information becomes available on the design and costs expected for these facilities. The
most notable resent change is the assumed costs for park improvements and how those will be
shared. These are shown on revised Table 12a & 12b. The property owners and Council will be
discussing all the fees shown in the draft Specific Plan with the final plan reflecting the best
possible estimates of all fees. However, it is important to remember that as with the typical
setting of City fees, it is done through a subsequent adoption by the Council of a fee resolution,
not through adoption of the plan. Because the construction of Prado Road is a substantial
portion of the impact fees, that fee resolution will be presented to the Council after adoption of
the Specific Plan and initial design of the road is completed.
a� �
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page_3
Table 1: Margarita Area Specific Plan - Land Use Summary
Area Dwellings
Land Use Zone Acres % /Acre Number*
Open Space 186.2 44.8
Hills C/OS-SP 146.3 35.2
n/a Na
Greens ace C/OS-SP 17.2 4.1
Creek Corridors C/OS-SP 22.7 5.5
Parks 25.9 6.0
Neighborhood Park PF-SP 9.9 2.4 Na n/a
Sports Fields PF-SP 16.0 3.6
Residential 70.7 17.0
Low Density R-1-SP 20.6 5.0 7 144
Medium Density-Attached or Detached R-2-SP 3.5.0 8.4 12 420
Medium Density-Detached Onl R-2-SP 5.2 1.3 12 62
Medium High Density R-3-SP 9.1 2.2 1 18 164
High-Density R-4-SP 0.8 0.21 24 19
Neighborhood Commercial 3.1 0.8
Low-density housing allowance C-N-SP 1.0 0.3 7 7
Medium-density housing allowance C-N-SP 2.1 0.5 12 24
Special Use C-N-SP 0.9 0.2
Business Park 68.8 16.6
Low-rise office character office O-SP 10.9 2.6 1 unit/lot 28
Single-story limitation C-S-SP 6.1 1.5
Outdoor use area C-S-SP 5.4 1.3
General Business Park C-S-SP 46.6 11.2
Circulation 60.5 14.6
Streets 47.0 11.3
Bike& Pedestrian Paths (Greenways) R-or O- 13.5 3.3
oral 416.1 100.0 868
State Law Conformity
Section 65451 of the State Government Code sets out the standards for specific plans and
requires that they include descriptions of proposed land uses, transportation and public facilities,
development standards, and implementation measures including the financing measures
necessary to provide the public facilities. It also allows the City to include other issues we feel
are deemed desirable for implementation of the City's goals for the area.
Government Code section 65453 requires that specific plans be adopted by resolution or
ordinance. Staff recommends an ordinance as the adoption method. This will allow
enforcement of specific plan regulations as if they were part of the zoning regulations. The
a � 3
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page 4
Government Code also allows amendments as often as desired rather than limiting the
amendments to four times per year as is the case with general plans. (see Attachment 3)
Government Code section 65454 requires that specific plans be consistent with the City's
general plan. An analysis of the specific plan's conformity with the general plan is discussed
below.
General Plan Conformity
The General Plan has designated most of the Margarita Area for residential development since
1961. General Plan revisions in 1973 and 1994 eliminated residential designations from much of
the airport vicinity and set environmental and specific plan requirements before the area could be
annexed and further developed. Residential development of the Margarita Area is a key Housing
Element strategy for substantially meeting the City's regional housing needs through 2009.
Land Use Element Policy 1.13.3.0 requires that a specific plan be adopted before any further
development in the Margarita Area. A specific plan is an intermediate step in implementing the
General Plan. A specific plan contains more detailed standards than the General Plan, but less
detail than subdivision maps and construction plans. The Planning Commission and staff used
numerous General Plan policies to prepare and evaluate the draft specific plan. The General
Plan provides the key guideposts for determining the adequacy of the draft specific plan. Staff
has prepared a detailed general plan policy analysis of the draft specific plan (Attachment 4) to
assist the Council in their evaluation of the Specific Plan.
It is being recommended that the General Plan be amended in order to reflect the specific land
use arrangement of the Specific Plan. This does not create a conformity problem. The
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map is being done to implement the policies of the
General Plan that are being carried out through the Specific Plan. It is common for a general
plan to be revised when a specific plan is being prepared, because the specific planning work
usually goes into greater detail for a given area than a general plan. As long as the General Plan
amendment and the adoption of the specific plan occur at the same time, conformity between the
two is maintained. A General Plan amendment resolution will accompany the ordinance to adopt
the Specific Plan. The amendment will involve the land use boundaries of the General Plan
Land Use Map for the Margarita Area. The land use boundaries will be changed to reflect the
boundaries and densities of the residential uses and the business park uses.
Council Judgment
In addition to state law and the City General Plan, any plan or action taken by the Council
ultimately reflects the best judgment of the Council. After receiving testimony from interested
public members and due consideration, the Council should adopt a plan the Council judges to be
in the best interest of the community.
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page 5
Evaluation
The Margarita Area Specific Plan addresses all of the topics required of a specific plan by State
law. The staff analysis of the Specific Plan concludes that the plan is consistent with the City's
General Plan and accomplishes the goals set forth in the General Plan. This analysis, contained
in Attachment 4, describes how the Specific Plan responds to the applicable policy directives of
the General Plan. The Council must now determine if the staff analysis is correct and
acceptable. In addition, the Council should also direct any changes to the draft plan which, in
the Council's opinion, will improve how the draft plan accomplishes General Plan objectives.
It is expected that the bulk of the Council's review will involve a comparison of the General Plan
policy direction and the Specific Plan provisions that implement them. Because of the large
scope and detail involved, it is not practical for this staff report to contain all of the relevant
information. The Specific Plan document, the City General Plan, and the analysis in Attachment
4 are expected to be the added primary review tools. This staff report recommends additional
hearing dates to accommodate the Council review.
A significant policy issue that the Council has already addressed is the balance between the Land
Use Element's direction to accommodate up to 1,200 dwellings in the Margarita Area and its
policy that development should only be permitted if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan (Policies LU 2.3.3. and LU 7.2). The Airport Land Use
Commission interpreted the Airport Land Use Plan to allow very few dwellings in the Margarita
Area. Subsequent in-depth planning meetings between City and County planning staff, a
Council sub-committee and members of the Airport Land Use Commission produced the land
uses and dwelling unit capacity contained in the current draft Specific Plan. The Council
reviewed this residential capacity in 2002 and determined that it was the best possible balance of
the two policies.
Primary Public Hearing Topics
Based on the Planning Commission hearings, the most controversial issue Council is likely to
hear about is the eastern alignment of Prado Road. This issue has been considered twice before
by the City Council in February 2000 and January 2001, with the "northerly alignment"
approved on both occasions. The proposed Specific Plan regarding the alignment is consistent
with the General Plan. Several citizens have objected to the proposed alignment due to its
proximity to the soccer fields and an environmentally sensitive site. They are also concerned
about a pedestrian underpass, the intersection at Broad Street, and question the need for another
major traffic connection between Broad and Higuera. Because this is an issue that could create
extensive discussion, staff will be providing a computer generated "tour" of the eastern portion
of the road for the September 28 special hearing and believe it will be most productive if
extensive discussion of the issue is reserved for that evening.
A related issue that is brought up by those who do not agree with the proposed Prado Road
alignment is the adequacy of the EIR, although their major contention is that the EIR is a
"segmented" review of the road issue. CEQA does not allow segmenting environmental issues
and the environmental review of Prado Road is clearly not segmented. The entire alignment has
Q-�
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page 6
been reviewed in at several environmental documents including for the 1994 Land Use Element
and Circulation Plan, the 2000 amendment to the Circulation Element that formalized the
northerly alignment, and the EIR for this specific plan. While the Specific Plan only deals with a
"segment", the environmental impacts for the entire road and affected intersections have been
analyzed at each step. A substantial amount of correspondence has been exchanged regarding
this subject. A history of the review of Prado Road is being provided in the Council reading file,
and a letter on the issue of segmentation has been provided as Attachment 7.
Property owners within the Margarita area also expressed a number of concerns with the land
use controls included in the plan. Although they still disagree with some details, they have
generally agreed that the plan is workable.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its June 9"' meeting, Commissioners recommended that the following changes be incorporated
into the Specific Plan:
1. Encourage or require that the development provide as near as possible to the maximum
allowed residential density under the Airport Land Use Plan.
2. Move the neighborhood commercial center to a more central location.
Commissioners noted that while there may be better locations for the eastern alignment of Prado
Road (and they were willing to review any alternatives that the Council wished to consider), the
proposal appears to be the best remaining location and the process the Council went through to
determine that location was certainly rigorous and the Planning Commission did not see any
reason to second guess that decision. Commissioners spent time refining the development and
design standards to allow more varied residential density and improved designs for residential
and non-residential buildings.
Further Council Review
Council's review of the Specific Plan begins on September 7, 2004 with an overview of the
specific plan's major points and an explanation of the EIR findings. Staff has also set up two
tentative special hearing dates (September 28 and October 12) to enable detailed Council review,
evaluation and decision-making. Additional time on regularly scheduled Council meetings may
be available as needed. Staff is preparing special visual aids for discussion of the Prado Road
issues. We have targeted September 28 as the date to present this information and concentrate
on the road issues, however, Council should provide direction to staff by approving a tentative
review schedule outlining upcoming public hearings.and MASP topics. The Council may move
faster or slower through the issues and additional issues may arise during the hearing process.
� ' l0
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page 7
DATES Potential Topics for Discussion
September 7 Introduction to the Specific Plan and final EIR
September 28 Special Meeting; Review Plan with focus on Land Uses and Prado Road
October 5 Focus on Plan implementation and Airport Compatibility
October 12 Special Meeting; Review Plan with focus on Public Services & Financing
October 19 Final Action
CONCURRENCES
The various departments in the City have been involved in the development of the specific plan
and the hearing process. The Utilities Department developed the location for public water and
wastewater infrastructure, information on the availability of these services, as well as how to
provide for use of reclaimed water within the specific plan area. The Public Works Department
provided virtually all the information on circulation infrastructure and stormwater facilities.
Police and Fire have reviewed the plan for consistency with the General Plan as it relates to their
services and concur that it is within the level of impacts that had been predicted. All of the
above departments assisted the Finance and Information Technology Department in developing
the Public Facilities Financing section.
In addition to the City Departments, the Airport Land Use Commission agreed to include the
draft Margarita Area Specific Plan directly into their Airport Land Use Plan so that it will be
reviewed against the unique standards that apply to this area. Project property owners have also
provided substantial input throughout the process, although their interests and level of agreement
with the plan may differ.
FISCAL EWPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Adoption of this specific plan will not
significantly alter revenues since it conforms to the adopted General Plan. To the extent that the
housing component of the Specific Plan is somewhat smaller than proposed in the General Plan
and housing is generally assumed to be a net fiscal liability for City revenues, this plan may have
less fiscal impact than anticipated.
ATTACHMIENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan—Overall Map
3. California Government Code Section 65450
4. General Plan Conformity Analysis
5. Planning Commission Resolutions
6. Planning Commission Minutes
7. January 16, 2004 Letter on CEQA "Segmentation"
Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR Page 8
Placed in Council Reading File and previously transmitted
A. Final Program Environment Impact Report
B. Prado Road Binder
C. August 2004 Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan—A Transit-Oriented Development
D. Planning Commission Agenda Reports
E. Urban Land Institute's "Successful Development Around Transit"
F. Local Government Commission's "Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your
Community"
G. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (Previously transmitted)
LASpecific P1ans\MASMCAR9-7-04(e].doc
� -g
Attachment 1
Bishop Peak .�••,
Santa Lucia Foothills
San Luis Mountain
UT
Laguna Lake
ORCU
Margarita G
• m .q
yt° 9
°s Area
o s
Irish Hills 9C
................. Airport "-
Q':
O
Urban Reserve Line
0:5 0 0.5 Miles
0.5 0 0.5 Klometers
Vicinity Map
a^9
►����c
_� ♦G
LL
03 z 80
AMR
.2 +
`.I � � �■.■■u.\
J
1 - . . ii•
/
�
LL 0
co
%'
1 � �.
I0 ow
. �
j - 0. .0. :
. .
cc m 03 M
MINE
mom
AMft
CL
21
i all
�► ��1 . a
F Cm
�i
all 1 ••:
MA
.umm�nnnn■■ 11..� +nr..r.rr,►nr
.., :mum ■■ ■■ ■■�,�/1 m�., OEM
mmm
i
Attachment 3
Planning and Coed Lie
(c)The capital improvement program shall be adopted After the legislative body has adopted a general plan,
by,and shall be annually reviewed and revised by,resolution the planning agency may,or if so directed by the legislative
of the governing body of the district or local agency. Annu body, shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic
revisions shall include an extension of the program for implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area
additional year to update the five-year program At least 0 covered by the general plan.
days prior to its adoption or annual revision, as the c e (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch 1009.)
may be,the capital improvement program shall be referr
to the planning agency of each affected city and co ty 65450.1. (Repealed by Stats. 1984, CIL 1009.)
within which the district or agency operates, for revi w as
to its consistency with the applicable general plan, y 65451. Content of specific plan
applicable specific plans,and all elements andparts the (a)A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or
plan. Failure of the planning agency to report its gs diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
within 40 days after receipt of a capital improv ment (1)The distribution,location,and extent of the uses of
program or revision of the program shall be concl ively land,including open space,within the area covered by the
deemed to constitute a finding that the capital improv ent plan.
program is consistent with the general plan. (2)The proposed distribution,location,and extent and
A district or local agency shall not carry out its c ital intensity of major components of public and private
improvement program or any part of the program ' the transportation,sewage,water,drainage,solid waste disposal,
planning agency finds that the capital improvement energy,and other essential facilities proposed to be located
or a part of the capital improvement program is not co tent within the,area covered by the plan and needed to support
with the applicable general plan,any specific plans, d all the land uses described in the plan.
elements and parts of the plan. A district or local ag cy (3) Standards and criteria by which development will
may overrule the finding and carry out its ca ital proceed,and standards for the conservation,development,
improvement program and utilization of natural resources,where applicable.
(d) Before adopting its capital improvement pro am, (4) A program of implementation measures including
or annual revisions of the program,the governing bo of regulations,programs,public works projects,and financing
each special district, each unified, elementary, and hi measures necessary to carry out paragraphs(1),(2),and(3)
school district, and each agency created by a joint pow s (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the
agreement shall hold at least one public hearing. Notic of relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
the time and place of the hearing shall be given pursu t to (Repealed and added by Stats.1984,Ch.1009;Amended
Section 65090. In addition,mailed notice shall be giv to by Slats. 1985, Ch. 1199.)
any city or county which may be significantly affecte by
the capital improvement program 65452. Optional subjects
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) The specific plan may address any other subjects which
in the judgment of the planning agency are necessary or
65404. Conflict resolution process desirable for implementation of the general plan.
(a) On or before January 1, 2005, the Governor sh (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.)
develop conflict resolution processes to do all of he
following: 65453. Adoptiontamendment procedure
(1)Resolve conflicting requirements of two ormore tate (a) A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and
agencies for a local plan,permit,or development proj ct. amended in the same manner as a general plan,except that
(2)Resolve conflicts between state functional plan a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance
(3) Resolve conflicts between state infrastruct a and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the
projects. legislative body.
(b)The conflict resolution process may be requeste by (b)A specific plan may be repealed in the-same manner
a local agency, project applicant, or one or more st to
as it is required to be amended.
agencies. (Repealed and added by Stats.1984,Ch.1009;Amended
(Added by Stats. 2002, Ch 1016) by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.)
Article S. Specific Pians 65454. Consistency with general plan
No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the
65450. Preparation of specific plan proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general
plan.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.)
66 • 2004 Planning,Zoning,and Devdopment Laws
a ^ t �
Attachment 4
Margarita Area Specific Plan — General Plan Conformity
Recommendation: Determine that the Margarita Area Spec Plan is consistent with the
City's General Plan.
What is"General Plan conformity?"
Specific plans, subdivision approvals, use permits, zoning ordinances and other types of land use
approvals generally must be found consistent with the General Plan. According to Principles of
Planning - Overview of California Planning Law (McCutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen), "an
action, program or project is consistent with the general plan if the project, considering all its
impacts, will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their
attainment."
The Planning Commission has reported that the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) is
consistent with the General Plan and has recommended that the City Council approve the Plan.
The Council has full discretion in deciding the final content of the MASP. The following general
plan policy analysis will help the Council understand the links between the specific plan and
general plan. All policy numbering is referring to the General Plan Digest numbering convention.
Policy Analysis
1) Land Use Element Policies:.
a) LU 1.14 requires that the cost of public facilities and services needed for new
development will be borne by the new development unless the community chooses to
help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. This
policy requires that the City adopt fees or other appropriate financing measures to
implement this policy.
A Public Facilities Financing Plan was prepared in conjunction with the infrastructure plans to
serve the Margarita Area to determine the costs and financing obligations of new development in
the Margarita Area. Chapter 9 of the Specific Plan addresses public facilities financing. The
construction of on-site services needed to support development, such as local streets and water
and sewer lines will be borne by the developers with the installation of subdivision improvements.
b) LU 1.13.2 states that annexation should be used as a growth management tool and that
areas within the URL should be annexed before urban uses are developed. It also allows
for phased annexation and annexation of open space. The proposed specific plan includes
provisions for phased growth and annexation.
Several of the properties on the western side of the Margarita Area were annexed prior to the
completion of the specific plan with the provision that they could not be developed until a specific
plan was adopted by the City Council. This provision insured that development of these
properties would be part of a comprehensive plan to insure well integrated land uses,
environmental impact mitigation and an acceptable plan pay the costs of the infrastructure that
will serve the area. After annexing the remaining unincorporated land within the planning area,
the City's growth management regulations will continue to dictate the rate of new residential
construction. The Margarita Area Specific Plan also contains a phasing plan to guide
development within the plan's boundaries.
2
ct ' l �-
Attachment 4
c) LU 1.133 C)requires adoption of plans prior to further development in the Margarita
Area. Development of the sports field complex was expressly allowed prior to adoption
of the Specific Plan.
Several properties on the west side of the planning area were annexed and zoned
Conservation/Open Space. Development of the planned uses on these properties has not been
allowed pending completion of the Specific Plan. The Margarita Area Specific Plan will fulfill
the policy requirement that enables further development in the planning area. With the adoption
of the Specific Plan, the land within the City will be zoned to their ultimate use under the Specific
Plan.
d) LU 1.13.4 requires that services be available before development is approved.
This condition of development will be applied prior to issuing building permits. The
infrastructure master plan completed with the draft Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific
Plans, as well as the City's water management policies have shown that the City will be able to
provide services to the Margarita Area. The need for additional public safety services is
addressed in the Specific Plan and its environmental impact report.
e) LU 1.135 on open space requirements for annexations.
Prior to annexation of the properties in the Margarita Area, the property owners are required to
permanently protect the open space resources identified in the General Plan. For the Margarita
Area, the open space to be protected includes the hillsides, creek corridors and wetlands
designated on the Specific Plan's land use map. The Specific Plan contains regulations that
augment the Zoning Regulations provisions for how these open space resources are to be
managed.
f) LU 2.2.2 on separation and buffering between residential and non-residential land uses.
The residential areas of the Margarita Area Specific Plan are buffered and separated from
incompatible noise generated by Prado Road traffic by a greenspace and by non-residential land
uses. Where non-residential land uses are immediately adjacent to residential land uses in the
west side of the planning area the plan requires office and residential mixed use as a transition
between residential zoning and business park zoning. The Neighborhood Commercial area is
part of a mixed use residential area. Compatibility between residential and non-residential uses
here will be
g) LU 2.2.4: Residential Next to Non-residential-In designing development at the
boundary between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential
atmosphere is the first priority.
Section 2.5 establishes development standards for the Neighborhood Commercial area. The
standards and the design criteria described in Section 3 of the plan and the list of allowable land
uses in each zone are also intended to insure compatibility. Section 2.6 of the Specific Plan
requires low-rise mixed use office and residential in the Business Park Office zone next to the
residential zoning in the southwestern area of the Plan.
h) LU 2.23: Housing and Aircraft-New housing should not be allowed in areas where
aircraft noise exposure and the risk of aircraft accidents are not acceptable.
3
9L
Attachment 4
The areas within the plan have been carefully located in coordination with the Airport Land Use
Commission to retain as many homes as possible while maximizing compatibility between these
housing units and the nearby Airport. Airport compatibility is addressed in Chapter 4 of the
Plan.
i) LU 2.25: Street Access -New residential developments, or redevelopment involving
large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and
medium- or high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. Major
arterials through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled
street intersections.
The Specific Plan provides access to the residential land via local streets. Prado Road does not
pass through the areas designated for residential uses. Residential land uses abut residential
streets as classified by the Circulation Element. More control of the orientation of residential
uses will be possible when subdivision plans are reviewed. (See Figure 12 of the Plan.)
j) LU 2.2.6: Neighborhood Pattern- All residential development should be integrated with
existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new
development should create new neighborhoods.
The Margarita Area Specific Plan integrates all of the land uses between Higuera.Street on the
west and Broad Street on the east and from the South Hills to the north and the Unocal Tank
Farm property to the south. The Plan does this by insuring compatibility among the land uses,
establishing an area-wide circulation system,public facilities for the area that comply with City
policies and standards, and pedestrian movement and access to citywide transit facilities and
commercial services.
k) LU 2.2.11: Site Constraints- Residential developments shall respect site constraints such
as property size and ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native
vegetation, significant trees.
The Plan designates land uses according to site constraints and protection of natural resources.
Hillside areas with excessive slope are designated as Open Space. Wetlands and creeks are
designated for Riparian and Open Space uses. Vegetation or wildlife habitat that is defined as
Sensitive Habitat or Unique Resources will be protected as prescribed by the Open Space
Element. Thus far the only known habitat that fits this description is the native bunchgrass along
the southern portion of the planning area. There are few significant trees in the planning area.
Any significant tree that will be affected by future development will be considered as a part of the
review of the development project that includes it.
1) LU 2.2.7: Housing and Businesses -Where housing can be compatible with offices or
other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged.
The Specific Plan encourages mixed uses in the Neighborhood Commercial area and the
Office/Business Part area.
4 a � l �l
Attachment 4
m) LU 2.2.8: Natural Features - Residential developments should preserve and incorporate
as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, and plants.
Natural features within the planning area are planned to become site amenities. The South Hills
will provide a viewshed and recreational trails. The creeks and wetlands will be enhanced and
preserved, with restricted access. These areas will provide an opportunity to observe nature in
an urban setting.
n) LU 2.2.9: Parking - Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be
screened from street views. In general, parking should not be provided between buildings
and the street.
The most likely area within the Specific Plan for large parking lots is the Business Park area.
Figure 6 of the Plan illustrates how large parking areas should be minimized and screened.
o) LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development- Housing built within an existing neighborhood
should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development
and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density
development. A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing
buildings that contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character,in terms of
size, spacing, and variety. B)Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the
privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas,particularly where
multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
This policy is implemented by designating the area surrounding the existing Margarita Avenue R-
1 residences as Low Density Residential. The land use designated for the area adjacent to the
mobile home park adjacent to the northwest portion of the planning area is Medium Density
Single Family. This will insure that the mobile home park is abutted by lower density single-
family homes. The specific orientation of yards and windows will be reviewed when the
developers of these areas submit development plans for City approval.
p) LU 2.2.12 Residential Project Objectives. Residential projects should provide:
A)Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
Privacy areas are required for the different residential development types in Chapters 2 and 3 of
the Specific Plan. The City staff and ARC will review development proposals with respect to
these design standards and guidelines.
B)Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds,and oriented to
receive light and sunshine;
See A. above. In addition, the Specific Plan also states that all residential development should
include some outdoor area that is screen from aircraft noise(Section 3.LE).
5
Attachment 4
C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable
with minimum mechanical support;
This General Plan policy will be applied to development proposals as they are submitted. It is
important to note that development within the specific plan will continue to be required to be
found consistent with the General Plan. The discussion on page 13 under Development
Standards makes it clear that development projects will continue to be reviewed with respect to
guidelines such as this.
D) Pleasant views from and toward the project;
The South Hills will remain visible within and outside of the planning area. Natural resources
within the planning area are being preserved to provide pleasant vistas. The central greenspace
and park will provide an amenity and views. Much of the residential area sits at a higher
elevation than the Airport Area and the greenbelt areas to the south. Southern views from the
higher ground will have pleasant views to the south.
E) Security and safety;
The key hazards present on the site result from the proximity to the Airport and flooding. The
arrangement of land uses has been carefully coordinated with the Airport Land Use Commission
to minimize hazards related to pilots who must make an emergency landing. The land use plan
provides several areas for such landings to be made where structures and concentrations of
people will not be allowed The storm water management plan for the area will actually reduce
flooding at affects nearby residential uses. The storm water system will also eliminate flood
hazards to new development. The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system includes several
Class 1 trials to increase safety for people using these modes of transportation.
Several people have expressed concerns regarding the safety of children at the sports fields. The
concern expressed included two primary points: First, the danger traffic on Prado Road, and
second potential criminal activity at the Prado Road underpass between the residential area and
the sportsfields. At this time there has been no prevailing evidence that these features create
hazards that should be addressed as general plan conformity issues. No evidence has been
presented to substantiate the magnitude of the hazard. Several examples of similar features have
been presented that demonstrate they can be used safely. These examples included other parks
and playgrounds in the City adjacent to arterial streets and pedestrian underpasses that are used
safely in Santa Cruz and Davis, California. The City Police Department has determined that the
underpass will not lead to an increase in crime in the Margarita Area or put the users of the
underpass at an increased risk.
Development in the Margarita Area must conform to the City's safety standards for streets, trails,
and site planning. Generally, the plan features that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel and
pedestrian recreation will provide opportunities for more people to be outside observing activity
in the area. This will discourage criminal activity.
F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets;
The Specific Plan provides a variety of pedestrian and bicycle paths, including several Class 1
(separate)facilities. Figure 12 of the Plan and the Plan's land use map show the location of the
6
a r l W
Attachment 4
different bicycle and pedestrian paths. Section 5.2 of the plan discusses the provisions for
cyclists and pedestrians in detail.
G) Adequate parking and storage space;
The provision of adequate parking and storage are development standards that will be enforced
during the review of development proposals.
H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating
a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable
alternative. Where walls are used,they should help create an attractive pedestrian,residential
setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment,detail and texture, places for
people to walk through them at regular intervals, and planting.)
The Specific Plan's arrangement of land uses provides the primary protection from noise
generated by roads and commercial uses. The residential areas are.separated from.Prado Road
by greenspace and non-residential development. Where residential land use abuts other uses, the
adjacent uses are restricted to maintain compatibility and encouraged to include mixed uses. The
residential component of mixed uses tends to insure that the non-residential component can be
tolerated by people living nearby. (Also see Section 3.6 of the Specific Plan.)
1) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards
along streets, and entryways facing public walkways.
Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan discusses the community design objectives and establishes
requirements for the design elements called for in this General Plan policy. The Plan encourages
both front porches and entryways facing public walkways(see the Community Design section and
the development standards). In addition, the transit oriented development approach to the
planning encourages pedestrian movement, which facilitates neighborhood interaction.
J)Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes,as recommended by the City Fire
Department.
Prado Road is the most likely route vehicles carrying hazardous materials are likely to take
through the specific plan area The residential areas are buffered from Prado Road by
greenspace and non-residential development. The Fire Department will review development
plans to insure that adequate protections from hazardous materials are incorporated into the
design and construction of future uses.
q) LU 23.1 on specific requirements for residential expansion area specific plans;
A) Desired types and intensities of development,compatible with the surrounding area;
The Specific Plan addresses desired land use types and intensities in Chapters 2 and 3.
Compatibility with adjacent residential land uses is discussed in item 'o'above. Compatibility
with the Airport Land Use Plan is addressed by locating land uses in areas as dictated by the
Airport Land Use Plan. New development will be required to provide the County with avigation
easements to minimize conflicts between property owners and the County Airport. Buffers and
setbacks are required to insure compatibility between urban and open space uses. .
B)Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to availability of resources;
7
oLr � `
Attachment 4
Section 5.7 of the Plan addresses phasing of Prado Road. Sections 7.8 and 9.5.3 and 10.10
discuss the phasing of services and facilities within the planning area.
C)Measures to protect resources and open space, including, among other types, permanent
wildlife habitats and corridors, and farm fields;
Item K above describes the Plan's measures for protecting resources and open space. Chapter]
of the Plan contains these provisions, which are reflected in the Plan's Land Use Map.
According to the Plan's environmental impact report, implementation of the plan will not result
in any significant unavoidable adverse impact to farm fields(prime ag soils).
D) Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them, to City standards,including
water supply, sewage collection, storm water drainage,streets, bikeways, walking paths, and
passive and active park space;
The Specific Plan addresses these topics in Chapters 6, 7, 9, and 10.
E)Desired levels of public services and the means to provide them, including fire, police, and
schools;
The Specific Plan addresses these topics in Section 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 10.7.
F) A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range of prices, sizes, and types. (See
also LU Policy 2.5 below.)
Chapter 2 of the Specific Plan describes the many different housing types that are encouraged in
the planning area. Chapter 8 specifically addresses housing affordability.
G)Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal landscaping;
Section 3.2 of the Plan specifically addresses landscaping with specific goals for street trees and
water conservation.
H)Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be built on, such as yards, and
community gardens for multifamily areas;
Chapter I of the Specific Plan contains provisions for parks and open space, and other land that
is not to be built on. The residential development standards in Chapter 2 and Community Design
Guidelines in Chapter 3, as well as the City's Zoning Regulations,provide for minimum yards
and open space for multifamily areas.
I) Dual water systems allowing use of treated wastewater for nonpotable uses.
Section 7.1.2 describes how reclaimed waste water will be made available for nonpotable uses in
the planning area.
J)Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features;
8
a - ��
Attachment 4
Section 3.4 of the Plan addresses solar features. Energy efficiency and solar opportunities will
be fostered by State building standards, citywide solar exposure standards and development
review procedures, and incentives and advice offered by the utility companies.
K) Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area;
The Specific Plan emphasizes an orientation towards transit. This is accomplished through the
distribution of land use types, the location of transit facilities, the connections between transit
stops and bicycle and pedestrian paths, and creating an area-wide focal point on transit by
combining paths, neighborhood commercial and use,park facilities and public art with a central
transit stop.
L) Opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the specific plan developer,to build
homes or to create living environments suited to small groups or to special needs.
In this case there will be a number of"specific plan developers"and the requirement in section
&I in Housing Affordability requires some property to be set aside area for at least 40 dwellings
by the Housing Authority. Availability of other sites for non-profits is also encouraged as pan of
a developer's required affordable housing plan.
r) LU 23.2 on bicycle and walking paths within the major expansion areas. ... bicycle and
walking paths which are separate from roadways should connect residential areas with
neighborhood commercial centers, schools, parks and, where feasible,other areas of the
City.
Bicycle and walking paths are integral to the entire plan and are shown on the plan map as well
as being discussed in the Chapter 5 on Circulation Features & Standards.
s) LU 23.3: Residential Neighborhood Designation.The major residential expansion areas
are shown as Residential Neighborhood on the General Plan Land Use Map.They may
be developed as adequate utilities and services are made available.They should be
developed as residential neighborhoods, with a wide range of housing types and costs,
and supporting uses such as small parks,elementary schools, and shopping and services
to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents. The estimated residential
capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3. These capacities are based
on the amount of land suitable for development according to policies of this element, and
average densities on the housing sites in the range of eight to ten dwellings per acre
(excluding public streets,parks, and other land dedicated to public use)
The intent of this specific plan is to implement this policy and has been.specifically designed to do
so. It should be noted that a possible neighborhood school was considered early in the process
but has been found by the state to be incompatible with the nearby airport. Also, the anticipated
range of 1100 to 1200 dwellings in this policy is not possible because of incompatibility with the
Airport Land Use Plan.
t) LU 6.4.1 on creek and wetland management objectives.
Section 1.2 of the Open Space and Parks chapter describes the Plan's provisions to
protect and restore creeks, swales and wetlands in the planning area.
u) LU 6.4.2 on creating a network of open space, parks and.trails. .
9
C
Attachment 4
Chapter I details the open space and parks for the project and section 5.2 provides requirements
for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
v) LU 6.43 on reducing flood hazards.
Stormwater drainage has been an important issue during the entire development of the specific
plan and standards for addressing these concerns are included in section 7.3 of the Utilities
chapter. Primary responsibility for controlling stormwater runoff rests with the developers and
will be handled through a system of on-site and shared detention facilities and waterways.
w) LU 6AA on the use of natural features as project amenities.
Approximately 190 acres of the South Street Hills, creek corridors, drainage swales and open
areas are being preserved as project amenities in this specific plan.
x) LU 6.45 on maintaining open creek channels..
See note on t)above.
y) LU 6.4.6 on creek setbacks.
See note on t)above.
z) LU 6.4.7 on the use of porous paving and runoff control.
Section 3.2 of the Community Design chapter on landscaping has provisions for control of
stormwater runoff and refers further to the City's Community Design Guidelines that include
more specific requirements for features like porous paving in section 6.5.
aa) LU 7.2 requires all development be consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport
Land Use Plan.
The entire specific plan has been redesigned to be in conformity with the Airport Land Use Plan
as described in chapter 4 on Airport Compatibility.
2) Circulation Element Policies:
a) Cl 2.2 on expanding City bus service is an integral part of the Transit-Oriented Design
aspect of the MASP. A centralized location is provided for an enhanced transit stop that
is also the focal point of the trail system to encourage ridership.
b) CI 2.6 E) Service Standards encourages transit routes within 1/8 mile of employee
intensive uses and medium and higher density residential areas. Although precise transit
routes have not been established,the centralized location of proposed transit stops and the
connecting street patterns will allow for bus routing that can serve the area.
c) CI 2.7 on designing new development to facilitate access to transit service is, again, a
central theme of the specific plan.
d) CI 3.19 331 3.49 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 encouraging bicycle transportation are met by the
extensive Class I and 11 bicycle routes that are designed into the specific plan.
e) CI 4.1,4.2,43,4.4, and 45 encouraging walking are met by the extensive trail system
in the specific plan as well as the sidewalks required along all streets.
10
� �2u
Attachment 4
f) CI 5.1 and 5.2 describe the desirable types of streets for the community. The specific
plan includes a mix of street classifications and cross sections that are designed to
accommodate the types and volume of traffic for each area of the plan.
g) CI 6.1 discouraging through traffic on residential streets is reflected in the plans road
and street layout including the provision for Prado Road.
h) Although CI 6.2 discourages the use of residential local or collector streets for access
to commercial development, the neighborhood commercial in this plan actually
encourages access from the surrounding residential areas. A route to the commercial area
from Prado Road is provided via a collector street that does not pass through the
residential areas of the project.
i) CI 63 good traffic management is reflected in numerous design requirements in section
5.3 of the Circulation Features and Standards chapter of the plan.
j) CI 6.4 residential set backs from streets to avoid the need for sound walls. The plan
specifically implements this policy through requirements of section 3.6 in the Community
Design chapter of the plan.
k) CI 7.1 and 73 on traffic flow are addressed in the residential density limiti in the plan
as well as the circulation standards of Chapter 5 of the plan.
1) CI 7.4 suggests limiting driveway access onto arterial streets and this is specifically
restricted in section 2.6.4 of the Development Standards chapter of the plan.
m) CI 8.1 requires new development construct the circulation system and this is
implemented through the Development Standards chapter of the plan and the City's
subdivision design standards.
n) Cl 8.2 directs that the Specific Plan provide a streetsystem consistent with the
Circulation Element. As discussed in this review of the Circulation Element policies,
the street network, including changes A.1-Prado Road and A.7-Santa Fe Rd of Table II in
the Element are reflected throughout the maps and standards of the specific plan.
o) Cl 83 requires public participation in major changes to the street network. The
public has been involved in years of work and hearings on the street network in this area,
particularly on the location of Prado Road. In addition to efforts preceding the specific
plan, the public discussed the circulation issues at virtually all eight Planning
Commission hearings and are expected to testify on these issues at the City Council
hearings.
p) CI 8.6 addresses timing of street improvements. All streets in new development in the
City are required to be completed with project development. In addition, Prado Road
development phasing is addressed in section 5.7.2 of the Circulation chapter and 10.10 of
the Implementation chapter of the plan.
q) CI 10.1 directs the plan to respect the Airport Land Use Plan's noise and safety
concerns. The entire specific plan has been redesigned to be in conformity with the
Airport Land Use Plan as described in chapter 4 on Airport Compatibility.
r) CI 10.4 requires new development in certain areas to provide measures to protect
the health safety and comfort of those in the area. Section 4.2 of the Airport
Compatibility chapter of the plan sets specific standards to address the policy.
s) Cl 15.7 directs new development to bear the costs of new transportation facilities.
This is addressed in the Public Facilities Financing chapter that requires the development
to cover their share of the costs of the circulation facilities in the area.
11
Attachment 4
3) Open Space Element Policies:
a) OS 1.0 General Goals requires the City provide open space, protect natural resources
and provide for passive recreation. The MASP accomplishes these goals by protecting
creek corridor and open space areas on hillsides, and by providing access to trails in the
South Street Hills.
b) OS 2.0 Hills and Mountains requires preservation and enhancement of hill and
mountain resources. The MASP preserves the South Street Hills through designating the
slopes and higher areas within the Specific Plan Area as Open Space.
c) OS 3.0 Creeks requires the preservation of creek corridors as a regional network of open
space. The MASP, in conjunction with the Airport Area Specific Plan,connects the
South Street Hills open space area to the greenbelt area south of the City's urban reserve,
primarily through preservation of creek corridors.
d) OS 4.0 Marshes,Seeps and Similar Wetlands calls for the preservation of wetlands and
provides development practices and protection techniques to accomplish preservation.
The MASP designates sensitive wetland areas, such as some areas south of Prado Road,
as open space.
e) OS 5.0 Grassland Communities provides grassland preservation techniques and
development practices appropriate for grasslands. Grassland communities in the MASP
are protected through open space designations and proposed development will be
evaluated for consistency with the suggested preservation techniques. The EIR for the
project identifies potentially significant impacts to grassland communities and provides
mitigation measures to insure that impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
f) OS 6.0 Plants and Animals protects plants and animals and requires wildlife corridors to
allow for migration between open space areas. Sensitive habitat areas are protected in the
plan through open space designations. The EIR for the project identifies potentially
significant impacts plants and animals and provides mitigation measures to insure that
impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
g) OS 7.0 Hazard Areas says that development should avoid hazard areas and that they
should be protected as open space. The primary hazard in the MASP area is aircraft
operations. The plan provides open areas and development densities consistent with the
requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan.
h) OS 8.0 Historical,Archeological,or Cultural Resources should be preserved as open
space. Known archeological sites within the South Street Hills open space area will be
preserved. Similar sites within the development area that are presently unknown would
be treated in a manner consistent with the City's Archeological Resource Preservation
Guidelines.
i) OS 9.0 Mineral Resources suggests the preservation of valuable mineral resources for
timely use by future generations, and commercial mining operations are prohibited within
the City limits. There are no known valuable mineral resources within the Specific Plan
area and the former borrow pit in the southeastern area of the plan is not proposed for
mining with this plan.
j) OS 10.0 Agricultural Lands lists specific areas that must be preserved and discusses
buffers between urban and agricultural uses. The EIR for the project identifies the loss of
agricultural land as a significant and unavoidable impact because 24 acres of prime
farmland will be converted to urban uses. This loss of farmland was anticipated with the
1994 Land Use Element designation of the Margarita Area as Residential Neighborhood.
12
r
Attachment 4
k) OS 11.0 Scenic Resources requires the preservation of views and unique features within
the City. The MASP includes design guidelines and establishes the primary scenic
resource in the area, the South Street Hills,as open space.
1) OS 12.0 Outdoor Recreation discusses an integrated trail system and establishes
appropriate locations for different types of recreation. Recreation areas within the MASP
area are designed to protect creek corridors, where significant environmental impacts
could occur as the result of the recreation,or where there are land use compatibility
impacts.
m) OS 13.0 Urban Edge establishes the goal of having a well-defined character to the City's
edges. The Specific Plan area is well within the City's urban reserve line and does not
border on the greenbelt or unincorporated lands other than the airport area to the south
that is already partially developed and is intended for further protection with the Airport
Area Specific Plan.
n) OS 14.0 Management of Open Space and Greenbelt Area by City says that the City
should manage open space lands responsibly and provide permanent protection through
easements or dedications. The MASP is consistent with these policies because necessary
dedications or easements, as well as enhancement of creek corridors and other natural
features,will be required as a condition of development approval.
4) Housing Element Policies:
a) HE 2.2.4 encourages citywide housing production for all income levels,in proportions
shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation..
Section 8.1 describes the Plan's affordable housing provisions and describes how the Plan's
land-use designations and Design Criteria will help achieve affordable housing objectives in
the Housing Element. As shown in Figure S, the Plan provides a mix of Low, Medium,
Medium-High and High Density residential areas,plus commercial-zoned areas that also
allow dwellings,for a total range of densities from 6 to 24 density units per net acre.
b) HE 4.2.1 says that in new neighborhoods,affordable housing should be intermixed in
proportions comparable to the City's quantified objectives.
Section 8.1 notes that development in the Specific Plan Area must comply with the City's
Inclusionary Housing Requirement, and affordable dwellings must be integrated throughout
the neighborhood and be of the same basic design quality as market-rate dwellings.
c) HE 4.23 encourages housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to provide
housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently.
See item e)below, and refer to Development Standards in the Plan.
d) HE 5.2.1 encourages special-use housing into developments or neighborhoods of
conventional housing.
See item a)above.
e) HE 5.2.2 encourages mixed-use residential/comniercial projects to include live-work and
work-live units where housing, offices or other commercial uses are compatible.
The Plan provides for centrally located mixed uses and commercial services to promote use
of alternative transportation and to provide convenient workforce housing. Development
standards allow housing to be constructed above or behind allowed commercial uses to
promote mixed-uses.
13
a -a3
Attachment 4
f) HE 6.2.4 says City costs of providing services to housing development will be
minimized.
Chapter 9 of the Plan describes a range financial strategies to provide the necessary public
facilities to serve new development while minimize City costs.
g) HE 7.2.1 discourages the creation of walled-off residential enclaves,or of separate,
unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of
safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods.
Chapter 3, Community Design,promotes a pedestrian-friendly environment with a physical
identity unique to the Margarita Area. Section 3.7 addresses fences and walls. Walled or
gated neighborhoods are not allowed under City standards.
h) HE 7.2.4 says within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral
part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian
and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent
neighborhoods,schools and shopping areas.
Chapter 5 describes the Area's transit-oriented features intended to establish convenient
links to employment, schools, shopping, services and adjacent neighborhood through street
connections, bikeways, and public transit.
i) E E 7.2.6 says housing shall be designed to enhance safety along neighborhood streets
and in other public and semi-public areas..
The Plan's Development Standards, Circulation and traffic-calming features are designed to
promote walkable, defensible, and safe neighborhoods.
j) HE 8.23 Encourage manufactured homes in Expansion Areas.
The Plan's Development Standards do not distinguish.between "stick-built"structures and
manufactured or modular housing.All the residentially designated areas are available for
modular or manufactured dwellings, so long as they comply with this specific plan.
k) HE 9.2.1 says residential site,�subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be
coordinated to make residential sustainability work.
The Plan addresses building form;and placement for solar access, landscape design for water
conservation, energy efficiency, and solid waste and recycling.
1) HE 11,2.2 says the City should prevent housing development on sites that should be
preserved as dedicated open space or parks,on sites subject to natural or manmade
hazards.
The specific plan designates about 40%of the specific plan area(169 acres)as open space,
including the hills, creeks and wetlands, and about 56 acres as parks. This provision protects
the most environmentally sensitive areas and direct development away from natural or
manmade hazards.
5) Noise Element Policies:
a) Noise Goals, Policies and Programs include standards for acceptable noise exposure from
transportation related noise sources for both indoor and outdoor activities. All future
development will have to be constructed in a manner that is consistent with these
standards as well as the standards contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. The EIR for
the project says that the requirements contained in the Noise Element mitigate potential
noise impacts to less-than-significant levels.
14
Attachment 4
6) Conservation Element Policies:
a) CO 1.2.2 encourages actions to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental
quality of the City.
A primary goal of this specific plan is to facilitate the protection of open space and sensitive
resources. The Margarita Area is defined by its attractive physical elements, including the
South Street Hills,Acacia Creek and a network of smaller streams and swales, wetlands and
fertile soils. It encourages "sense of place"design and urban character in the City's newest
planned neighborhood to create positive living and working environments.
b) CO 1.2.7 says the City will protect unique and endangered resources.
Chapter 1 describes how the plan protects plants, animals and cultural resources by setting
aside significant open space areas linked to creeks and the South Street Hills.
c) CO 4.15 says the alteration of natural drainage patterns should be minimized and
alternatives to conventional engineering solutions, with greater environmental
emphasis, should be encouraged.
Section 7.3 identifies drainage strategies to maintain natural and semi-natural features to
handle drainage thru and within the planning area. Detention facilities must be compatible
with natural features.
d) CO 4.1.6 says greater effort should be made to insure that sufficient green areas or open
space, as called for in the Zoning Ordinance, are included in all development.
The Specific Plan commits 40 percent of the planning area to open space. See item 1) under
Housing.
e) CO 5.1.6 emphasizes the importance of preserving creek systems.
Section 1.2 describes the Plan's provisions to protect and restore creeks, swales and
wetlands in the planning area.
7) Energy Conservation Element Policy:
EC Policy 1.25 encourages energy self-sufficiency through design standards,discretionary
review, and public recognition of good examples of energy efficient design.
The Plan encourages energy-efficient design through optimum building and subdivision design
for solar access, through compliance with state building standards, and through incentives
offered by utility companies for enhanced energy-efficient design. New Housing Element policies
also promote "green building technology" in new housing development, and those policies will
be implemented as development projects are reviewed and approved by the City.
8) Parks & Recreation Policies:
a) PR 2.1.1 says that the City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and Policy PR 4.1.3 says that all residential
annexation areas shall provide developed neighborhood parks at the rate of 5 acres per
1000 residents. In addition to thel6-acre Sports Field,the MASP provides a 10-acre park
for active use, which will be developed with the residential subdivisions.
15
Attachment 4
b) PR 4.1.1 says that all residents of the City shall have access to a neighborhood park
within a.5 to 1 mile walking distance. All of the proposed residences within the Specific
Plan area are within a 1-mile walk of the neighborhood park.
9) Safety Element Policies:
a) S 1.1: Flooding discusses flood hazards and reductions. Development within the
Specific Plan area will be required to comply with the City's Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations.
b) 2.0 Fire says that development should only be approved when adequate fire suppression
services and facilities are available, and discusses wildland fire safety in detail. The
South Street Hills are considered a moderate wildland fire safety hazard. The EIR for the
project identifies a deficiency in Fire personnel due to increased demand for fire
protection service. A mitigation measure that says the City should maintain 1 firefighter
for every 1,000 residents mitigates the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
c) 3.0 Earthquakes and other Geologic Hazards says that development should not be
located atop know faults and should avoid areas with the potential for slope instability or
contribute to slope instability. There are no faults in proximity to the Margarita Area and
there is no developed proposed on the hillsides that might contribute to slope instability.
d) 4.0 Hazardous Materials says that people's exposure to hazardous substances should be
minimized and that the City should avoid using hazardous materials in its operations.
Citywide practices with respect to handling of hazardous materials will also apply to the
Specific Plan area: The MASP does not include any provisions that would permit the
creation or storage of hazardous materials.
e) 5.0 Airport Hazards says that development should only be permitted if it is consistent
with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The Airport Land Use
Commission has included the draft MASP in the ALUP to provide consistency.
10) Water and Wastewater Element Policies:
a) 1.0 Safe Annual Yield. The MASP is consistent with the City's safe annual yield
requirements because the Plan says that development in the Margarita Area can only
occur if adequate water supply is available.
b) 2.0 Water Conservation. Citywide water conservation efforts will also apply to the
Margarita Area. The area will receive irrigation water from the water reuse project.
C) Policy WW 12.1.7 Annexation Criteria says that the City will not annex an area unless
it can meet the area's wastewater treatment needs. The EIR for the project has
determined that the project's impact to the wastewater treatment system is less than
significant and"the MASP is consistent with this policy.
LASpecific PlansWASMAR9-07 attachment(mc).DOC
16
Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5398-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
A FINAL PROGRAM EIR BE CERTIFIED FOR THE MARGARITA
AREA TRANSIT-ORIENTED AND AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC
PLANS, AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER PLANS
APPLICATION # ER, SP, GP/R 73-00
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on December 10, 2003; January 14, 2004; January 28, 2004; February 11,
2004; March 24, 2004; April 7, 2004; April 28, 2004; and June 9, 2004, for the purpose
of considering Application # ER and SP 73-00, Margarita Area Transit-Oriented Specific
and Airport Area Specific Plans, and Related Facilities Master Plans; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adequately addresses the potentially
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements and reflects the
independent judgment of the Commission. The Commission acknowledges that the
Council, through the certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, will
incorporate all of the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation
Monitoring Program); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. EIR Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Program
Environmental Impact Report which incorporates the mitigation measures, available in
the Community Development Department, into the project (Mitigation Monitoring
Program), based on the following findings:
Resolution No. 5398-04 Attachment 5
Page 2
1. The Final Program EIR was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any
approvals of the project.
2. The Final Program EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission in conjunction with the recommendation for certification of
the Final Program EIR.
4. For each significant effect identified in the Final Program EIR under the
categories of Land Use and Aesthetics, Hydrology and Water Quality, Traffic and
Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Cultural
Resources and Cumulative Impacts, the approved mitigation measures
contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse
environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have been
incorporated into the project.
5. The significant effects identified in the Land Use and Aesthetics section of the
EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation
of all of the identified mitigation measures included in the Final Program EIR.
Section 2 EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based upon all the
evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council
adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for those significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts included in the Land Use and Aesthetics section of the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report, based on the findings contained in the project
file, available in the Community Development Department:
On motion by Commissioner Boswell and seconded by Commissioner Aiken, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Boswell, Aiken, Christianson, Miller, and Caruso
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Loh and Osborne
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9t' day of June, 2004.
Michael Draze, ty Director
Community Development Department
Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5399-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF THE MARGARITA AREA TRANSIT-ORIENTED SPECIFIC
PLAN, A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND
REZONING, APPLICATION # ER, SP, GP/R 73-00
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San. Luis Obispo,
California, on December 10, 2003; January 14, 2004; January 28, 2004; February 11,
2004; March 24, 20; April 7, 2004; April 28, 2004; and June 9, 2004, for the purpose of
considering Application # ER, SP, GP/R 73-00, Margarita Area Transit-Oriented Specific
Plan and Implementation of said plan; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the project's Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) adequately addresses the potential
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and recommended City
Council certification of the FPEIR, and approval of the recommended mitigation
measures and mitigation monitoring program; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains general goals
and policies relating to early growth and development, which may be implemented in a
variety of ways, including the specific plan procedure as outlined by Califomia State
Law (State Government Code 65450 et.seq.): and
WHEREAS, the City General Plan (Land Use Policy LU 2.3 and LU 2.3.1)
requires the preparation of a specific plan for the Margarita Area, and requires that said
plan include the following information:
a. Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with the
surrounding area;
b. Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to the availability
of resources;
c. Measures to protect resources and open space, including permanent
wildlife habitats and corridors, and farm fields;
d. Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them, to
a — ell
Resolution No. 5399-04 Attachment 5
Page 2
City standards, including water supply, sewage collection, storm
water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and passive and
active park space;
e. Desired levels of public services and the means to provide them,
including fire, police, and schools;
f. A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range of
prices, sizes and types;
g. Trees to help reduce wind exposure and water-frugal landscaping;
h. Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be built on,
such as yards, and community gardens for multi-family areas;
i. Dual water systems allowing use of treated wastewater for non-
potable uses;
j. Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features;
k. Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area;
I. Opportunities for individuals and small groups, other than the specific
plan developer, to build homes or to create living environments suited
to small groups or special needs; and
WHEREAS, the California State Law requires specific plans to contain the
following information:
1. The distribution, location and extent of the uses of land, including open
space, within the area covered by the specific plan, to the proposed
distribution, location, extent and intensity of major components of public and
private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area
covered by the specific plan, and needed to support the land uses described
in the specific plan.
2. Standards and criteria by which the development will proceed and standards
for the observation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where
applicable, for a program of implementation measures including regulations,
programs, public works projects, and financing measures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Specific Plan Approval. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Margarita Area
Transit-Oriented Specific Plan based on the following findings:
dV
Resolution No.5399-04 Attachment 5
Page 3
1. The specific plan is consistent with General Plan because it will direct all
facets of future development of the Margarita Area, including the distribution
of land uses, the location and sizing of infrastructure, site planning,
architectural guidelines, phasing, and the method of financing public
improvements. The specific plan will provide for the type of growth and
development envisioned by General Plan the Margarita Area and
neighboring properties.
2. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code
and applicable City ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered.
3. The types and intensity of land uses are designed to be consistent with the
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan to ensure compatibility with
airport operations.
Section 2. General Plan Amendment
WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires that a specific plan be
consistent with the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the specific plan requires an amendment to the
City's General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the land use categories contained in the
plan to maintain consistency between to the two documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Policy map to reflect the land
uses contained in the Margarita Area Transit-Oriented Specific Plan.
Section 3. Rezoning
WHEREAS, implementation of the specific plan requires an amendment to the
Zoning Map to reflect the zoning categories contained in the specific plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the City Council amend the Zoning Map to reflect the zoning categories contained
in the Margarita Area Transit-Oriented Specific Plan.
On motion by Commissioner Boswell, seconded by Commissioner Aiken, and on the
following roll call vote:
Resolution No. 5399-04 Attachment 5
Page 4
AYES: Commissioners Boswell, Aiken, Christianson, Miller, and Caruso
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Loh and Osborne
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of June,2004.
Aa
Michael Draze uty Director
Community Development Department
Q2 r ✓a
SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 10, 2003
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 10, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, James Caruso,
Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Community
Development Director John Mandeville, Finance Director Bill Statler,
Deputy Public Works Directors Tim Bochum and Jay Walters, Natural
Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Utilities Director John Moss, Assistant
City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00; Margarita Area Specific Plan
and Environmental Review (EIR) for the Airport Area and Margaritas Area Specific
Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (John
Shoals Michael Draze)
Commr. Osborne stepped down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze explained that the Commission
will receive the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, and
final program environmental impact report, take public testimony, establish review
strategy, provide direction to staff on methods of addressing major issues, and continue
the hearing to January 14, 2004.
Community Development Director John Mandeville noted review of the document will
require a number of public hearings, and that no formal action will be taken. at this
meeting. A PowerPoint overview of the Margarita Area Specific Plan was given,
highlighting the development plan, open space, affordable housing, new public streets,
neighboring land uses and airport compatibility. He clarified that the EIR covers both the
Q 135
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 2003 Attachment 6
Page 2
MASP and the Airport Area Specific Plan, and expressed the importance of consistency
with the Airport Land Use Plan.
Maggie Townsley, Environmental Consultant with.Jones and Stokes, gave a presentation
on the program EIR and the findings made in the document. She noted that further
CEQA review is expected. The list of resource topics covered include land use and
aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, traffic, air and noise,
hazardous materials, public services, cultural resource, and cumulative and growth-
inducing impacts, and noted impact conclusions will be contained in the final EIR. She
explained the significant unavoidable impacts involve agricultural land conversion,
changes in views, and installation of a dam that would involve a permanent change in
watercourse and direction. She briefly described the four alternatives, and noted that
responses to comments were addressed in the Final EIR.
Utilities Director John Moss gave an overview on the Facilities Master Plan.
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum briefly described the traffic model used and
the circulation issues involved with the projects such as limited cul-de-sacs, roundabouts
vs. 4-way stop signs, parking bulb-outs, Prado Road as a parkway arterial street,
proposed collector streets, and a Buckley Road connection. He gave an overview of how
circulation was reviewed for the entire planning area, and asked for the Commission to
identify their areas of interest to be addressed at a subsequent meeting.
Deputy Public Works Director Jay Walter gave a general overview of drainage strategy for
the project, discussing detention basins, drainage impacts and stormwater runoff impacts,
noting the primary strategy is detention on site.
Finance Director Bill Statler clarified that new development pays its fair share for
infrastructure costs. The proposed plan specifies that existing development will not be
responsible for any infrastructure costs, and the plan is consistent with all City budget and
fiscal policies regarding capital improvements and project financing. He noted the Public
Facilities Financing Plan covers both the Airport Area and the Margarita Area, but it
details and separates the cost for each, and covers all key infrastructure needs such as
water and sewer, circulation, storm drainage and parks. He highlighted the various
project costs, performance standards, and development impact fees, and felt the real
challenge will be phasing the costs of the improvements with the new development. '
Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik explained that the Plan for the Margarita Area
has always envisioned a significant open space component, which is possibly the largest
land use allocation in the plan. He discussed habitat areas of non-native species relative
to the connection of Acacia Creek corridor to the open space lands, and wetland
mitigation areas.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
George Newell, 348 Calle Lupita, was concerned with the allowance of two-story houses
along Calle Lupita that would create privacy issues.
a - �
Planning Commission Minute,.
December 10, 2003 Attachment 6
Page 3
Myla Vujovich-LaBarre, 650 Skyline Drive, opposed the extension of Prado Road
because she believed it would create significant environmental impacts. Her focus was on
the 2-mile segment that goes along the Damon Garcia Sports Fields and requested a
separate EIR for the Prado Road alignment be prepared.
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, disagreed with the EIR consultant concerning the
sufficiency of the analysis, noting that Chapter 5 discusses Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but
contains no discussion comparing the project itself to the alternatives. He felt the Prado
Road alignment should be addressed in a specialized or supplemental EIR; questioned
the legality of financing the Prado Road/Hwy 101 interchange; felt the alternatives were
not feasible; and felt there were inconsistencies with the Land Use Element.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, expressed concerns with the illegal segmentation of
Prado Road and the impacts it will have on the sports fields, noting the impacts and costs
are too great.
Ilene Colandro, 367 Margarita Avenue, had concerns with the proposed roundabout and
how children would cross this roundabout to access the greenway. She opposed two-
story residences because they would block her view.
Bonnie Wollham, 3057 So. Higuera Street, noted it is already difficult exiting Chumash
Village MHP, especially when turning left onto South Higuera Street, and requested some
alternative so that ingress and egress to the MHP could occur safely with the increased
traffic.
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, expressed concern with the roundabout and the
ability to cross it. He was unclear of the transit route to service this area, and felt the
larger area should accommodate the neighborhood-commercial use, and the smaller area
the residential use. He felt the specific plan should be addressed before the EIR, and
was concerned with who is paying for the road alignment.
Larry Stabler, 3057 So. Higuera Street, had issues with airport fly-over zones, the way the
project abuts the Mobile Homes in Chumash Village and the lighting for the proposed
development, construction days and hours, the drainage swale impacts, and traffic.
Bill Almas, representing Unocal, supported the annexations with some qualifiers as noted
in a letter previously submitted to the Commission, which he reiterated. He noted that the
EIR would also be used for the annexations. He was concerned with the designation of
the area south of Tank Farm Road as open space vs. recreational as currently designated
in the county because open space may not be compatible with the options developed for
remediation and restoration of the site, noting that Unocal wants to preserve the ability to
develop various recreational alternatives on this property. He expressed concerns with
the development fee structure.
George Rosenberger, Deputy Director of General Services for the County of SLO,
submitted a letter for the record, and expressed concerns with the Final program EIR and
the County's initial 126 comments to that EIR, noting that the responses are either
incomplete or inadequate. He requested that City staff and their consultant team work
a - 3�
Planning Commission Minutef
December 10, 2003 Attachment 6
Page 4
with the County to resolve the County Airport's continued concerns regarding the final
program EIR.
Roy Garcia, Prado Road, questioned why the project has been changed so drastically
and decreased in size over the years, noting the original plan for his property was for 850
homes, and is now down to 420 homes.
Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo, noted he had submitted an e-mail response to the
Commission, which he reiterated. He was concerned with the cost of the project, and did
not feel the Margarita Area project has a net gain in housing. He suggested eliminating
the business park and adding more open space.
Dave Watson, representing the three major property owners, noted he had previously
submitted a letter to the Commission that included a detailed list of "edits". He noted the
areas of particular importance are flexible standards, and fiscal equity of a 4-lane road
where the project requires only a two-lane road. He asked that special attention be given
to Table 13. He expressed support for the final EIR and the context of the Margarita Area
Specific Plan.
John French, Representing the Cowan interest, felt the phasing issue in Table 13 needs
to be addressed in relation to the fiscal equity.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commr. Cooper felt staff should expand on the analysis of Alternative 2.2 with an
explanation of why Airport annexation is desirable; pro and con arguments on
segmentation of Prado Road; revisit the fee structure for both office and residential
development to ensure feasibility; and additional documentation on Alternatives 2.3, 2.4
and 2.5.
Commr. Loh felt the extension of the airport runways needs more review.
The consensus of the Commission was to continue this item to the Planning Commission
meeting on January 14, 2004.
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for December 17, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
a -3 �
Planning Commission Minute:
January 14, 2004 1 Attachment 6
Page 4
Commr. Cooper expressed frustration that the Council sent this back to the Commission
and ignored the previous recommendations of the Commission. He felt the Council has
the authority to adjudicate on this without the need for sending it back to the Commission.
Commr. Osborne felt this issue is a Costco-driven loophole, and he could not support it.
AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, Aiken and Boswell
NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Loh and Osborne
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 4:3 vote.
3. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00; Margarita Area Specific Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans, and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) Continued from December 10, 2003.
Commr. Osborne stepped down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
Deputy Director Draze, distributed copies of letters received late in the day, on this item.
He presented the staff report, recommending the Commission discuss the final program
environmental impact report, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue
the hearing to February 11, 2004. He explained that the Prado Road issues would be
addressed at the February 11th hearing, and staff from affected departments will be in
attendance.
Planner John Shoals gave a project description and a PowerPoint presentation on the
project.
Maggie Townsley, EIR Consultant spoke on the individual resource topics and discussed
the types of impacts found, as well as the significant conclusions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wildling Lane, objected to residential development in the
airport area.
Douglas Gerard, NE corner of Margarita and Calle Jazmin, felt the proposal is
outstanding. He noted the environmental assessment did not address the preservation of
wetlands, and felt airport noise is an issue that could be addressed by aircraft not turning
north towards the city until reaching an altitude of 2000 to 2500 feet.
Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, felt this project does not address sustainable development,
and does not follow the Circulation Element. He felt the Prado Road alignment should be
reconsidered and Prado Road should become a collector street rather than an arterial
street.
Planning Commission Minute,-
January 14, 2004
Page 5 Attachment 6
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, noted his confusion with the plan and
disappointment that the Airport Area plan does not include housing. He also expressed
concern with the fairness of the financing of the project.
Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 South Higuera Street Space 114, responded to the Margarita
Area Specific Plan, and asked that the property next to Chumash Village be rezoned to
low-density or open space. She commented on the Design Criteria, Bicycle and
Pedestrian facility, Housing as it relates to affordable housing, and natural resources
mitigation. She submitted three letters from other tenants of the mobile home park.
Lorraine Acklian, 3057 South Higuera Street Space 110, voice her concern with the lack
of a greenbelt between Chumash Village MHP and the proposed project, and opposed
multiple-story residences. She felt open space should be preserved.
Michael Sullivan, SLO resident, suggested a feasibility study for additional residential
development. He expressed environmental concerns with inadequate mitigation
measures, and referred to his alternative plan that omits Prado Road and connects
Buckley Road to the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange, and noted concern with water
demands.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, had concerns with noise impacts, that the northern
alignment of Prado Road will affect the Indian site, and felt that the road is illegally
segmented.
Mildred Ann Hollis, 3057 South Higuera Street #13, agreed with the concerns of the other
residents and noted concerns with hillside erosion, noise from the airport, lack of buffer
zones, and increased traffic. She suggested a traffic signal at the entrance of Chumash
Village MHP.
Dave Watson, representing an affected property owner, had issues with the review
process and made some suggestions. He noted the need to begin review of the actual
plan.
Norman Beco, 329 Indio Drive, Pismo Beach, complimented staff -on a comprehensive
document. He noted that traffic issues currently exist, and completion of the project
should mitigate those issues.
Larry Stabler, 3075 South Higuera Street, spoke against the project, and-disagreed with
the findings in the Airport Land Use Plan. He felt an independent. study should be
conducted during the summer and specifically on Saturday's on aircraft flight paths and
over-flight leaving SLO airport, specifically the smaller and freight aircraft. He noted
concerns with the disappearance of agricultural open space and structure height.
Joe Cardoza, representing the Martinelli family, had concerns with the realignment of
Prado Road and its impact on the Martinelli property, felt service-commercial uses are the
more appropriate use, objected to use of open space upon annexation for the project, and
had concerns with drainage.
a - 39
Planning Commission Minute.
January 14,2004
Page 6 Attachment 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso summarized the concerns addressed and the areas for the Commission
to focus as 1) the Prado Road realignment, where will it end and and will it be consistent
with Circulation Element; 2) the size, location, and number of lanes; 4) what to do in the
zone under the flight path of Area 3 that is currently business park, 4) funding of Prado
Road; and 5) adjacencies (Damon Garcia and Chumash Village). Commr. Boswell added
6) density.
There was discussion on how the Commission would work with the Airport Land Use
Commission to address airport concerns and the need for housing.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the adequacy of the Program EIR has been
addressed and focus should move to the actual plan, and include the realignment of
Prado Road in the discussion of the specific plan.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the January
28th meeting.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Ronald Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items.
4. Commission:
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for January 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
Q 1
Planning Commission Minute.
January 28, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 4
implies the likelihood of considerable grading in conjunction with development of this site
and adjacent properties, and given that, stabilization activities would not be a major cost
consideration.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt the subject property should remain open
space and opposed the sale of the property.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Cooper moved the staff recommendation. Seconded by Commr. Loh.
Commr. Loh asked that the motion be amended to include three findings: 1) the request
addresses the need for additional housing consistent with the City's Housing Element
policies,• 2) The proposed sale would be consistent with the neighborhood and
surrounding land uses-, and 3) 50% of the lot will be preserved as open space. The
motion maker agreed to the amendment.
AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Boswell and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
5. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00;.Margarita Area Specific Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita
Area Specific Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Mike Draze) Continued from January 14, 2004.
Chairperson Osborne stepped down from participation because he owns property very
close to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a
conflict of interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
Deputy Director Draze asked the Commission to discuss the draft Margarita Area Specific
Plan, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue the hearing to
February 11, 2004.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dain Larkin, 1345 Partner Road, opposed the realignment of Prado Road and its
proximity to the Damon Garcia Sports Fields due to safety issues. He felt the pedestrian
underpass is not safe for children and might be a gathering place for the homeless and
various groups or individuals of questionable character. He suggested connecting Prado
Road to Tank Farm Road.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, opposed the realignment of Prado Road.
a-fin
Planning Commission Minute:
January 28, 2004
Page 5 Attachment 6
Milton Andrews, 3075 So. Higuera Street #156, requested there be no construction noise,
glaring lights and loud communication after dark during construction, and that the MHP be
protected from drainage and construction waste disposal. He asked for an easement or
buffer zone along the east boundary with "no trespassing" signs posted, that no two-story
homes be allowed, and no views of the hills from Chumash Mobile Home Park be blocked
as a result of the new residential development. He requested traffic monitoring to occur
and a traffic light at the entrance to the MHP for the safety of the elderly.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, 650 Skyline Drive, objected to Prado Road bisecting the Damon
Garcia Sports Field and open space park area for safety reasons. She also had concerns
with truck traffic and issues with the underpass.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, opposed the Prado Road realignment near the
Damon Garcia Sports Fields because of the impact to the park, and that it will hamper the
potential for future park expansion.
Bonnie Wahlum, 3750 So. Higuera Street #233, was concerned with maintaining the
existing quality of life in the Chumash Village. She suggested an affordable-housing
project for seniors next to the mobile home park.
Elizabeth Kyle-Righetti, 3075 So Higuera Street, asked that the MASP provide zoning to
allow for continuity with the residents at the western edge of the mobile home park.
Jeff Whitner, 11 Mariposa Drive, felt the sports fields would be safer, more enjoyable and
more aesthetically pleasing without Prado Road next to it, and encouraged other
alignment alternatives.
John French, 3249 Hollyhock Way, felt the City Council has thoroughly reviewed the
Prado Road realignment, discussed it in open session, and made a decision that is
reflected in the General Plan Circulation Element. He opposed realignment to Tank Farm
Road and noted the property currently shown for the Prado Road alignment was
purchased as road right-of-way and was valued in the appraisal specifically for this
purpose.
Gini Montina, 3057 So. Higuera Street, was concerned with the adjacency of Chumash
Village to the proposed medium-density development, and expressed her desire to
maintain the quiet atmosphere of the mobile home park. She asked for a buffer zone for
Chumash Village.
Ron Awers, 2302 Parkland Terrace, suggested alternatives to the Prado Road alignment
and noted he had submitted a letter to the Commission earlier in the week that details his
concerns.
Dave Watson, representing property owner Mr. King, encouraged the Commission to
make some kind of decision at this meeting to avoid further delays of the project and
suggested a two-lane road versus a four-lane road.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Planning Commission Minute,
January 28, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 6
Commr. Christianson noted that Broad Street, a four-lane road next to the sports fields,
already exists, as well as a number of other similar situations such as Meadow Park with
South Street and Laguna Lake Park with Madonna Road.
Commr. Boswell felt two issues have been repeatedly discussed and much public
testimony received reiterating the same issues. He asked for a straw vote to determine
that adjacency to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park, and the realignment of the
eastern end of Prado Road have been adequately addressed, and that after this hearing,
will be accepted as is. The consensus of the Commission was agreement, with Commrs.
Cooper and Christianson dissenting.
Commr. Cooper noted a map exhibit in the agenda packet shows that if Prado Road went
to Tank Farm, it would avoid the wetlands, the quarry, the northern alignment through the
archeological site, and Acacia Creek and clearly indicates that environmental impacts
would be minimized if the alignment to Industrial Way was eliminated.
There was much discussion, questions, answers and clarifications on the draft Margarita
Area Specific Plan. Discussion ensued on strategies for reviewing the remainder of the
plan in a timely manner while covering all issues. It was determined that the design
standards would require more than one meeting, and that Prado Road design and
phasing will require considerable time. No direction was given for the February 11 cn
meeting, however, it was the consensus of the Commission to discuss financing an
phasing. The Commission requested representatives from Public Works Department be
present at that meeting.
It was the consensus of the Commission, in order to focus on structured meeting
efficiency and provide order to the discussion, to go through the specific plan in the order
it is written, section by section (or page by page if necessary) once additional information
has been received on the particular identified issues.
Commr. Boswell moved to continue discussion of this item to the meeting of February 11,
2004. Seconded by Commr. Christianson.
AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Boswell and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN- None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT.AND DISCUSSION:
6. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 6
February 11, 2004
Page 2
Michael Clarke, City Biologist, gave a presentation explaining the main points of the
conservation plan. He explained that an inventory was made, and land use categories
designated: 7% as restoration, 30% as management and 63% as habitat areas. He
defined the categories: habitat areas are pristine wildlife habitat with no intrusion of trails
or other activities; management areas contain trail corridors and are areas of high impact
where the City must actively manage the land or vegetation; and restoration areas will
require restorative work to bring the quality of the resources up to standard. He reiterated
that these areas are regulated by the Conservation Guidelines. Dr. Clarke outlined and
commented on the responses to comments and the fire preparedness plan, noting the
result is 13 minor changes and 2 major changes to the plan. He explained the two major
changes are the elimination of the lower road that would originate at Patricia Drive, and
alternatives to hardscaping the trail and pond area in the foothills.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Diane Holstead, 258 Patricia Court, felt that parking issues have not been effectively dealt
with.
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt that Bishop Peak should remain open
space.
Don Dollar, San Luis Obispo, felt the area of the plan that needs to be strengthened is the
amount of physical presence the City provides, suggesting increased ranger services.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
There was much discussion regarding emergency access and reference to this access as
°roads".
Commr. Loh moved to recommend the City Council adopt the Conservation Plan for the
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve as a City Policy and City program with the changes
recommended by staff, and that the access road be referred to as "dirt road" or "hre road"
for clarification purposes. Seconded by Commr. Aiken.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Caruso, Loh, Boswell, Christianson, and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
2. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00; Margarita Area Specific Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Continued from January 28, 2004. (John Shoals & Mike Draze)
a- �3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 11,2004 Attachment 6
Page 3
Commr. Osbome stepped down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Speck Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
Deputy Director Mike Draze presented the staff report, explaining the Commission would
discuss the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, take public testimony, provide direction to
staff, and continue the hearing to March 17, 2004. Regarding the Prado Road Alignment,
Mr. Draze explained that the lack of interest of some the property owners has made the
formation of a financing district impractical. He explained the alternative primary access
to the housing and business parks during the early stages of the project will be by a road
that is an extension of the existing Prado Road that would only extend as far as the
Unocal collector road. However, the City will continue working with the property owners
to obtain the right-of-way necessary to extend the entire length of Prado Road. Mr. Draze
distributed a letter to the Commission and the public describing the phasing plan.
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum gave a PowerPoint presentation to clarify how
the recommendations were arrived at for a two-lane versus four-lane facility for Prado
Road, and explained the rationalization by the EIR consultants.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to the realignment of Prado
Road.
John French, 265 South Street, felt this alternative resolves the conflict between the
Public Facilities Financing Plan and the Table 13 Phasing Plan, and addresses the
ultimate goal of an adequate connection to Broad Street. He supported this approach.
Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, felt it is unfair that Airport Area property owners are
not paying their fair share towards the cost of Prado Road, and felt this issue should be
addressed. He also felt this approach is piecemeal to the environmental analysis in terms
of traffic impacts on Prado Road.
Joe Cardoza, 684 Rancho Oaks, representing the Martinelli family, felt the phasing plan
boundaries should be revised.
Andrew Carter, San Luis Obispo, supported the phasing plan. He expressed concern
with the financing plan and who will pay for it. He did not feel it is fair that Margarita
landowners should pay the full cost for Prado Road when everyone will use it, both
existing and those in the future build out area.
Susan Ostrov, John Wallace and Associates, noted the business park has a 40 persons
per acre cap because of the airport, and the financing structure is such that it increases
the cost per square foot substantially on the business park properties. She suggested
incentives to push forward the circulation plan.
a ,44
Planning Commission Minutes
February 11,2004 Attachment 6
Page 4
Dave Watson, representing property owner John King, supported staffs new approach,
as described in the memo. He felt the road extension must be completed before the first
home is occupied, and that the EIR adequately and responsibly addressed traffic issues.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
It was clarified that phase I and phase II are not identified as order, but are labeled so
they can be easily referred to in discussion.
Commrs. Christianson, Aiken and Caruso supported Alternative 1 with an ultimate road
section of four lanes.
Commrs. Boswell and Loh supported Alternative 2 with an ultimate section of two lanes
on the easterly end of Prado Road.
It was clarified that Phase 1 represents residential development and their ability to have a
secondary emergency access. Phase 2 represents that in order to have secondary
emergency access, two lanes must be built that link up. Backbone utilities will not run
down Prado Road, but rather on Tank Farm Road.
The Commission reviewed the document section by section, starting with Open Space
and Parks.
PUBLIC COMMENT—SECTION.1
Andrew Carter, did not feel the need for out-of-area.(through to Broad Street) access for
this area.
Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 So. Higuera Street, felt a buffer zone would be appropriate
between Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and the King property.
Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, felt bicycle access should be addressed and bike
racks provided; that sensitive sites should be designated on the map and ARC approval
required for development on those sites; creeks and wetlands have not been adequately
addressed; and creek access is not provided..
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, noted that although trail access is available, the public
is unaware of those access points.
Dave Watson noted a fourth access area is proposed on the subdivision map and
suggested adding parallel parking near that area.
Commission consensus on Section 1: Parking/bicycle parking at trailheads is adequate
as proposed; parking for the neighborhood park needs to be provided per City parking
standards: and maintain 150-feet of long-term visual access from perimeter roads at the
"Unocal" collector road intersection.
Planning Commission Minute-
February 11, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 5
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the regular Planning
Commission meeting of March 10, 2004..
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:.
Deputy Director Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items.
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for February 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
Planning Commission Minute
March 24,2004 Attachment 6
Page 2
Steve Delmartini, SLO, voiced his concern with removing housing from the downtown
and replacing it with parking since the Housing Element discussions have been to
protect the housing in the downtown. He questioned how the City can approve
purchasing property prior to adoption of an affected policy in the Housing Element,
noting there are many questions that have not been answered.
Brett Cross, Mariner's Cove, SLO, voiced his opinion that State planning law does not
allow the City to buy property as "inventory" to be used in the future. He suggested
more honesty on what is being proposed for the property.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Deputy Director Draze responded to the questions and clarified what the City is
proposing for this property.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Aiken moved to determine and report to the City Council that the proposed
Property acquisition is in conformity with the General Plan.. Seconded by Vice-Chair
Caruso.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, Christianson, and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Cooper and Loh
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote..
2. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP/ER 73-00: Margarita Area Specific Plan, and
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Speck Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) (Continued from March 10, 2004.)
Commr. Osborne stepped-down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
Deputy Director Draze presented the staff report and asked the Commission to discuss
the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, take public testimony, provide direction to staff,
and continue the hearing to a special meeting on April 7, 2004.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Douglas Gerard, 1395 Jasmine, SLO, voiced concern with aircraft interference, and
explained that new materials are made for keeping sound down inside a structure.
However, when people go outside, there is no way to prevent the noise. He expressed
his feeling that some private airplane owners fly over their neighborhoods creating
unwelcome noise.
Planning Commission Minutt
March 24, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 3
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that if people purchase
property next to an airport, they should not complain about the noise from aircraft. She
noted that someday there might be additional runways to compete with larger airports.
Dave Watson, applicant's representative, presented a packet of information to the
Commission that details a number of issues they would like modified, which they
discussed and addressed, point by point.
John French, SLO, expressed support for the changes that Mr. Watson proposed. He
supported a 5400t, second-story setback instead of a 10-foot setback because of the
concern that all the units would look alike.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission was in consensus that two parking spaces for a two-bedroom plus unit
are adequate in all residential zones.
The Commission supported that staff would work on language in Table 2 to address the
issue of the 5- and 10-foot second-story setbacks.
Section 2.2.3 — The commission supported the staff-recommended change to lot sizes
in Subsection A.
Section 2.3 - The Commission requested that staffreturn with information on the R-3
zone (medium-high density) parking issue.
Section 2.4 The Commission requested that staff return with information on R-4 (high
density) zoning, height limits and guest parking.
Section 2.5 - Commr. Boswell commented that the Neighborhood-Commercial zoning is
too far to the east on this map and suggested it be moved to the west.
Deputy Director Draze responded they would explore this further and bring suggestions
to the April 7"' meeting.
Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 - - The Commission had no changes.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. French commented that the parcels should be down in size and suggested possibly
minimizing the commercial property. He also noted that it would be hard to make it
work financially.
No further comment made from the public.
a -4q
Planning Commission Minut Attachment 6
March 24, 2004
Page 4
2.6.3.c - Commr. Boswell suggested adding language to create flexibility to allow a
20,000 square foot lot and still achieve the City's objective.
Commr. Aiken suggested creating office condominiums.
Deputy Director Draze responded that they would come back to the Commission with
responses to those comments.
There was much discussion on tree planting. Staff noted they would return with
information on a continuous canopy.
It was a majority consensus of the Commission to continue this item to a special
meeting of the Planning Commission, to be held on April 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber.
3. City-wide Review of the 2003 General Plan Annual Report, City of San Luis
Obispo, applicant. (Michael Draze/Michael Codron)
Deputy Director Draze presented the staff report and asked the Commission to review
the Annual Report on the General Plan for 2003 and forward it with any comments to
the City Council.
Commr. Boswell noted there were words missing at the end of the second paragraph
under Airport Land Use Commission on Page 18.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, requested that the Commission not relax the
open space requirements that exist, noting her opinion that the City needs to protect
open spaces and not establish it for growth.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Aiken moved they received the report and forward it to City Council with the
corrections that.were made to Page 18. Seconded by Vice-Chair Caruso.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, Christianson, and Osbome
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Cooper and Loh
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
Attachment 6
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
April 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo.
SWEARING IN: Swearing in of newly appointed Commissioner Andrea Miller.
Commr. Andrea Miller was sworn in by Deputy City Clerk Diane Reynolds.
The recording secretary read into the record that Commr. Osborne was not in attendance
because he stepped down from participation because he owns property very close to the
Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. The meeting was turned over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners, Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Andrea Miller,
Michael Boswell, and Vice-Chair James Caruso
Absent: Chairperson Orval Osborne
Staff: Deputy Director of Community Development.Mike Draze, Associate Planner
John Shoals, Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, and
Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP/ER 73-00: Margarita Area Specific Plan, and
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) (Continued from March 24, 2004.)
Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report, explaining the Commission
will be taking public testimony, providing direction to staff, and continuing the hearing to
the regular meeting scheduled for April 28, 2004.
a _sem
Planning Commission Minute_
Special Meeting of April 7, 2004 Attachment 5
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Chapter 3:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed a concern about airport
expansion which might require more runways and possibly more land. She suggested
that housing be kept away from the-airport as much as possible.
Michael Sullivan, SLO, questioned how design relates to affordability and asked how he
could find out how the Housing Element update relates to this project. He expressed
concerns on the development standards on lots adjacent to the hillside areas. He
pointed out that the Specific Plan, Section 10.5, page 74, under Architectural Review
mentions that some of the sites that contain single-family homes are adjacent to hillside
areas but are not considered sensitive sites.
Bill Wilson, SLO, noted they were assessing the feasibility of a school at the Martinelli
site, asked how this land could be zoned, noted the sports field was not allowed for this
site because the Airport Land Use Commission said they couldn't have it there, and
asked why industrial development is allowed but grassy fields or recreational uses are
not. He questioned if this area is compatible for sports fields.
Chapter 4:
No comments were made.
Chapter 5:
John French, 1.40 Hollyhock Way, requested that the Commission consider what they
want to accomplish at this meeting, and how far they plan to get at the next meeting so
he could get a sense of prioritizing.
Dave Watson, project representative, pointed out that there are cross sections
mentioned on page 43 on the upper dimension, and noted the bike lane in both of these
traffic intersections are traffic lanes. He suggested this be moved to Figure 12 on page
37 that shows a class 1 bike path, and asked that it be clarified. He requested that the
second sentence of the last paragraph of Section 5.2, page 42, be highlighted.
Michael Sullivan, SLO, requested clarification as to why low-density hillside lots allow
parking in front but medium- and medium-high-density lots require rear yard parking.
He noted that he had submitted a letter to staff addressing a number of issues.
Deputy Long Range Director Draze responded to Mr. Sullivan's question.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, voiced her opinion that she does not approve
of the Prado Road realignment because of the safety of the children.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, questioned how four lanes could be accommodated
and how it will impact the sports fields. He noted this site was chosen because of the
connection to the open space area.
Planning Commission Minut%.
Special Meeting of April 7, 2004
Attachment 6
Page 3
Chapter 6•
No comments were made.
Chapter 7:
No comments were made.
Chapter 8:
Dave Watson, project representative, distributed two handouts to the Commission, the
first relates to density that is provided in the Specific Plan, and the second is an analysis
on how the housing works.
Mike Sullivan, SLO, noted these houses are not going to be owner built and felt there
might be a better way to go to get some of the single-family residences built at cost. He
mentioned that Page 53 talks about design criteria and asked how this relates to
building style.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chapter 3:
Commr. Caruso suggested they have a shield over the lighting fixtures to lessen the
brightness lighting up the sky.
Commr. Boswell noted the language in Section 3.1-b should be strengthened to clarify
that these are the preferred styles for the area.
Commr. Aiken commented on architectural design styles and suggested the developers
be allowed some latitude in design styles.
The Commission generally liked the recommended design criteria, but expressed
concerns with limiting builders to certain architectural styles. They felt that the
emphasis should be on good design and use of materials, rather dictating a specific
style. Commissioner Loh suggested forwarding the design criteria section to the
Architectural Review Commission for its 'input prior to making a final decision. Staff
explained that we could send it to the ARC, but that it would add significant time to the
process. Realizing that the ARC would review future developments, the Commission
majority felt the design guidelines were acceptable with some modifications.
Chapter 4:
Commr. Christianson suggested that the Commission or staff address density because
this is one of the few expansion areas left.
rs 1
Planning Commission Minutb_
Special Meeting of April 7, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 4
Chapter 5:
Vice-Chair Caruso summarized some of the comments and suggestions that were
made.
Commission comments on Circulation Features focused on including traffic-calming
features (i.e., roundabouts, traffic circles, etc.), the use of alleys, reducing roadway
widths, and providing an option for a bicycle under-crossing or over-crossing at Prado
Road. Commission direction was for Public Works and Planning Departments staff to
coordinate on modifying the specific plan to include these features where feasible.
Michael Sullivan, Mary Beth Schroeder and Bill Wilson once again voiced opposition to
Prado Road.
Chapter 6
No comments were made on this chapter.
Chapter 7
With the exception of water availability, the Commission did not express any concerns
with the Utilities section. Commissioner Christianson inquired about water availability,
and noted that the project may be a moot point if there is no water. After brief
discussion, the Commission directed staff to provide additional information on water
availability. John Moss will be asked to provide the requested data, and to attend the
next Commission meeting.
Chapter 8
The Commission did not have any specific issues with the section on Housing
Affordability. Dave Watson presented housing data to demonstrate how the
landowners/builders could work with the Housing Authority and other non-profit
developers to produce the required number of affordable units. George Moylan also
addressed housing affordability. Staff advised the Commission that the draft MASP
would be revised to be consistent with the recently updated Housing Element and the
City's inclusionary housing requirement. The Commission stated its desire to see the
project maximize the number of housing units in the specific plan area.
The Commission ended at Section 9.
No formal action was taken.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Deputy Director Draze gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
� �S'3
Planning Commission Minute,
April 28, 2003 Attachment 6
Page 3
Kirk Reis, applicant, noted that he lives on the property and is closer to the machines
that anyone. He explained that the additional two days of facility operation were
requested to provide the business with more flexibility to better accommodate the needs
of the family members.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, supported the request, and noted her support
for local, family-run businesses.
Marshall Ochylski applicant's representative, gave a brief description of the crematory
process.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Christianson moved the staff recommendation. Seconded by Vice-Chair
Boswell..
Commr. Miller could not support the motion because she felt the number of cremations
is excessive and felt the existing hours of operation were adequate.
Commr. Loh could not support the motion because the crematory is located near the
downtown historical district and is next to Mission High School.
AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Boswell, Aiken, Osborne, and Caruso
NOES: Commrs. Loh and Miller
ABSENT: None -
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5-2 vote.
3. 3592 Broad Street. U/TR/ER 24-03 (Tract 2534): Mixed-use development permit
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a project with 82 dwellings and 35,000 square
feet of commercial floor area, including Environmental Review; C-S-S zone; Broad
St. Partners, LP, applicant. (Michael Codron)To be continued to May 12, 2004.
This item was continued without discussion to the meeting of May 12, 2004, to allow
staff additional time to evaluate supplemental project information submitted by the
applicant and recently-submitted public correspondence.
4. Margarita-Area and Airport Area. SP/ER 73-00: Margarita Area Specific Plan, and
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and related Facilities Master Plans, City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) (Continued from April 7, 2004.)
D !�;q
Planning Commission Minute,
April 28,2003 Attachment 6
Page 4
Deputy Director Michael Draze presented the staff report, noting the Commission will
discuss the draft MASP, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue
the hearing to May 12, 2004, or a later date if the plan review is completed.
Commr. Osborne stepped down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict
of interest.
Chapter 9
There was much discussion on affordable housing and density and how it could work in
this area.
Chapter 10
Commr. Aiken noted a spelling error on phasing area 15.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Chapter 9
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt housing should be kept away from the
airport because of potential future needs for new runways, and because it is too close'to
the soccer fields.
Dave Watson, applicant's representative, noted that the staff report follows their
understanding of how this section will be revised. He discussed briefly the components
of this chapter, and expressed support for Chapter 9.
John French, representative of the Cowen Trust, discussed the maximum density and
noted that they have prepared a tentative map.
Terry Simons, SLO, noted that he represents the Damon-Garcia family, gave a brief
explanation on the Prado Road realignment and its connection to this area, and asked
the City to assist the property owners.
There were no further comments made from the public on Chapter 9.
Director Mandeville suggested a policy with language to implement maximizing density.
Chapter 10
Michael Sullivan, SLO, voiced concern with the future of the EIR, and land use
decisions that will create environmental impacts that have not been properly mitigated.
Bill Wilson, 1609 South Hill, expressed concern with the entire plan and explained why
the Damon-Garcia Field was picked for this location. He felt the parks are being heavily
impacted.
Planning Commission MinutL
April 28,2003 Attachment 6
Page 5
Dave Watson, project Representative, commented on energy, Table 13, and affordable
housing.
There were no further comments made from the public on Chapter 10.
Dave Watson, offered an explanation on the proposed affordable housing.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, opposed affordable housing because she felt
that would only support the students.
Michael Sullivan, SLO, noted that he has presented a letter to the Commission and
briefly discussed the alignment of Prado Road. He noted his opinion that these
changes require an amendment to the General Plan, which is not a part of this specific
plan. He discussed circulation issues and felt there should be additional environmental
review. He also addressed affordable housing.
Bill Wilson, 1609 South Hill, noted there is a parking problem at the Damon-Garcia
fields, and expressed concern that when the homes are occupied, parking will impact
the neighborhoods, which has not been addressed.
No further comments made from the public.
Staff distributed a memo on how to emphasize the transit-oriented aspects of the
specific plan. Director Mandeville explained the minor changes needed to the
document and how that may enhance the neighborhood as well as opportunities to
obtain grants for transit.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Utilities Director John Moss gave a brief explanation on water demand.
The Commission requested that three items be addressed; traffic calming, maximizing
density, and affordable housing.
Cornmr. Christianson suggested a policy encouraging maximizing density and allowing
flexibility as projects come forward, and include a policy that allows the tool kit of traffic
calming as appropriate to this plan.
Vice-Chair Boswell noted the areas that are currently designated R-2.
The Commission agreed by consensus to include the transit-oriented features and a
possible name change for the specific plan.
It was the majority consensus of the Commission to continue discussion of this item to
June 9, 2004.
a -�
SAN LUIS OBISPO attachment 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 9, 2004
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 9, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall; 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Andrea Miller, Michael Boswell, Jim Aiken, and
Chairperson James Caruso
Absent: Commrs. Alice Loh and Orval Osborne
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Mike Draze, Assistant City
Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, voiced concerns about the dismantling of
San Luis Obispo, and that if Cal Poly students lived on campus, there would not be a
housing shortage. She expressed that more housing and shopping centers are not
needed in this town.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00: Margarita Area Transit-
Oriented Specific Plan and Environmental Review (EIR) for the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans and related Facilities Master Plans; City of San Luis
Obispo, applicant. (Continued from April 28, 2004)
Deputy Director Mike Draze presented the staff report and the resolution recommending
that the City Council (1) certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, adopt
the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations relative to change in views
and alteration of course and direction of water movement; and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring Program; (2) adopt the Margarita Area Transit-Oriented Specific Plan and
the Public Facilities Financing Plan; (3) amend the General. Plan Land Use Element
map to reflect land use categories contained in the specific plan; and (4) amend the
Planning Commission Minut
June 9, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 2
Zoning Map to reflect zoning designations contained in the specific plan for those
properties currently within the city.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Terry Simons, Damon-Garcia family representative, noted that he found an anomaly in
the current General Plan and Draft Plan and presented a map to point out the situation.
He requested the Commission direct staff to move forward to the City Council with an
amendment to the mapping elements of the plan that would bring the Margarita Area
Specific Plan in consistency in adopting the General Plan. He expressed the need for
the City to do this because of the existing utility roads that already exist there.
Saro Rizzo, SLO, commented that the northern part of the proposed Prado Road that
goes to Broad Street (State Hwy. 227) should be removed from the plan and suggested
that Prado Road connect to Santa Fe Road. He presented a map and detailed the
connection that should be removed, noting there are too many curves along the
proposed Prado Road which could be very dangerous. He commented that Tank Farm
Road already exists and is the best east/west route. He noted that a lot of money was
put into the soccer field, and having a busy highway around this field will pose major
problems and will have a major noise impact.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, opposed the realignment of Prado Road.
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, expressed concern with the traffic scheme,
which he felt is unsatisfactory and presented a letter to-the Commission detailing his
concerns. He mentioned that the overpass and grading that is proposed over the
parkland area should be brought to the attention of the citizens.
Collin Leith, Santa Rosa Street, member of the car-free movement, voiced opposition to
this project because it requires the use of cars. He suggested changing the route of
Prado Road to connect to Tank Farm Road, which would make the plan less dangerous
for the soccer fields and the people playing on the fields.
Jill Hillmark, SLO, felt this is a great opportunity to do something significant in creating a
good plan. She encouraged creativity and suggested priority be given to some projects
that are 'innovative. She noted that she does not want to see more California suburbs
on this beautiful untouched meadowland. She expressed disappointment that there is
not more innovative thinking coming through on the plan or a more efficient design to
maximize housing.
Jerry Moore, SLO, expressed concerns with the Prado Road extension, noting that it
was originally proposed to go through to Johnson Avenue, but because of citizen's
concerns, it did not happen, and now they are having more problems. He felt that the
children on the soccer fields will be exposed to possible pollution from traffic on Prado
Road.
Tory Finger, Woodbridge Street, supported the Prado Road realignment.
a _�
Planning Commission Min
June 9, 2004 Attachment 6
Page 3
Joe Gilpin, 1529 Carmel Street, Bike Coalition, supported the idea of staking out the
alignment before they go ahead with this, and suggested moving Prado Road further
south.
Eugene Jud, 665 Leff Street, presented a letter to the Commission expressing concerns
about the project relating to pollution, traffic safety, northern alignment, and the
pedestrian/bike path. He suggested that the alignment be staked and the public be
allowed a 30-day public comment period.
Nick Muick 3731Orcutt Road, commented that because Tank Farm Road has a strange
design, should they wait before involving Prado Road to see how four lanes will function
and questioned where the Prado Road realignment will be located.
Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 South Higuera Street, mentioned that she was promised a
meeting with King Ventures. She noted that on March 21St she was told they were
working with the residents of Chumash Village but noted that she has not heard
anything from anyone.
Larry Stabler, Chumash Village, questioned if their concerns have been heard regarding
the aircraft that would fly over and the potential for a disaster. He noted there are a lot
of elderly people who live in this village who cannot attend these meetings but have
written many letters and questioned if their concerns have been addressed.
' Dave Watson, King Ventures representative, requested a few changes to the plan.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission discussed the staff-recommended changes and the comments from
the public. By consensus, the Commission agreed to several changes in the draft plan
directing staff to forward these changes to the City Council with their recommendation.
Vice-Chair Boswell moved the staff recommendation with changes to the plan made by
the maiority of the commission and the changes to the findings as recommended by
staff. Seconded by Commr. Aiken,
Commr. Miller noted for the record that this area has prime agricultural land, which she
prefers to protect, but agrees that in this case, it is needed more for housing. She also
felt the Dalidio project will be giving up valuable agricultural land as well.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Aiken, Miller, Christianson, and Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Osborne and Loh
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
a -�
Attachment 7
U
city of sAn luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 16, 2004
Mila Vujovich-La Barre / I, tip)
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Subject: Reply to your January 3, 2004 Letter
Dear Mila
This letter responds to the correspondence you submitted to the Council on January 6`s, 2004
during the Dalidio-Marketplace public hearing and later to the Planning Commission. In your
letter, you requested a response to your suggestion that an environmental impact report (EIR) be
completed for Prado Road and you expressed several other concerns. I hope this letter clears
things up and puts a few persistent rumors to rest.
The short story is: (1) The City has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) every step of the way with respect to both the Prado Road extension and the Prado
Road interchange; (2) There is absolutely no "mountain blasting", "dark tunnels" or "tunneling"
associated with currently adopted alignment, nor has there ever been; (3) The site was purchased
with the need to set aside 3.5 acres for an eventual road fully disclosed, discussed, understood
and agreed upon by the City Council; and (4) Mitigation measures have been adopted for
protecting biological and cultural resources when a road is actually built. Now for the longer
story...
Starting at the beginning, an east-west connection between South Higuera and Highway 227 has
been formal City policy since the early 1960's when it was included in the City's first General
Plan. In this plan, the extension met Highway 227 at Hopkins Lane (roughly halfway between
Industrial Way and the currently approved alignment). Attached is a copy of that plan.
Subsequent general plans (both Land Use and Circulation Elements) have also contained a Prado
Road extension and the Prado Road Interchange at US 101, and traffic models involving the
Prado Road extension have assumed the interchange since the late 1980's.
You have suggested that a comprehensive environmental study needs to be completed for the
"new" Prado Road. In fact, several environmental studies have been completed for a Prado Road
extension and interchange, including studies done for the 1994 Land Use and Circulation
Elements (which included the "old" Industrial Way alignment), the 2000 amendment to the
Circulation Element that adopted the current "northerly" alignment, and the EIR for the Airport
Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans. Information from the adopted mitigated negative
a - LO o 1
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410.
Attachment 7
declaration for the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields and the EIR for the San Luis Marketplace have
also been considered in these future roadway plans, as discussed below.
The Master EIR that was certified for the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Element update
analyzed three potential alignments for the extended roadway, with the Council settling on an
Industrial Way alignment. After further considering problems associated with this alignment
(along with a Tank Farm Road alternative), in February 2000 the City Council adopted a new
northerly alignment. In completing the Circulation Element amendment needed to implement
this change, an environmental study for the northerly alignment and interchange was completed
and accepted by the Planning Commission and City Council.
As you know, there are several types of environmental actions allowed under CEQA, including
EIRs, mitigated negative declarations (MND's) and negative declarations, depending upon the
circumstances. An EIR is required when the lead agency determines that there is sufficient
evidence in the public record that a project may have a significant impact on the environment.
An MND may be used as the environmental document when the project can be modified to avoid
these impacts. In adopting the northerly alignment, based on the evidence resulting from
environmental study, a MND was approved by the City Council. The MND contained seventeen
(17) mitigation measures, including mitigation measures to protect biological and cultural
resources (e.g. the archeological site) in order to fully address anticipated impacts.
CEQA requires additional environmental review if a project substantially changes or information
that is more detailed becomes available before construction. Thus far, the project description for
the Prado Road alignment and the interchange has not changed significantly since 2000. Studies
completed with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and the San Luis Marketplace projects confirm
this, and these projects (now receiving further public study and review) incorporate the data and
mitigation measures from the 2000 MND, as well as data and mitigation measures that were
prepared with the environmental work associated with the Damon/Garcia fields
Although the interchange location and capacity are not changing from previous assumptions,
supplemental analysis of design impacts is underway with the Marketplace EIR. Considering
such supplemental information for the interchange is not "segmenting" the review of the whole
because the whole has already been considered and approved. Similarly, the Prado Road
extension could receive added environmental study when it reaches a detailed engineering design
stage; however, if necessary, it would also be considered supplemental study that builds off
earlier work, and not "segmented" study. Thus far, information available for both the Prado
extension and the interchange, considered cumulatively, does not provide any new evidence of
significant impact that has not been considered during earlier environmental approvals.
To summarize this issue, the interchange and Prado extension have been considered together
consistent with CEQA and environmental work, past and present, has not been segmented or
"piecemealed." (Once appropriate environmental review has been completed, construction may
I behp ased, but that is an entirely different—and fully legal —option.)
With regard to various other misunderstandings, the construction of Prado Road will involve
neither"mountain blasting" nor the relocation of Acacia Creek in order to span the creek system.
In addition, the construction will not involve "tunneling" or result in a "dark tunnel" Bridges
2
Q -Lot
Attachment 7
that span Acacia Creek and the pedestrian pathway will create the proposed pedestrian
underpasses. There will be no deck between the travel lanes on the bridge, which will therefore
allow in much light for pedestrians and the wildlife corridor. Illustrations have been provided
many times which show a very open, airy underpass (e.g. like the Highway 101 underpass at
Chorro Street), and I will be happy to send you another copy upon request.
In your letter you state that the entire 23.5 acres of.the Damon Garcia sports complex "was
purchased for recreation" and should not be used for roadway purposes. HoNvever, as we have
pointed out many times, this just isn't true. I have attached the cover sheet for the June 15, 1999
City Council agenda item for the purchase of the property. You will see that that 3.5 acres of the
property was clearly identified as needed for the road, regardless of whether it were ultimately
aligned north or south of the fields. In fact, the cost per acre was significantly discounted for 3.5
acres in the overall purchase because it was for roadway—and not recreation—purposes.
In closing, like most public decisions, there have always been advantages and disadvantages
associated with the alignment options for the Prado Road and it is reasonable for citizens to
advocate a different choice and to express strong feelings. It is unhelpful; however, when such
strong feelings spawn rumors that, with repetition, can promote misinformation and create a dark
impression of actions taken openly and legally, and only after substantial public input and careful
thought. I hope this letter at least sheds a healthier and more accurate light on some of the
concerns that you have continued to expressed.
Very truly yours,
*Ken
Hampian, CAO
p.s. I continue to look forward to my opportunity to speak to your government class (as long as
we don't have to discuss Prado Road!). Please provide me with your preferred date and time
when you get a chance.
Attachments
1. 1962 General Plan
2. Excerpt City Council Report—Field Purchase
cc: City Council, Planning Commission, staff distribution
�� 3
Affachment 7
Attachment No. 1
1962 General Plan
�anwe�� ♦
X i1I{{XII+ , M, m,� •\
4m1I f1 m m niinYl'1 I vf•i
'11 IIIII IVI '14.:••i••.• �•
11I lfl \
\ {:41n ; •:iii�,,1�i` iniad",iu,
�, •• .inii,4�;Innm
l
V 1 - •p? ,'li11ilIiiHall::'minefin
° ' .. .• :.1111•••�:5�1�i fliti
.�yOir"'6in.nQiLld�tii Kf. . ,�lmnuui}+n—1
unn.;lnt
° iii nn Ili I�rjS"••��r{1iy eie.
i IIL • , J'lil}�Hn••�
M �'P o. •'• •• •:n'irf.��ilrrm l:.
4 ,:I,nr• IIII'::•
Al.
Prado Road „:: ,�;',;1••.;•.;
��.I:�Illlr•••::'
■e■ rsllnH}....
I;IIIIL•.
Future Highway
101 Hopkins Lane Alignment
Interchange
Attachment 7
council
j ac En oa wpont
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: /Paul LeSage, Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Sports Fields Site Acquisition
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. By resolution, approve a Purchase and Sales Agreement to acquire a 23.5 acre
portion of the Damon-Garcia Ranch at a cost of $2,000,000 for the purpose of
constructing sports fields.
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Purchase and Sales Agreement
DISCUSSION
Background
In May of 1998, the City Council authorized staff to begin negotiations with the Damon
and Garcia families for the purpose of acquiring a portion of their ranch property on
which to construct sports fields for community use.
The parcel proposed for acquisition [Exhibit A-2 of the Purchase and Sales Agreement]
includes 16.5 acres for the sports fields, a 3.5 acre riparian creek corridor and 3.5 acres
for the extension of Prado Roars. .Because an alignment for the roadnsa)� ott een
MM.ed, it was _ eci. _ e land acquisition should include the amount of land.
needed for the road. Once the road alignment is approved by the City Council, the sports
field site can be designed accordiiigly. The Acacia Creek riparian corridor bisects the
property and has been included In the proposed acquisition.
The Damon and Garcia Ranch site was previously selected by the City Council as the
best available location in the City on which to build sports fields. This site can
accommodate four multi-use sports fields and their supporting amenities. The Draft
Margarita Area Specific Plan calls for a neighborhood park and elementary school to be
built adjacent to the sports fields. This gives the area the potential for seven or eight
fields,making it a true sports complex. Additionally,there is land adjacent to these fields
that could be acquired and developed in the future.
_ _�OU`JCIL'�GDD DIR
m ' _.AO --FIN DIR RECEIVED
- a"ACAO FZFIRE CHIEF
13AT70RNE-Y D�PW�OIR �,�p ! AA
)aCLERK/ORIG .'POLICE CHF
September 7, 2004 ❑ MPT HEADS 11 REC DIR
¢ BJa'uTIL DIR SL0 CITY CLERK
- R Dn_
To: Mayor Romero and Council members, RED FILE
Swchartz, Ewan, Settle, and Mulholland, MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM
In reference to: Margarita Area EIR and specific plan hearings.
My comments are in relation to an attached letter to your 9-7-04 staff report from
Ken Hampian, dated January 16, 2004, pgs 2-60 through 2-62. Mila
Vujovich-LaBarre's letter should have also been attached to the staff report.
Paragraph 1, 3rd sentence, pg 2-61: "The master EIR was certified for the 1994 Land
Use and Circulation Element update...."
My comment: The 1994 master EIR for the General.Plan was certified with
Prado Rd terminating at Industrial Way. In 2000, city council adopted a new
northerly alignment and terminating point. Not because there were problems with
Industrial Way, but because of the sports field property purchase and plans to have
Prado Rd cross Broad to connect with Johnson Ave. The Industrial Way alignment
got in the way of those two projects. It had to be eliminated. In the process, the
new segment and new terminating point of Prado Rd did not receive full
environmental analysis - only a Negative Declaration from staff.
paragraph 2 , 3rd sentence, pg 2-61: "An EIR is required when the lead agency
determines that there is sufficient evidence in the public record that a project may
have a significant impact on the environment. "
My comment: How much more public record does it take than all the public
letters and comments made regarding Prado Rd during the past 5 years, including
the city "Prado Rd" binder?
Prado Rd is in the Marketplace project, the Margarita/Airport project, the
Damon-Garcia project, future city owned properties on Prado Rd, and it even tried
to get into the Orcutt project and wipe out Bullock Lane and Orcutt overpass.
What greater significant impact than Prado Rd causing a partial destruction of a
5,000 yr old Native American site? Based on the archeological report, the local lead
agency should have filed for a National Historical preservation listing on that site
long ago.
pg 2
Isn't it reasonable to assume that a 4 lane State Highway, underpasses,
increased noise, air, visual, and cultural impacts, elevated roadways, new
termination points, and land use changes, equate "sufficient evidence"?
If these issues do not determine there is "sufficient evidence" what will?
Paragraph 3 on pg 2-61: "CEQA requires additional environmental review if a project
substantially changes or information that is more detailed becomes available before
construction."
My comment: The project has changed since K. Hampian's letter dated 1-16-04.
Land use has changed significantly because the project now has medium and
medium/high density residential in previous areas analyzed as open space land use.
The higher density residential areas will be adjacent to Prado Rd, a 4 lane State
Highway.
The project's circulation has changed. The alignment of Prado Rd through the
project has also changed since the Program EIR was completed. The business park
land use designations have been changed and been enlarged. There is now more
business park/commercial land use within the project. Shouldn't "additional
environmental review" analyze the ratio between the newly proposed housing and
commercial units?
Prado Rd has caused so much delay and conflict with needed projects. It should
have been a separate project years ago. Maybe we would have had the Margarita
housing already built.
Thank/ /You.
i k)/JL-&,J
Bill Wilson
1690 Southwood Drive
SLO, Cal. 93401
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
Allen Settle-Margarita Area
SLO CITY CLERK
From: "D. &E.Dollar'<ddollar@pacbell.net>
To: Ken Schwartz<kschwartz@slocity.org>,John Ewan<jewan@slocity.org>,Christine Mulholland
<cmulholland@slocity.org>,Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>,Dave Romero<dromero@slocity.org>
Date: 9/6/2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Margarita Area
CC: Mike Draze<mdraze@slocity.org>
City Council
Comments on Margarita Area Draft Plan
My single biggest concern,is growth with this proposal. And it's not from the housing, it's from the Business Park. If the Business
Park is utilized to 3/4th of allowed employee density(40 employees per acre allowed) that would create 2070 new employees(30
employees times 69 acres).That's more than the 868 homes can handle(2.35 people times 868 houses=2040 people). So,my
concern is that the Business Park will create a net loss of housing.I don't know if there is a formula for the number of employees
per house,as there is for the number of people per house.This is troubling.How many new homes will be needed to house all the
employees of the Business Park?
I suggest that the best use for the Business Park proposal, is to make it Open Space,Parks and Greenways.This will certainly add to
the safety factor with the airport.I recall that a small plane made an emergency landing in a field near Trader Joe's this spring
reas. . We
need the open spaces for safety with our airport.Leave the neighborhood commercial a
I urge you to ask many questions on the impact of the Business Park. This will have great impacts on our quality of life. And the
future proposals for so many businesses in the Airport Area will even make housing matters much worse,for an even more lopsided
housing situation. . n
Sincerely, 4Ac` A-I-, 'CDD DIR
1COU1,CIL'AOSIN DIR
Don Dollar 2-AACA FIRE CHIEF
1
SLO 12-ATTORNEY 'n-PW DIR
781.0118 I% TO
I,,�-CLERK/ORIG -e POLICE CHF
l U 5. T HEADREC DIR
ar ,ETU'i IL DIR
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
D.,TE ITEM #
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 9/7/2004
tt •
RECEIVEDA
September 6, 2004 Ju/km SEP IUOUNCIL CDD DIR
U 2004SAO X�FIN DIR
To: City Council of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK ?ATTORNEY CAO &PW DIRHIEF
Re: Council Meeting September 7, 2004, Agenda#2: EIR Margarita andR�;QBIG POLICE CHF
r� DS -is'REC DIR
— L-'�L -UTIL DIR
Dear Members of the Council:
DIR
Thank you for setting up some meetings about the above topic before you eventually certify the
PEIR. I would like to repeat and enhance what I wrote in connection with the Marketplace EIR.
The chosen traffic zone of influence of the Marketplace/freeway interchange generator is way too
small. Prado Rd. east between South Higuera St. and Broad St. is a direct part of the
Marketplace/freeway interchange problem. We dispute the traffic methodology of both EIRs and
especially the piecemealing into two traffic EIRs. This appears to be professionally incorrect,
misleading to the public, and against CEQA.
1. Introduction
Mr. Bird's Marketplace attracts over 20,000 vehicular trips per day. In addition the new freeway
interchange attracts a considerable amount of regional traffic. Both traffic generators together
influence the road system several miles away.
2. Proposal
The traffic area of influence should at least go from Mr. Bird's Marketplace to east of Broad St.
and Orcutt Rd. and south of Buckley Rd. as shown in Appendix 1. East Prado Rd. (from Higuera
St.to Broad St.) must therefore be considered as a part of the Marketplace Project analysis
because, as we estimate, up to 50%of the future traffic on Prado Rd. and Broad St. may be
directly connected to either Mr. Bird's Marketplace or the planned freeway interchange.
3. Legal Challenge
The Marketplace Environmental Impact Report has been legally challenged, which may influence
the proceedings and contents of the Margarita Airport Plan also. This concerns mostly the traffic
volumes, traffic model concept, and treatment of"induced traffic" (latent demand).
4. Professional Basis
The most up to date and relevant guidelines for traffic impact analysis come from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and are found in their book"Transportation and Land
Development"2nd Edition, ITE 2002. Chapter three of this book is titled "Traffic Impact Analysis"
and gives detailed guidelines on 50 pages. According to this document, the traffic zone of
influence for a discount center of the Marketplace size with a hotel and a totally new freeway
interchange should be analyzed at least two miles around the Marketplace property line (see text
Appendix 2). This is also graphically shown in Appendix 3.
Appendix 4 specifies that the influence area should extend to intersections where more than a 5%
increase in approach traffic volume is expected. Appendix 5 specifies the traffic counts to be
made and further text stresses traffic counts to be of a newer date (not 8 years old as some in the
Margarita EIR).Appendix 6 mentions which analysis hours apply to a discount center. It is
mentioned that Saturdays and Sundays should be analyzed also. Appendix 7 shows the
suggested time horizons for traffic impact analysis. Appendix 8 specifies that data from the ITE
Trip Generation manual should not be presented as absolute truth, when in reality, there is a
considerable variation and standard deviation attached to each data.
The Marketplace and Margarita Area EIRs do not appear to follow the above ITE guideline in
several respects.
RED FILE
-- MEETING AGENDA
DAT ITEM #2jL=J 1
It should also be noted that Caltrans is currently working on its own EIR for the Prado Rd.
interchange and will probably come to similar conclusions based on the Caltrans internal
guidelines for traffic influence areas they have to follow.
5. Optimal planning organization for the appropriate planning area shown in Appendix 1
This big planning area south of town covers city and county land and many different agencies.
We propose that under the direction of SLOCOG,the different players in the area (City, County,.
Caltrans, public transit systems,etc.)work together for a comprehensive transportation and land
use planning starting in 2005. Input from different agencies encourages us to make this proposal,
e.g. remarks of Mr. Ken Hampian, CAO of the City, to E. Jud at a meeting of June 24, 2004, or
the letter of Mr. Gregg Albright.to E. Jud of July 2, 2004, which was also copied to City officers M.
Draze and T. Bochum.The timing after elections is optimal because the Circulation Element of
the City needs a revision anyway(function and width of Prado Rd., Prado Rd.*freeway
interchange yes or no, function of LOVR/101 interchange and Buckley Rd.?). This might be done
using the new countywide traffic model currently being developed by Fehr and Peers.
We can not agree with the statement of Mr. Ken Hampian at the end of the staff report for
September 7 telling Mila Vujovich that all these questions have been treated with finality in the
Circulation Element 1994 and in its final EIR of August 1994.We studied these documents as
well as transportation and land use plans going back as far as 1965. Circumstances have
considerably changed since the beginning of the 1990s and the very idea of a master plan is that
it is adaptable, can be changed four times per year, and should in fact be totally revised every few
years, which unfortunately was not done.The relation to"piecemealing" and CEQA will be
brought up in the current legal challenge.
6. Intermediate steps for Prado Rd. East
The above point 5 does not necessarily stop all plans in progress or totally freeze development.
The current proposal for the Margarita/Airport Area and specific plan contain many positive
elements -apart from the highly questionable four lane"regional traffic and truck route"along a
sports complex for children, a new residential development with 800 units and several existing
mobile home parks near South Higuera St.
If Prado Rd. is built only as a collector street, with just two vehicular and two bike lanes from
South Higuera to Broad St. via Tank Farm Rd. bypassing the sport fields in the south,then
development can basically move forward. This has already been shown in the attached memo
and the road plans by Jud Consultants of June 27, 2001, prepared for a group of concerned
citizens who are constantly gaining support. Most of the above memo and plans is still relevant
today and can be applied to planning discussions and the FPEIR of the Margarita/Airport Area.
Unfortunately, the above proposals of 2001 were never seriously discussed in public as city staff
made it clear that they were under strict orders to pursue an alignment considered the only
solution under the Circulation Element 1994. We are happy to read that newer input may be
welcome now and the public will have a chance to see some perspective drawings of the planned
road and its relation to the surroundings. But we still hope, that soon interested citizens, under
official guidance, can walk along the alignment, which is the only way to really get the"feel'of it.
Thank you to the Planning Commission and staff for hard work and to you for your consideration.
Eugene Jud, Fellow ITE
665 Leff St.
San Luis Obispo
CA 93401 Phone: 545-5919, Jud4ann(d,)aol.com
Enclosed: Appendices 1-8; Memo and Plans Jud Consultants June 27, 2001 (8 pages)
2
N � tWW�I s� :- � � +•
� w+ ` S � '. ; �� 0a+ w n0. •i ¢ 1`� _
C> > O
n• COT � �2 •$ 5 � �•rl
O ppe � �y 7�b EZy �•_ �� ya�hj ,. °� ���+{�„��t•s� ra... � t ff� rs� �� YpJ`.
,V V ,.3zs'•'p'`' V ia1RVPW �,t fv ^J tea• $$rv`"` y x y 'F .tN wry a.
/h Y QV' A 4° C i`Y FZ� t
VI p 0 } bltt'�i „n tt •,,�yi .G, 'TJ P'0t i H xSt,
am
IV
(� y *a. LiepQ�' 4 r a"N itt� ;, •v k+•,ry Sf) r a r:
a�
i� iJ Q7 3 w 1 e '4c ��� Jv"'+���} {' ° '4u� �`' 'tt t e•'s\ 4 to _ ';.
14Z
AWP
Q� � -.e:: , m"�,y;,$���b°n�. C��(t S�M1f4�•pm re a by `r"> ,�� '��'� 2 +�`�r Lw - ti a
L ._ k}✓. ;t'r`��?i,{,¢N 'o`�yu`r'�oM u + YaQr!� `kV`l t ,, a } _ \
CY _w V� � t �a t!!y°"�r.• � t ` �t >t ,t�� X ��G y ` �f � � a �' ! '4
N,t ,Aad p..
�° Y
�`a .mss 2' ei_( '•.. . ��, ac .yY x._ r.. ..V• -
4 L d E 7 rpt
ja
PNPV
Q m aaWpg aua-w µpy N1 OS 'N ! t.`yk•'4 P 5, '+t- 4 � x.:'
y� Ile
OV
[ r
zmsL
dv
�l
V j� � .Ya, '�� 6 Q �� r•� a �e y p�
0
Appem Wtcer 2- d are of
•
Transportation
and Land
Development
2nd Edition
by Vergil G. Stover
and Frank J. Koepke
Institute of Transportation Engineers/ 2 4490
Z
CHAPTER 3: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS a 3-15
Table 3-5. Suggested Study Area Limits_for Traffic Impact Analyses
Development Study Area
Fast-food restaurants Adjacent intersection if comer location
Service station,with or without fast-food counter Adjacent intersection if corner location
Mini-mart or convenience grocery with or without 660 ft(200 m)from access drive
gas pumps
Other development with 200 or more trips during 1,000 ft from access drive
any peak hour
Shopping center less than 70,000 ft'(7,000 m') All signalized intersections and access drives within
0.5 miles(800 m)from a property line of the site
Development w/peak-hour trips between 200 and and all major unsignalized intersections and access
500 during peak hour drives within 0.25 miles(400 m)(See Figure 3-2b).
Shopping center between 70,000 and 100,000 ft' All.signalized and major unsignalized intersections and
(7,000 and 100,000 m�GLA and freeway ramps within 1.0 miles(1.6 km)of
property line of the site(See Figure 3-2c).
Office or industrial employees between 300 and 500
Development w/peak-hour trips greater than 500
Shopping center greater than 1,000,000 f' All signalized intersections and freeway ramps within
(1,000,000 m0 GLA 2.0 miles(3.2 km)of a property line and all major
unsr ed access(streets and driveways)within
Office or industrial employees greater than 500 1.0 miles(1.6 km)of a property line of the site
(See Figure 3-2d).
Development w/peak-hour trips greater than 500
P
r_HA?T;lZ 3: TRAFFIC ZMMA T AW4YSrS a -Q
A large development will have substantial impact on the roadway system several miles
from the site. For example,a new plant with 1,000 employees in an urban,area with a }
50,000 population might have large traffic impacts in proximity to the site as well as
some distance away.
The study area (influence area) is typically estimated by judgment and then-refined
during the study process.This influence area might be defined as extendine to the most
distant intersections at which a measurable impact can be found—such as an increase in
an approach volume of at least 100 vph,a 5 percent increase in an approach volume,ora
change in the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio of 2 percent.or more.
3 . .:
&Pre e4®% 3
qW
3-16 KI TRANSPORTATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Study Area
iiaiu[ii+ai<aii — —
.................
..................
.................
................
54
(a)Access Location& Design Review—Evaluate Driveway Movements
Study Area
�".'
site
(b)Traffic Assessment—Evaluate Adjacent Intersections
.?.Site
(c)Traffic Impact Statement—Evaluate Nearby Intersections
.......... .......... ........ .: ........ ........
.......... . ........ ........
. .................... . . ........ . ........ ........
.................... ................................ ........
(d) Regional Traffic Analysis—Evaluate Subarea of the Roadway System
Figure 3-2. Study Area Limits
CHAPTER 3: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ®.3 11
• External factors that could affect the proposed development
— planned roadway improvements
— other nearby developments
• Consistency with adopted plans and programs
— local government's comprehensive plan.
— state DOT development program
D
• Study periods
— weekday,weekend
— a.m./p.m.peak traffic hours of the adjacent street
— peak hour(s) of site traffic generation
— critical combination of site and non-site traffic
— seasonal periods
• Impact area
— distance and travel time from the site
— critical intersections for individual analysis
• Available traffic data
— historical counts and trends
— forecasts
— peak directional trips
• Traffic counts to be made .
— type (machine and/or manual)
— 15-min.,peak hour(s), 24-hr., turn movements andvehicvehic®�
— count duration
—weekday weekend
— locations
• Trip generation
— use appropriate rates,if available from reliable sources
— percent of pass-by traffic
— diverted traffic
— modal split analysis,if appropriate
— data to be collected,if any
• Methodology for background traffic estimates and forecasts
— current volumes
— forecast volumes
• Methodology for site traffic assignments
— direction of approach and departure
— site traffic distribution
• Access location and traffic control criteria
P�� .x
3-14faTRANSPORTATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
i.
Table 3-4. Analysis Hours for Various Types of Development
ii I 1
Cjl Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour
;; � f Qenerator
ofAbuttint Street Jt
Development AM PM AM PM Saturday Sunda
Residential X X X, X
I Office X X X X
Busing Park X
Shopping Centers:
jl <500,000 X X X2 X'
Ii >500,000 X X X
Discount enter
Super tore
X X
Supermarket
pharmacy/DrugStore X X
Furniture Store X X X
Bank,w/Drive-through X • ,
Fast Food Restaurant X' X X X X
Quality Restaurant
I
Service Station w/Mini-mart X X X X X 3C X X
r, Cinema X X X X
Theme Park
Schools and Colleges
X
a:'i;r. Elementary&Middle X
High School/College X X X X
i,
Light Industrial X X X X
}- X. X•
Manufacturing X X
T
Flexible hours will result in goad spreading"and reduce the entering demand in the AM and the exiting demand in the PM peaks of the street
li The peak of the generator may not coincide with the 60-minute peak on the streets.
{ g 'A large shopping center will experience a high hourly entering volume between the period between about 6:00 p.m.and 7:45 p.m.;entering
volume may be two n three times flte exiting volume.EAting traffic will produce a very high exit flow rate in a 1/2-hour period prior to dosing.
li l'.i.l For a 10:00 p.m.dosing.85 percent to 90 percent of the vehicles exiting the site will leave between 9:15 p.m.and 9:45 p.m.Direct oral flow
li I' will be over 90 percent exiting and less than 10 percent entering.
hi•;I 'A large shopping center(1,000.000 sq ft.)experiences high entering volumes early Saturday afternoons(two-thirds entry,one-third exit);a
! high exiting volume comes about 2.and 1/2-hours later.
i I„ •Sam's Club WaFMa Costco,Home De t and similar 9a a box"retailers.
the fast-food restaurant serves' a as
•Fast-food restaurants experience their peaks on weekday noon hours.
'Service stations with a mini-mart or convenience store will experience very.h"xjh,volumes on weekends.
•Many manufacturing firms operate on shift work;the begirining and end of the,shifts are purposely selected so as not to coincide with the tra-
ditional AM and PM peak hours of the public roadway system.
6
-- ifHPWT�g 3= .TgAfcic IMPAci 4KALY56 e 3-13
Table 3-3. Suggested Horizons for Traffic Impact Analyses
Development e
i' Suggested Horizon(s)
Size
i
Small(generating less than 500-peak-hour trips) L Anticipated opening year,assuming full buildout and
occupancy.
Moderate,single-phase(500-1000 peak-hour trips) 1. Anticipated opening year,assuming full buildout and
occupancy.
2. Adopted transportation plan horizon year if the
development is significantly larger than that included
in the adopted plan or in the forecasts for the area.
Large, single phase(over 1,000 peak-hour trips) 1. Anticipated opening year,assuming full buildout and
occupancy.
2. Adopted transportation plan horizon year.
Moderate or large,multiple phase I. Anticipated opening years of each major phase,
assuming buildout and full occupancy of each phase.
2. Anticipated year of complete buildout and occupancy.
3. Adopted transportation plan horizon year. e202-0)
4. Additional years when a major area tranportation
improvement is completed.�LO!/Q�/O!
r. Source: Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Developmen4 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1989 [5].
7
3-24OTRANSPORTATION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
i
i Trip generation volumes are the number of trips anticipated to be assigned to the site
driveways.The following definitions of types of trips are used in site traffic analysis:
• Trip, trip end: A trip is a one-direction vehicle movement either to or from the
study site.A trip end is either an origin or a destination within the study site.
• Peak-hour trips: (peak-hour trip generation):The total number of vehicular trips to
and from a site during a peak 60-min.period.
• Peak hour of the street:The 60-min.period in which the highest volume occurs
on the roadway abutting the site.Usually between 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.
on a weekday.
j • Peak-hour of the generator: The 60-min.period in which the highest volume
entering and leaving the site occurs.
Trip generation volumes are most commonly calculated from the data contained within
the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation [7].
In the event that data is not available or appropriate for the proposed land usedata from
cim.��r n_nts should be collected The governing agencies approval of the
proposed rates should be obtained as soon as possible.A summary.of ITE data for the
most commonly used land uses is presented in Table 3-9.
When using data from Trip Generation, the"standard deviration"from average values
should be noted and considered,thereby avoidin snur.'I accuracy Spurious accuracy
can be avoided by considering the following:
• The number of data points for similar developments of the same size,or very close to
the same size;and
• The dispersion (scatter) of the data points for developments of similar type and size.
The information presented in the ITE Trip Generation editions represents data that has
been collected throughout the United States and Canada since 1960.The data may or
may not be directly applicable for estimating the traffic generated by a specific
development.When practical, the user is encouraged to supplement the ITE data with
local collected at developments that are similar in type and size to the development
being studied.
The 6th edition of Trip Generation [7] includes the following trip generation
characteristics for the various types of generators.
• The average trip rate is the weighted average of all trips or trip ends per unit.
• The range in rates illustrates the difference in rates per unit of specific sites.The
smaller the range,the more reliable the rate.
00
� -
Juno 27 2 P. O. Box 1145 / 665 Leff Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406- 1145
To:Citizens Concerned for Prado Road Tel/Fax (805) 545-5919
c.o. Bill Wilson
1690 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Prado Road San Luis Obispo:Alternative North or Tank Farm Road?
A group of sport fans,teachers and citizens who are scared about the ongoing and upcoming"Los.
Angelization"of the southern part of SLO has asked us to look into the above question.
Our conclusion is:
I. The Damon-Garcia Sports Complex could already be under construction had the City not chosen to
link it with the construction of an outdated and unneeded project called Prado Road Instead of looking
at all alternatives m the whole area from Orcutt Road to Los Osos Valley Road(LOVR)and south to
Buckley Road within an overall EIR,the City chose to implement the Prado Road concept in a_
piecemeal process.in which citizens.who favor a more comprehensive.concept were systematically
ignored.The culmination of this process is the newest proposal of the City's Community Development
Department to not even prepare an EIR for their proposed Prado Road North alignment. This omission
of an EIR is probably in violation of CEQA.
2 Based on transportation considerations and the given constraints of hazardous materials and biology,
we propose along range alternative called Highway 227 on Bucldey Road which is shown in the
enclosure.Buckley Road will be two lanes with widened intersections according to Caltrans
guidelines.Tank Farm Road will remain mostly a two-lane arterial and Prado Road will act as a two-
lane collector street leading into Tank Farm Road at a simple and safe intersection with the realigned
Santa Fe Road
3. This proposal should be incorporated into the recently formed technical task force for the study of a
realigned fineway interchange 101/LOVR.Stakeholders and professionals from City, County and
Caltrans should join the task force to study solutions for the whole southern part of town and beyond
the southern urban reserve line. The lead agency could be the Caltrans Community Relations
Department. In the long term however,Caltrans could also consider selling parts of ITighway 227 to
the City and the County,as has been done in other cities.
4. By refusing to give the environmental permits for the official Alternative North,the Army Corps of
Engineers will help to promote the idea of sustainable transportation and city planning.On the site of
the sport fields, the land for road alternative North should be used for a regional bicycle*destrian
bordew4leadimg from the Orcutt Area.m the east to the Froom Ranch Area west of LOVR.The
main road crossings at Broad and South Higuera Streets,Highway 101 and LOVR could be in the form
of bicycle/pedestrian bridges.
Sincerely
Eugen Jud-Civil Engineer,Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers,www.judcons.com ---�
Enclosure
CC to: -City Council of San Luis Obispo
-Tim Bochum,PWD,City of San Luis Obispo
-Gregg Albright,Deputy Director Caltrans District V,San Luis Obispo
-Supervisors Peg Pinard and Shirely Bianchi,San Luis Obispo
-County Engineering,San Luis Obispo
-Environmental Defense Center,San Louis Obispo
-Dave Romero,2057 Skylark Lane,San Louis Obispo,CA 93401.
-Bicycle Advisory Committee,City Hall,San Louis Obispo,CA 93401
,
Prado Road: Technical Comments
1. Letter by the Publ.Works Director of Oct.27,2000,to the Army Corps of Engineers
This letter says on the first page that 'the Prado Road Extension will reduce traffic congestion and improve
air quality. This statement is false if seen in a wider context.No project EIR was done over the whole
mega project and the whole southern part of town.
1.1 Circulation Element and modern city planning
The current project is in contradiction with the 8 goals and with p. 10 of the Circulation Element CE,
which stress bicycles,pedestrians and public transit instead of huge investments in roads.
A network of bicyclelpedestrian paths independent from roads connecting all the major activity centers
must be planned for the whole southern part of the city from Orcutt Road to Laguna Lake, Los Osos
Valley Road(LOVR)and further west.This includes cycle/ped.bridges over main roads bice Broad
Street, Highway 101 and LOVR..Such networks reduce vehicular.traffic up to 30%.A proposal is
shown in appendix 1. The current project does not show future bus routes or bus stops with a
convincing concept of pedestrian walkways leading to them
1.2 Traffic forecasts
The current road project contains an overkill of traffic lanes,which will only attract new vehicular
traffic'out of the blue skies'. This phenomenon is called 'induced traffic'and is well known among
traffic modelers(see de Souza and Litman in ITE Journals Feb.2000 and Jan.2001).
The project proposes 8 east-west traffic lanes:4 on Prado Road,2 on Tank Farm Road and 2 on
Buckley Road Today's total daily east-west traffic(ADT)is 10,000 vehicles.Today there are 4 east-
west traffic lanes with an approximate capacity of 40,000 vehicles. The proposed 8 east-west traffic
lanes could carry up to 80,000 vehicles per day - 8 times more than today(appendix 2).
This is unneeded,as the city estimates a future traffic volume of 70,000 vehicles per day.With an
independent bicyclelped.network and good public transportation this volume will be reduced to
50,000 vehicles per day.This means that a maximum of 6 east-west traffic lanes is needed
1.3 Phasing
New traffic lanes should only be built when they are really necessary,based on appropriate levels of
service for pedestrians,bicycles,transit and cars. New traffic lanes should not be built'way in
advance',as the city proposes.Our concept allows for different and flexible phasing schemes.Our
proposed Prado collector street should be built in the near future. Our concept allows for additional
traffic capacity,if this is really needed in the long term.
It should also be noted,that recent land use decisions will further reduce future vehicular trip
generation:The Dallidio area may never be developed or only with lower density. This makes the
expensive Prado Road freeway interchange unnecessary and the freeway itself safer.Caltrans
guidelines indicate anyway,that this full interchange is in the wrong place.The weaving lengths on the
west side of Hwy. 101 are too short Any new freeway interchange between Madonna and LOVR is
not only unneeded,but constitutes a grave ecological impact in the San Luis Obispo Creek corridor.
The airport commission now asks that residential densities near the airport be reduced,which in the
end could ultimately mean no school and even no sports complex in this location.
1.4 Our proposal:Route 227 on Buckley Road
Based on the maps of hazardous material constraints(appendix 3)and biological constraints,we
propose a long term concept with 6 east west traffic lanes(appendix 4 and 5). The main elements are:
- Buckley Road as Highway 217 leading in the logical direction,namely into LOVR(2 lanes)
- Tank Farm Road as a parkway arterial according to the CE(2 lanes)
- Prado Road as a collector,leading into Tank Farm Road and directly into the realigned Santa Fe
Road.
All the above roads will have widened intersections as appropriate.
l
A sub alternative is shown in appendix C but we consider the solution in appendix 4 to be more
economical and easier to understand for car drivers.Appendix 6 shows that Prado Road could
theoretically be designed according to Caltrans standards,but such a design near a residential area
makes little sense. In a letter to the Publ.Works Director,Caltrans Engineer R Krumholz wrote on
April 3,2000,that Route 227 is not of interregional significance'. The trend in Caltrans is anyway to
lower the standards of such routes or to even hand over such routes to the municipalities and counties.
For the US Corps of Engineers it is important to note that all our alternatives appear to Impact the
creeks near the sports complex considerably less than the official Alternative North.
a
2. Exhibit 4b attached to the letter and other documents
Exhibit 4b mentions in Table 1 on p.7 the'City General Plan Policies'which are supposedly'Satisfied'by
the project.As mentioned above,this project does not satisfy the general philosophy of the CE.A closer
look shows that the following policies are not satisfied:8.10;8.2;8.6 and 33.
Exhibit 4b and the Fehr and Peers reports of SeptJOcL 1999 mention the laudable goal of relieving South
Street from traffic based on the Fehr and Peers traffic model:
2.1 Relieving South Street
The Deputy Public Works Director maintains that Prado Road North is the only alternative to achieve this
goal.This hypothesis could only be evaluated if a special link analysis'of South Street had been made.
Such an analysis shows the exact origin and destination zones of each car travelling east-west through
South street This analysis was not done. .
The hypothesis of the City appears to be false for the following reasons:
2.1.1 Newer research by ITS Berkeley shows that commuters are not sensitive to travel time changes if
the trip is shorter than 15 minutes.In fact commuters appear to appreciate a certain'time buffer'
between home and work.Most trips in our area are exactly of this type.However,the City
mentions correctly,that the most distance-sensitive travelers are pedestrians and cyclists.The
City just does not put this philosophy into practice.
2.1.2 When considering Alternative North or Tank Farm Road,the difference in travel time for most
east-west drivers is anyway negligible.
2.1.3 In order to achieve a real shift,the travel speed on South Street must be reduced through traffic
calming e.g.medians.Noise wise the reduction in traffic volume has practically no effect,the
speed reduction has a strong effect:Reducing the volume to 500/a reduces noise only by 3 DBa,
reducing the speed by 50%reduces noise by 10 DBa.Speed reduction also reduces air pollution
considerably and enhances traffic safety.
2.2 Traffic Model
The traffic model appears to be misused or deficient in many ways.
2.2.1 Levels of Service(IAS)calculations are not shown.It is well known that the results vary
considerably depending on which method is used.
2.2.2 LOS are calculated for cars only.Pedestrians,cyclists and bus users are not evaluated.If a car
driver has to wait for a minute,it is LOS F(miserable).If a transit user sees a bus only every hour,
the traffic engineer rarely cares.
2.2.3 Fehr and Peers appear to be totally unaware of the phenomenon of'induced traffic'as mentioned
under 1.2.This phenomenon certainly applies in such a mega project
Jud,June 2001
2
> co0
� b v
v 0
>, t I
v
v
Jo 4wSOh
aC
mrIL
d
a M
3 -tic r .
wtv
- r
� r ' Y D : -Q. mat" � � r c FY-`�,�''✓ Y:.' �`
` � � t _ 4� tV ..�Y Yr .ti�4 > 'i•� .. ,y_• ; +Y �ybs.'� rvy , wJ)
•,.. :E-ro.srt >. - :.p -tl:Xa^7+i".�� � fyp�'. sE�J.:z•-�' c�rSa. ! +.� s � �'?'�� �'^.'f��'w�^� 't'S�'..
; 'Y� ' - 1.�^' .r :'9,�!e¢- ,,�.�_....+aJ'F't��T�" a - 5:,.. :-t� ,-iF 1 5 a22�4�sY�••r. '� �..•'�°" Y
3
C: O R
b � �
C 'o ai
R R..
� 0
too
' • web
� _ w • ° \
j � �. �►�
N
o
4
N
z;
E�
coon
in
wr rte-CZ
1ow
rA
1 ..,C .
C-4 is
Cl
r ♦,,.
Ca
03
OF
1 ;. %•,� , el�r .
u1i
`~ /Co
Cd
Ii
1
Ca
1�
pp_ ..�.
{�
cis
O •' /11�■
""" 1111■
ST -`/ 111
X11 1we
• , ` •� E
�.
CC) ami caQ v � CC c ao 1 ��
0 o h �'
� ' °� = 0 7►
V o o o CL
.. c4 a C* aw OCG
1.m o ucu '0
a y �F v1
as
Wv� o -ao °
Co o �' !�
3 V1NVS
41 i r
I
� I
QU
L `� o s • t �.c tiN s
� p
Q V
i
.. •o � o s
' o
CA -o .°0 �
aLi u a`i 3 m ss
oD o cgi
C y GS
A asc
x
os �
z
j
1 S�n E Or v .
ti
C
N
. Os � M N � o • d p,
�le
'l ri Cle
49
. . h • Q ' CJ ri ..�_
J4
V LNVS -
M
to
Ic 10
N N
I40
`t rtofn
�~ '� � •i h
\ V ..•.1
o
OL
•:r .,,,� � , � 4.111h 11141y111U 1�L
7
CC y `• ��
C 'd y � 'd 1,R'•
wl
P. v
1 0
aca � .• � dam,
� � 3� vtrros
CC
CAL
� � I �° �01�37107 •M
N
�• t :
�-
�C v i`t
i J
m $
' • LO \ F N'A
-21
rn
�\ tN%V
8
Mcounat mcmoRAnbum
Icity of san Luis ows o. aammistaation oe autmsnt
DATE: September 7, 2004 RECEIVED
TO: City Council SEEP U 7 2604
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO SLO CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: Red file From Damon Garcia
The attached lengthy correspondence from a representative from the Damon Garcia Ranch
arrived just this afternoon—hours before the Council hearing. Therefore, staff will not be able to
provide detailed comments regarding its many proposals this evening. Taken together, however,
CDD staffs' initial read is that the proposed changes are substantial and would require new
hearings before the Planning Commission.
0 'NCIL f CDD DIR
ICAO 2 FIN DIR
RED FILE ;/ACAO -e'FIRECHIEF
-
p,PjEPTING AGENDA j,a'ATTORNEY Z-ePW DIR
CLERK/09)G ZPOLICE CHF
ITEM # Ll D1- HEADS ZREC DIR
,UTI LDi9
Damon Garcia MASP Proposal
_ 1
RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA SEP t� 20U4
DAMON-GARCIA RANCH DATE ITEM # +
Owner's Response to: SLO CITY CLERK
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL HEARING DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Summary Request:
The Damon and Garcia Families respectfully request the'City Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo accept the attached "Damon-Garcia Ranch
Plan" as the property owners suggestions for modifications to the
Planning Commission' Draft-Margarita Area Specific Plan. The owners
further request that the Council authorize the Mayor, in conjunction with
the Directors of City Planning and Public Works, to enter into negotiations
with the Damon and Garcia Families and their representatives to prepare
agreements for Council ratification of the following:
1) Dedication of the Public Rights of Way to the City for the timely
construction of Phase 1 of Prado Road across the Damon-Garcia Ranch;
2) Processing an application before LAFCO, in conjunction with other
MASP and AASP property owners, for timely annexation of their properties
to the City of San Luis Obispo consistent with the Margarita Area Specific
Plan as amended to be consistent with appropriate suggested
modifications contained in the Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan;
3) Upon annexation, process a predevelopment land division per the
Damon-Garcia Ranch Phasing Plan thus allowing for the orderly sale and
subdivision of portions of land as necessary to facilitate the development
of the property per the MASP.
The D and Garcia Families and I thank you for your consideration.
erry imons
D n
Damon Garcia Ranch
-co `--�' - ----
Planning and Development Representative icAo .Q-CDD D I R
FIN
- e- C
ACAO
ATTORNEY FFIRE CHIEF
CLERK%O,RIG RW OIR
Page 1 n E rEPT HEADS Ic POLICE CHF
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan �ny� � _Ic DIR
1 11
BACKGROUND
The Damon and Garcia Families are the successors to their family
ranch originally known as the "Brugelli Ranch". The Ranch, now known as
the Damon-Garcia Ranch, has been the family home to successive
generations for more than half a century and currently houses three
generations of the Family. In the early 1980's, development pressures
from the Airport Area precipitated the formation of a County of San Luis
Obispo Service Area (CSA 22) for creation of the Airport Area Specific
Plan (AASP). The AASP was to define the land uses in anticipation of
annexation to San Luis Obispo. In response to CSA 22, the Damon-Garcia
Ranch owners joined with their neighbors to the west, the West Side
Property Owners, (WSPO) to pursue the Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP).
The Damon and Garcia Families are not land developers. They have
been motivated to participate in the MASP to plan the future of their .
property while preserving their county lifestyle to.the greatest extent
possible. As lifetime members of the community, the Families have
proudly participated in the creation of the newest community sports field
which bears their names. It is their hope that the ultimate development of
the Ranch will be a positive legacy for the San Luis Obispo Community.
Dominant Issues for the Damon and Garcia families
The, Ranch is the single largest land ownership in the MASP. The
MASP represents both an opportunity and a challenge for the owners. The
prospect for change of the magnitude envisioned by the MASP presents a
primary dilemma for the Family: How to facilitate the evolution of the the
property as defined by the MASP with a minimum of dislocation of the
family from their ancestral home and lifestyle?
The Owners Response to the MASP, The. Damon Garcia Ranch Plan, is
focused on solving this primary concern of the family.
Page 2
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
Location
Situated between the end of Prado Road and Broad Street, the Ranch
is a singular opportunity for the much needed East/West connection to
enhance city wide circulation. As it crosses the Ranch, the extension of
Prado Road is the backbone of the land use planning for the Ranch.
Two principal intersection have been defined by the San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department. In their plan (see Exhibit #1) Public Works
establishes their requirements for connecting the Ranch land uses to
Prado Road. The unnamed Collector we have identified as EW3 intersects
with Prado Road and serves the Business Park land uses south of Prado and
is the primary entrance to the residential land uses north of Prado Road.
The Santa Fe Road intersection provides a collector node at the easterly
end of the residential land uses. We have identified this collector as
"North Santa Fe Road" as it. continues into the Ranch North of Prado Road
The Northerly half of the Ranch contains approximately 75 acres of
the South Hills. This area is planned to provide a substantial addition to
the open space inventory for the community. The Southerly boundary of the
Ranch borders the Union Oil property. This property line is also the
northerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Integration of the
land uses, circulation and environmental issues of the AASP with the
Ranch plan is an important part of the Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan.
General Plan for the Damon-Garcia Ranch
To date, the Damon and Garcia Families have relied on the vision and
insights of the City Staff, the City's consultant planners, the Planning
Commission and Public input to formulate the details of the MASP as it
relates to their property. On the whole, the process has worked well and
the family is fundamentally pleased with the efforts of others on their
behalf. At this pivotal point in the planning process, however, the Families
feel that they would be remiss if they did not respond in a proactive and
constructive way to the elements of the Plan that they feel are
inconsistent with their vision for the future of their property.
In order to make a meaningful contribution to the process, we have
prepared' a direct response to each key component of the MASP in the order
it is presented in MASP text. We have prepared The Damon Garcia Ranch
Plan to identify specific suggestions. Text modifications and additions are
shown as ...Italic text... as appropriate. The Ranch Plan is an overlay on the
Page 3
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
i
MASP. The Ranch Plan has been developed to incorporate requested
modifications to Circulation, Land use, and a predevelopment The
proposed predevelopment land divisions are shown on the Predevelopnment
Parcels and Phases Plan to provide a phasing opportunity for the property
owners.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Components
The Ranch Plan is aimed at helping achieve the transit oriented
development goals of the MASP.
SUMMARY
Open Space and Sensitive Resource Protection
The Ranch Plan designates about 45% of the Damon-Garcia property (90
acres) as open space, including the South Hills, Acacia and minor creeks
and wetlands and about 10 acres as parks. This constitutes 50% of the
total open space and 100% of the parks for the entire MASP.
Creation of a New Cohesive Neighborhood
Park "A" and the neighborhood commercial center as shown in the Ranch
Plan are intended help to create a social center and focal point for the
West and East neighborhoods and also provide a key transit hub for the
residences.
Transit Supporting Land Uses and Densities
The Ranch Plan incorporates the majority of the medium and High density
housing for the MASP (100% Medium-High and 100% High Density). As
these areas contain the most concentrated residential populations and
residents most likely to use public transit, bus stops will be identified in
Neighborhood Center the Ranch Plan.
Public Parks and Neighborhood Commercial Development should be
designed to provide consolidated parking facilities with an intentional
surplus of parking located at transit hubs to facilitate "Park and Ride"
opportunities for local residents.
A Pedestrian Friendly Environment
The Ranch Plan attempts to minimize the amount of public roadway
Page 4
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
needed for circulation and relies on large development parcels with
private drives and alleys and bike paths and trails to maximize the
pedestrian friendly scale. The collector streets shown on the Plan are the
only streets needing Public maintenance.
Minimizing infrastructure Costs
The Ranch Plan relies on a minimum of public roadways and the
creation of large development parcels to minimize infrastructure costs.
Minimizing the redundancy of in-street main lines for utilities necessary
to serve numerous street frontages should help reduce water, sewer,
electric and telecommunications infrastructure costs for the number of
residences served. This should also shift a-significant continuing
maintenance burden from the public sector.
Consistency with the General Plan
The Ranch Plan is substantially consistent with the General Plan.
The following areas of the plan need. to be evaluated for revision of the
General Plan:
1) Rockview to Capitollo
2) Expansion of the Special Use Area
3) Expansion of the Damon-Garcia Sports Field (parking at Santa Fe)
The following are elements of the Ranch Plan that differ from the MASP:
1) Location of Santa Fe Road/Prado Road intersection
2) Adjustments to collector streets to simplify the Plan and allow for
phasing
3) Minor reallocations of Land use Categories near the Neighborhood
Commercial Center
4) Removal of Neighborhood Commercial frontage on Prado Road
5) Proposal for expansion of Sports Field west to Santa Fe Road.
6) Development of an extension of Rockview to Capitollo Way and
creation of a transit hub at the end of Rockview at its prior intersection
with Broad
Page 5
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
Hills
...Upon acceptance by the City of the hills dedication, it shall be the
responsibility of the City to provide such fencing and access gates as
shall be required to eliminate access by cattle and other livestock grazing
on the undeveloped portions of the Ranch ...
Creek Corridors
The Rockview/Capitollo area will provide for enhances riparian
opportunities, trails and a 100 year floor rated vehicle crossing of Acacia
Creek at Broad Street and Capitollo '
Wet Lands
The portion of Acacia Creek from Rockview to Capitollo can be
significantly enhanced as part of the reconfigured development proposed
for this portion of the Ranch.
The portion of Acacia Creek South of Capitollo is an identified area
for wetland redevelopment. This will be done in conjunction with the
Special Use area development.
A portion of the southern property line while identified as a
"wetland' does not appear as such in the field. rehabilitation or expansion
in this area may be inconsistent with the goals of the AASP and ALUC for
minimizing bird populations. It is anticipated that the southern boundary
lowland area will provide the retention/detention basins necessary to
mitigate drainage impacts form Ranch development.
Storm water Detention
Portions of the Ranch Plan have been identified as Storm water
Detention/ retention areas.
Agricultural Land
The Damon-Garcia Ranch property has no Class I or Class 11 soils and
is not suitable for agriculture. The Ranch plan provides substantial land
conservation/open space thru the dedication of the South Hills and other
areas. The Ranch is providing _50 % of the total Open Space for the MASP.
Page 6
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
Parks, Greens and Trails
The Ranch Plan provides 100% of the 10 acre Neighborhood Park and
has previously provided the land for the 16 acre sports field.
Neighborhood Park
The provision in the MASP calling for "no onsite parking" appears to
be at odds with the Neighborhood Commercial uses and will undoubtedly
cause for unnecessary friction between the commercial tenants, transit.
users'and the users of the park. The MASP should revisit this vital element
of the Plan. The Ranch Plan identifies common use parking to be jointly
developed and shared in this area of the Plan.
Greenspace
The Ranch Plan envisions the relocation of the Garcia Family
equestrian facility to this area. We believe this facility is consistent
with the stated goals of the MASP. It would be the intention of the
property owners to maintain ownership of this portion of the property
rather than to dedicate it as called for by the MASP. Private ownership
will allow for the preservation of the family ranch lifestyle, keep the
maintenance of the property from being a public burden. Operation of the
equestrian facility could be regulated by Use Permit to avoid any potential
conflicts with neighboring properties.
Greenways
Greenways should be planned to minimize the invasion into the
privacy of adjacent private yards and should not be situated such that they
provide opportunities for attacks on pedestrians from unlighted or heavily
landscaped areas. Greenways should not be the sole method for access to
identified public parks and neighborhood services.
Sports Field
Continued evolution of improvements and operation of the Sports
Field shall not create unnecessary conflicts with the adjacent private
property. Concerns of night lighting hours, parking overflow during
scheduled events, litter and trespass by users of the field should be
addressed by the Parks and Recreation management plan for the facility.
Page 7
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
COMMUNITY DESIGN
Sense of Place
The East and West Side Properties will have a decidedly different
character due to topography, preexisting development patterns and
structures, circulation infrastructure and development patterns. The
opportunity to merge the East and West will be at the Neighborhood
Commercial center and Park A.
Development in this area should be encouraged to provide a variety
of goods and services in addition to opportunities for all day. social
interaction at dine-in food and beverage neighborhood restaurant(s) vs.
franchise fast-food take out.
Physical Identity and Image
The development of the clustered portions between the collector
streets should be encouraged to be named to give each portion,it's
individual identity. Signage consistent with SLO sign standards should be
encouraged.
Central Transit Stop
A central transit stop should be developed in conjunction with Park
A and the Neighborhood Commercial Center. The transit stop should be
located such that riders are encouraged to take advantage of their wait by
shopping, snacking, or relaxing in the Park. Sufficient surplus parking
should be developed- at this location to provide for "park and ride" as well
as accommodate drive in users of the Park. If properly planned, this should
be art additional boost to the retail business and food establishments at
this location.
Transit Supportive Density
The highest density portions of the Ranch plan have been clustered
with the Neighborhood Center/Transit center as these development will
most likely have the greatest number of residents interested in transit
services.
Mixed Uses
Additional residential uses should be encouraged in the Neighborhood
Center above the ground floor. Properly oriented towards the park, these
units will aid in the security of the park and after-hours at the
Page 8
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
Neighborhood Center
AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY
Setting
The Ranch sits under several zones of the County Airport Land use plan.
The South Hills provide a significant deterrent to low level over flights as
do the electric transmission_ towers located across the Ranch and over the
southerly end of the South Hills. Portions of the Ranch are viewed by the
Airport Land Use Commission as potential emergency landing sites. While
numerous emergency landings have occurred around the airport, to date
none have occurred on the Ranch.
Types and intensities of land Use
The Airport. Land Use Plan (ALUP) zone map overlay has been presented on
Exhibit #3 This exhibit indicates the total residential densities as
planned in the MASP and the calculations of the affected areas maximum
densities. The MASP appears to overstate the buidlout densities as would
be allowed per the ALUP. This becomes a concern of the Ranch Plan as it
will be phased after the majority of the MASP r build out in the WSPO
properties. It is possible that a substantial loss of development potential
will occur if the WSPO builds out as per the MASP.
Performance Standards
In addition to over flight, noise generated by the airport is also a
consideration of the plan.
The Ranch Plan does not propose any uses that are inherently of risk to
aircraft. Height limits and avigation easements will be established to
insure no violation of Federal Aviation regulations Part 77.
Storm water retention /detention basins shall be designed and maintained
in a manner that will not create an expanded bird habitat.
CIRCULATION FEATURES AND STANDARDS
Overall Approach-Transit Oriented Development.
It is envisioned that the transit route to be established will "loop
through" the West Side neighborhood with a principal stop at the
Neighborhood Center then proceed along North Santa Fe Road to the
intersection at Prado.
Page 9
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
The linear nature of the available development portions of the Ranch
suggest a single. collector (North Santa Fe) with traffic dampening
facilities ( roundabouts, curves, choke downs, and bulbouts) along its
transit from Prado to Park A and the Neighborhood Center.
Street Names
The principal East-West collector should be named (North) Santa Fe
Road. The Loop around Park A and the Neighborhood Center should be named
by the WSPO.
The Families would like the opportunity to name the North-South
Collector from Prado Road into the center of the Ranch.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Insufficient moderate/high density land has been designated in the
WSPO .for compliance with the MASP housing affordability element. It is
envisioned that portions of the Ranch can be made available to the WSPO
or the City for compliance with this mitigation requirement.
Changes in the PFFP Update
Continuing increases although inevitable should be revisited as they
impact the ability of the MASP to provide affordable housing.
IMPLEMENTATION
Annexation
The families are requesting annexation in conjunction with the nest
appropriate LAFCO request.
General Plan
The Ranch Plan anticipates some minor changes to the General Plan
as noted above.
Land use designations and Zoning
For purposes of evaluating consistency with ALUC and MASP density
maximums for the Damon- Garcia Ranch Plan, the medium development
density for each land use category has been used in calculations of build-
out unit counts.
Page 10
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
Subdivision
A predevelopment land division of the two existing Ranch parcels
into seven parcel is requested once the City has obtained subdivision
jurisdiction by annexation. The purpose of this land division is to
facilitate incremental sale and development per the Ranch Phasing Plan
Building Permits
It is the desire of the families .to replace/relocate their current.
residences into appropriate locations per the MASP. It is anticipated that
this will occur prior to annexation. this will require building permits from
the County of San Luis Obispo and concurrence by the City.
Phasing
A Ranch Phasing Plan incorporating the proposed predevelopment
land divisions has been provided. Modifications to the MASP
phasing/dedication plan at Table 13-Development and Facilities Links will
be needed to make these plans consistent.
Table 13: Development and Facilities Links
The Ranch Phasing Plan and Table 13 inconsistencies will need to be
resolved as part of the final MASP adoption process.
Interpretation and Amendment
It is the intent of the Ranch Plan to provide enough specificity to
allow for subsequent subdivision applications requiring a minimum of
interpretation. If necessary due to unforeseen circumstances, the Family
reserves the right to request an amendment per the conditions as set forth
in the MASP.
Environmental Review
It is anticipated that the predevelopment land division requested to
facilitate the Ranch Phasing Plan will be able to rely on the MASP and
AASP environmental documents in as much as no actual physical
development is permitted by this land division.
Page 11
Damon-Garcia Ranch Plan
f
i ,new
� •_ � '� h���/�� ra �� �� ■!!!!!I 'r+ fT<%
,t ■a as as
� flllll/ j �.
Sw � nN �! ���, . �■ ■■ ■■ ���rr� •�
imp
IL
CKEEM
_ - -! ►
.r f
r►�''
� , •".5 ii►� ` Il
�►ir►•►WR
`r1>I+1Ip:
Ala
►r►►rr►► ►►r►i� �r►y►r►yr y► ♦ �� �■
r►► ►rrrrr► �.► r►►. ►►rig
�'i►r►►r►►►►. ►►► ► ►►► ► ; `� Iw■
�'" �y►r►rrytrt►ry►rr►►rr� �►rr►rrr- yr►►y►,; ` . �,� �■
►►F ►rr� a.a.r.►., rr►► ►►► ■
J' �r►►Fri A� 'F+�+►.►►rte►►►r '��� �■
MR
r . ` _+ ME
_ U LOUlIII _
i nW .,
■
. •CD CDi
. .
ID to
RL
to 0
r.
L CL
0 CD
L CD
0 CD
I
.. _ -
• •
MD AD
„
CD
►gra►►rig, ' ':
10
y►►rrrr►y►}
- - -- •
T, I ► i
dD
►ri -
�. ,\ . . .
-
in cr CA
'"• a
�...
— t
.D -
r ,� /lto -
Mx - -
,i
JSa ��' ca
-
M
co L
C _ f
CD
r
QM -
� t
N �
pO t
I ,
I � �
Ln D ;..
Q)-.�%" N
W m C ,O C cr CD m >n
� D � g n f a $ ao: m
0m I 33 3 m mai cocqq m
�► Nr anm0J vX88
N I .� m
I 0 s CD
;o4D O
I CL
m a * 0 n o a m cu
CL CL .. O 0
t so
i � mm m
I \ ^o � ���■
.� � � •n D� V V fry 11
a
ID
to cp� (Dz000zzCD CD r
MM
I !n
c' fn (ANJQQ
\ Cl) m a m 0 0 N
gg N
CD QaaaaQ
SD
- a m m
i g
En Z C
Cr1
/
e
% 0
1 ,
� I /
°` I /
%I /
S e
/
Ira
I
1
m1yyy -----
-- ———————
Q
� I
C m r ONO 'L: " - .• ' '
CD m NOccc
Zan
=0* •�
m m \
D % / NN
Et
c ` I 1p
\
° 40
/
/ 1
OF
op
CD co 9D m
a.�nR
/mom S //C� r_ 2
? 9L C W \J
No g' m 1 G
CD S O I m m {VVI
{ m 7p pco
aw
v 7 ( z m m � `4 m
- v f0 0 0
� D � 1 � cc cc
M - RL
m ° c'o m M :0a i o 0 0
m m n l c a a �
W - 3 log �_ m 1 c. n o
og m m ID 1 ? O
Sty
NRN WNN v O ,
g SS y1 O �' Y /
�'g n N.S
/ I
rt
� CAQ) z000zz
Emu CD
CDCqC$jtra-
\
CD a 8 49 49
a a a
� o
aD 3 3
-n
i m m
• � cC3 cc
� mai
�• g 8 rAx
'7,